| Volume I, Number 1 | February 1996 |
Creativity and experimentation are leading a number of groups to invent very different approaches to comprehensive farm planning. Farmers are trying out different farm planning processes, taking a "school of hard knocks" approach to finding out what works for them.
A diverse group of Minnesotans is hoping to put in place a research project that will take a close look at actual farm plans created by farmers under several different programs. The Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture recently awarded a planning grant to help this group solidify their interdisciplinary team and refine a research project. The team so far consists of Minnesota farmers, officials, organizations and researchers, led by the Minnesota Project.
The group hopes to reach a consensus on what good farm plans should accomplish. Then they will examine several farm planning tools that are or will be in use by farmers over the next couple of years. Likely processes include Farm*A*Syst, a worksheet-style problem assessment approach; PLANETOR, a computer-based decision-making model created at the University of Minnesota; Holistic Resource Management®, an approach popular with graziers; and several local watershed approaches.
If, after the planning phase, the project is fully funded, panels of farmer peer-reviewers will be recruited and trained to do appraisals of completed farm plans. Ultimately, researchers, environmentalists, local officials and various agencies will confer with farmer reviewers and the farmers themselves who have used different approaches and report on which approaches work best for reaching various goals.
Through this project, farmers will be able to benefit from the experiences of other farmers who have gone ahead with farm planning experiments.
—Loni KempFrank Bohman's land and livelihood were in jeopardy in 1954. His 4,000 acre B&B Ranch in Morgan, Utah had been pastureland for sheep and cattle for three generations, and what had once been a lush grassland was now an arid landscape of sagebrush and bare ground. The soil was steadily eroding and gullies were forming. The poor forage supported his cattle for only a few months a year. Even the springs that provided water to the farmstead were drying up. "With these conditions," Frank remembers, "a person could't stay in business long unless some major changes took place."
He decided to try restoring his land to its pre-settlement condition. Reports from pioneers mentioned grass as high as saddle stirrups and clear flowing streams. If he could bring the grasses back, perhaps his ranch could again support livestock and he could keep the family farm going.
The Morgan Soil Conservation District invited him to become a cooperator. Reluctantly, he agreed. "Like a lot of ranchers, I guess I was a little hard-headed and couldn't see how they could be of any help in getting grass to grow and improving the water supply, but I wasn't so hard-headed that I couldn't see something had to be done." With technical assistance from the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), Frank came up with a long-range conservation plan to achieve his goals of restoring grassland and streams, and staying in the business of livestock production.
They began with an inventory of the resources on the property, including soil, rainfall, topography and livestock. A complete soil survey was conducted, and potential stock pond sites were identified.
The next step was analyzing the problems Frank was having and coming up with options for improving the situation. After weighing costs and benefits of different options, they decided to burn off the sagebrush, which would at the same time invigorate the remaining grasses and prepare a seedbed for planting more grass. SCS agents recommended grass varieties for different areas on the property. Frank worked out a rotational grazing system that would keep his cattle from overgrazing any one area, and would allow the grass to rest and regrow between periods of grazing. In 1954, Frank had been running about 200 cows and their calves on his range; the number was reduced to 100 for 1956.
Frank decided to do most of the work to make these changes himself, using equipment he already owned.
Frank constructed a fireguard and burned the first area in the fall of 1955, then seeded it in 1956. The following year he installed boundary fencing to keep out trespassing livestock, as well as cross fencing to define three large pastures through which he would rotate his cattle. He hired a bulldozer to construct ponds which would fill with snowmelt in the spring and provide water for the livestock on the range.
Each year, Frank burned and reseeded more of his land. By 1960, the SCS already considered the B&B Ranch a success story, and in 1975, the Farm Bureau agreed, featuring Frank's "total resource conservation plan" in The American Farmer. The rangeland had already recovered enough that Frank was running 200 cows again, now with ample forage, and weaning calves a hundred pounds heavier than in 1955. Today, the grass in some pastures is higher than his pickup's hood, and some areas on the formerly barren range are wetlands.
A flock of 350 sheep now shares the pastures with the cattle, and Frank has continued to divide his land with cross fencing, so that he now rotates the livestock through seven pastures.
Nearly all of the work in restoring the rangeland was done by Frank himself, who spent entire days climbing up steep slopes to install fencing, or walking his property to see what changes were taking place. He continues to monitor his ranch's condition and he makes changes as necessary. For example, he had been growing alfalfa on some of his cropland and cutting it for hay. In the alfalfa fields, some soil was lost to erosion each year -- Frank would see muddy water flowing after a rain. Recently, he con-verted the alfalfa to grass, which provides more effective erosion control. Now only clear water leaves these fields; most of the rainfall soaks in.
One of the effects of improving the land has been to provide a better habitat for wildlife. Frank has been pleased to see deer, elk, moose, bobcats, foxes, coyote, cougars, sandhill cranes, bald eagles and numerous water birds. Losses of sheep to predators increased as their numbers increased, however. Frank responded by putting a Great Pyrenees guard dog out with his flock, and losses have dropped from around one hundred per year to about fifteen.
Since implementing his plan, Frank has received awards from local, state and national organizations which recognize his achievements both as a rancher and as a conservationist. He received the Earle A. Chiles Award from the High Desert Museum in 1994, as well as a Renew America Environmental Achievement Award for 1996. When he was named an Outstanding Conservationist Rancher in 1994 by the National Endowment for Soil and Water Conservation, the Endowment chairperson pointed out that "good stewardship is good business," which Frank had understood from the beginning.
Frank encourages other farmers and ranchers to work out similar comprehensive conservation plans. As he put it, "The land and resources will only sustain and support so much use and pressure; everything above this will begin to erode and destroy. There is little man can do to change the site itself. You can, however, get the most production possible from every site by managing its resources in accordance with its potential."
-- Jill MacKenzie
Farmers interested in comprehensive farm planning have a number of different farm planning processes from which to learn. These include Farm*A*Syst Farmstead Assessment, Ontario Environmental Farm Plan, Holistic Resource Management®, New York City Watershed Agricultural Program's Whole Farm Planning, New York State's Responsible Environmental Agriculture Plan, organic farm plans and Pennsylvania One Plan, as well as computer software packages like PLANETOR and CROPS. Farmers may find that any one of these is particularly well-suited to their operations, or they may want to combine elements from two or more of these planning pathways.
Farm*A*Syst Farmstead Assessment, a cooperative USDA/EPA program, is currently administered by Extension offices, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service in 18 states. In another 17 states it's in the development stage, and there are plans to make it available in the remaining 15. Participants use a series of worksheets to identify pollution risks associated with practices carried out around the farmstead. Alternative practices which reduce or eliminate identified risks are suggested. As a state-sponsored process, Farm*A*Syst clearly indicates how farm operations can comply with environmental regulations. Farm*A*Syst does not currently deal with cropland management, but worksheets for croplands are being developed, as are worksheets for irrigation well management and protection.
Ontario Environmental Farm Plan (OEFP) is similar to Farm*A*Syst in its format: a series of worksheets that farmers fill out to identify practices that may be damaging to the environment. The OEFP is more extensive, including management of feedlots, pastures, cropland and greenhouses. Upcoming worksheets will cover nursery/landscape and equestrian operations. Environmental legislation and standards are included in each worksheet, as are suggested practices. Farmers identify areas that need immediate action, set a timeline for addressing less urgent problems, and identify barriers to action. $1,500 is available to each farm to help finance changes.
Although the OEFP is sponsored by the government, it was developed and is administered entirely by farmers, through the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association.
New York City Watershed Agriculture Program Whole Farm Planning is a process devised by a partnership of city officials, farmers, state and federal conservation agencies and Cornell Cooperative Extension. This project targets the 550 farm operations near the city's reservoirs in the Catskill Mountains. Water quality goals, set by the Watershed Agricultural Council, include protecting the public water supply from pathogens, nutrients, pesticides and sediments.
Farm operators set business goals and fill out an environmental audit, similar to the Farm*A*Syst and OEFP worksheets, identifying practices or situations on the farm that are potentially harmful to water quality. Agency personnel propose changes in current practices and evaluate them against the stated business goals, selecting those that will work the best and creating an integrated farm plan from them. The environmental and economic impacts of these changes are predicted, a timeline for implementation is developed, and the cost of implementation is determined. The City of New York picks up the tab for making any structural changes, averaging about $75,000 per farm. These Whole Farm Plans meet all requirements of state and federal water quality laws.
New York Responsible Environmental Agriculture Plan (REAP) is in a pilot phase. This program is conceived of as a three-tier process: in Tier I, farmers fill out a questionnaire to help program planners identify farms with potential environmental concerns. If there are no environmental risks, that's it. If practices potentially damaging to the environment are identified, the farm moves to Tier II, which includes an environmental assessment similar to the OEFP or Farm*A*Syst, and the remedying of minor problems by the farmer, with assistance from private consultants or extension agents. Tier III is for farms with more complex potential risks. These farmers develop a comprehensive farm plan to address the areas of risk and bring their farms into compliance with all environmental regulations. If major changes in farm operations are recommended, a full-scale New York City Watershed-type planning process is followed to balance and integrate farm business goals with environmental goals. The tiered process is designed to maximize both the use of agency resources and adoption by farmers.
Pennsylvania One Plan is a cooperative public-private effort to help farmers develop an integrated management plan. It emphasizes coordination of recommendations by various agencies and agricultural advisors to eliminate conflicts in previous single-issue plans. Participants in the program are encouraged to be open to new methods and ideas as they plan for natural resource protection and improved profitability. Farmers completing the One Plan program will be in compliance with all environmental regulations.
Holistic Resource Management® (HRM) defines farmers, their families, their land and the business of farming as one inseparable whole. Participants start by setting a goal for their operations; this can include personal, economic, environmental and social values. Management options are evaluated in terms of whether or not they bring the farmer and farm family closer to their goal. Conceived of and designed by an expert on grazing and on grassland ecosystems, HRM is most appealing to livestock managers, and has specific management strategies for graziers, but is also applicable to other farmers. Although HRM can help farmers articulate and reach their environmental goals, it does not deal with the specifics of complying with regulations.
Organic Farm Plans are used by farmers who want their products to be certified organic. These plans are usually written by producers to describe farm practices. One of the goals of organic farm plans is to develop a farm management system that is sustainable and environmentally sound. Certifying agents use organic farm plans to document organic production. Farmers who use this planning process do not always have access to peer, agency or consultant assistance. Certified organic farms may not be in compliance with all environmental regulations.
PLANETOR is a comprehensive environmental and economic farm planning tool for croplands developed by the Center for Farm Financial Management at the University of Minnesota. Farmers and agency personnel are trained to use this software package, which helps them evaluate soil erosion, pesticide leaching and runoff hazard, pesticide toxicity, nitrogen leaching and phosphorus runoff potentials for practices they are considering. The program predicts the economic impacts of changes in pesticide use, tillage, nutrient management or crop rotations. PLANETOR does not suggest practices or articulate regulations.
CROPS (Comprehensive Resource Planning System) is being developed at Virginia Tech. This software is designed to generate crop rotations and conservation practices for each field on a farm, while maintaining compatibility of rotations to meet the farmer's cropping preferences and production goals. Farmers use crops with help from their Natural Resources Conservation Service District Conserva-tionists to create a whole farm plan.
The program incorporates a map of the farm and descriptions of livestock, soil types, acreage, slope and proximity to waterways of each field. Crops then displays potential risks of pollution and soil erosion. The farmer can enter priorities for environmental protection (such as reducing soil erosion, reducing nitrate leaching, and reducing pesticide use), production and profit goals, and target acreage for specific crops. Six year crop rotations for each field, including tillage and other management practices, are suggested by the computer, which has discarded any combinations that don't satisfy the farmer's initial objectives.
In future issues of The Whole Farm Planner, we hope to introduce more planning processes as we learn of them. We will also look at different sorts of planning in greater depth, both through stories about farmers who are doing comprehensive farm planning and articles describing the specific format and background of each process.
--Jill MacKenzie
Doug Romig contributed research and insight to this article. For a copy of his "Whole Farm Planning: A Comparison of Alternative Programs" (Farm*A*Syst, OEFP, HRM and organic farm plans), contact the Minnesota Project's St. Paul office.As Congress slogs through its overhaul of U.S. farm policy, the concept of comprehensive farm planning keeps coming up. While the process of adopting a final bill is still fluid -- no one calls it the "95 Farm Bill" anymore -- we can see the beginning outlines of what eventually might pass.
Early hopes for a stand-alone farm planning program never really got off the ground. Other concepts that tied farm planning to a revamped "green payment" subsidy system also never went anywhere, as the "Freedom to Farm" concept instead gained momentum. Under "Freedom to Farm," the entire commodity subsidy system would disappear after seven years, following a transition period of guaranteed payments to farmers and the freedom to choose which commodity crops to plant. The opportunity for farm planning policy emerged in connection with consolidation of conservation programs. In a nutshell, farmers who want access to conservation incentives may have to have a farm plan.
At the time of this writing, Congress and the President are deadlocked over a massive budget reconciliation bill which includes farm policy among many other issues. Not wanting to wait for resolution there, the Senate passed a somewhat different free-standing farm bill on February 7, and the House is expected to act in late February.
The approved Senate farm bill opens the door to comprehensive farm planning in connection with a new consolidated conservation program. Titled the "Environmental Quality Incentives Program," or EQIP, it would get the farm planning ball rolling.
Responding to a clamor to simplify conservation programs and improve their funding, Senators Lugar and Leahy first introduced a bipartisan bill to revamp incentives for conservation. As passed by the full Senate, EQIP would combine a number of separate conservation cost-share programs, target them to areas with the most environmental benefit, require farmers to have a conservation plan and environmental goals and pay for both structural improvements and land management practices.
Significantly, the funding for EQIP would be $200 million annually, coming from guaranteed funds that would not be subject to the cuts or annual appropriations process so damaging to conservation programs in recent years. Selected farmers would enter into 5-10 year contracts with funding up to $10,000 per year or $50,000 total to implement their conservation plan.
The proposal rolls into one program the traditional cost-share program known as ACP, the Water Quality Incentives Program, the Great Plains Conservation Program, and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program.
A new focus was added by declaring that half the funding in EQIP must go to livestock farmers. The Senate limits such assistance to livestock operators below the size requiring a water quality permit (e.g. 700 dairy cattle, 1000 beef cattle, 2500 swine).
Top priority for USDA assistance would go to three regions: the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, and Long Island Sound, to help producers comply with nonpoint source water pollution requirements under the Clean Water Act. States could petition for other watersheds to also become top priorities. In addition, all farmland posing a serious threat to water, soil, or related resources could be eligible, but higher priority would go to the worst problems, the biggest environmental benefit for each dollar expended, and regions where state or local programs support similar conservation purposes.
EQIP would provide farmers with cost-sharing payments for conservation structures, incentive payments for land management practices, technical assistance, or any combination of the three. In return the farmer would agree to implement a farm plan approved by the USDA. Each plan would include:
It is not clear exactly how such plans would be written, but one amendment passed to declare that the process of writing and assisting in the implementation of plans be open to individuals in agribusiness, including but not limited to agricultural producers, cooperatives, ag input retail dealers, and certified crop advisers. The farm plans could be modified if both USDA and the producer agree to the changes.
The House plans to act on a Farm Bill as soon as February 27. The bill passed by the House Agriculture Committee includes a livestock cost-sharing program with no farm planning. EQIP is not included at all in this bill. Whatever the House eventually passes must go to conference committee and then be signed by the President, so there are several policy hurdles before any new program becomes reality.
--Loni Kemp
A comprehensive farm plan is a long-term tool to keep farm operators and landowners focused on the management of their inventoried resources, protecting water and other natural resources from degradation. It includes:
INVENTORY of farm resources, including soil tests and maps, cropping plans, economic data, and farm site information.
GOALS for profitability, pollution prevention, production and long-term ecosystem enhancement.
ANALYSIS of management options, identifying problems and opportunities in the context of regulatory problems.
STRATEGY for putting the plan into action, as well as to monitor and evaluate how the plan is working.
Comprehensive farm planning allows farmers to take a proactive approach to improving farm profitability, environmental health, and quality of life. It will encourage farmers to:
LEARN more about alternatives for protecting health, safety and the environment.
REDUCE environmental liability.
PROTECT and enhance the value of farm assets.
DEMONSTRATE farmers' role as good stewards.
IMPLEMENT cost-effective conservation measures that increase profit.
ADDRESS multiple issues simultaneously, such as productivity, profitability, environmental impact and conservation.
The Minnesota Project
MISA Home Page