Hawkins, H.-J. (2017). A global assessment of Holistic Planned Grazing compared with season-long, continuous grazing: meta-analysis findings. African Journal of Range and Forage Science, 34(2), 65-75.
Hawkins pooled studies from 1972 to 2016 in three meta-analysis models and found no significant difference between Holistic Planned Grazing and season-long continuous grazing in plant basal cover, plant biomass or animal gain. Results varied widely between studies, and the positive ones tended to come from wetter sites, which she reads as a sign that the method may suit only rangelands with enough resources. She recommends research on the management and social factors around the method. The Savory Institute reproduces a rebuttal, published outside peer review, arguing that the studies did not test the method as its handbook defines it. The wiki cites the paper as the main peer-reviewed test of Holistic Planned Grazing’s production claims, and as a reason for any BioHub selling grazing-based outcomes to measure them on its own land.