The Whole Farm Planner

The first step in the process is a workshop hosted by the local pork producers organization. Five modules are presented: manure treatment and storage alternatives, composting of dead animals, management of manure odor, community relations, and pollution prevention strategies. Basic hydrogeology and nutrient chemistry, along with farm safety and legal issues, are covered during the one-day session. Farmers also discuss environmental concerns facing pork producers and processors, and share with each other their experiences in managing these challenges.

Next, producers complete an on-farm self-evaluation, used as the basis for a voluntary farm environmental management plan. The program recommends that producers revisit their assessments and action plans each year. Farmers who complete the workshops receive a certificate from the National Pork Producers Council, but their plans remain confidential.

While this planning process has a fairly narrow primary focus-the protection of water quality through nutrient management, particularly manure management-the workshop and worksheets encourage pork producers to examine a wide range of options: what and how the pigs are fed, legal implications of their actions, worker safety, and setting "realistic" yield goals for crops. In Minnesota, Extension Educator Jurgen Peters has been leading the workshops for two years. Each year, about 250 producers from six counties attend the sessions in southeastern Minnesota, including mostly hog farmers, but also beef, dairy, and even elk farmers. The thing he really stresses, he says, is moving towards "a more sustainable agriculture as far as nutrients are concerned; helping farmers account for account for nutrients in the manure they apply, and buy less fertilizer to meet crop needs." Also important are discussions of local zoning rules and of relationships between livestock producers and their neighbors.

Jurgen speaks highly of the relationship between Extension, the pork producers organization, the local Soil and Water Conservation Districts, ag businesses and lenders. These groups share the responsibilities of sponsoring the workshops, and work together to make each one a success. He also compliments the farmers who attend the sessions. "The good producers are there," he says.

Farmers' Experiences with the Program

Even farmers who think of themselves as good stewards can benefit from the program, he says. "The key is to realize there's something wrong on every farm-nobody's perfect. If we all made even a minor change on each of our farms, the whole watershed would benefit." Another issue, Duane says, is that the non-farming public is watching livestock production more closely than ever before, and farmers are aware of it. This has increased the pressure many of them feel to be "doing things right," and the Environmental Assurance Program is one way for them to feel confident about their actions, and to find out how to change things that aren't working.

Mark Bartusek, a fourth-generation hog farmer in Rice County, MN, has attended the program workshops twice. Mark has primary responsibility for manure management in a farrow-to-finish and breeding stock business. It's a fairly large operation, selling about 8,500 hogs to slaughter and 2,000 breeding stock each year, so Mark has had to become something of a specialist in dealing with manure. Mark says the Environmental Assurance Program was a "good refresher course." He had been to other seminars on manure management, but found this workshop particularly helpful.

Whole Farm Planning?

However, in terms of a planning process, it meets the criteria well. Participation is voluntary. The plan is prepared by the farmer, is confidential, and includes the whole farm-soil, crops, livestock, farmstead. The process identifies problem areas and encourages consideration of alternatives, development of an action plan to remedy problems, and continued monitoring of progress. Technical assistance is available to participants. This program should be of immense value to pork producers and other livestock farmers as a major component of a more comprehensive farm plan. For information about participating in the Environ-mental Assurance Program, contact your state's pork producers organization or the National Pork Producers Council: 515-223-2600.

This planning method, developed by Great Lakes Whole Farm Planning Network steering committee member John Bobbe and Valerie Dantoin-Adamski, Duck Creek Priority Watershed Education Specialist, has yet to be tested. Farmers in Wisconsin will try out the three-part process: first goal setting, then taking stock, then coming up with an action plan.

These worksheets should help generate ideas, but they do not suggest BMPs or solutions to problems. Farmers will find their own answers to questions such as "What are the things blocking your ability to change?" and "How do you think things will look seven years from now?"

This process gives farmers 'credit' for plans they already have, such as a soil conservation plan, a financial or business plan, an emergency plan, or an estate plan. Bobbe points out that most farmers "already have parts of a whole farm plan-there's no sense reinventing the wheel." This process should help farmers concentrate on the parts of their farm business that need more attention, and integrate their new ideas with their existing plans. Wisconsin farmers will be testing and evaluating the process this year.

-Jill MacKenzie

For a copy of this planning process, contact The Minnesota Project.

Many, perhaps all, of these modules will be useful for those interested in whole farm planning. Module 1, Planning for Quality of Life, is an introduction to integrating quality of life into planning for farm and community. Module 2, Choices in Agricultural Technology and Quality of Life, helps participants identify how technology choices affect individual and farm-level quality of life. Module 3, Public Trust and the Changing Structure of Agriculture, which incorporates a video, "Pork Power," identifies how changes in public interest in agricultural structure have affected agriculture, and explores how these issues can be addressed. Module 5, Whole Farm Planning, defines and shapes understanding of whole farm planning in a local context.

Of particular interest is Module 6, Whole Farm Planning Systems Case Study: The Frantzen Family's Farm Planning Workbook, which includes a reproduction of an Iowa family's farm planning notebook as a way of understanding the whole farm planning process. Tom Frantzen recorded in detail his thought process as he grappled with streamlining his diverse cattle, hog, turkey and cash grain farm while still maintaining profitability and protecting the natural resources on his family's farm. Each family member's goals and the vision of the family as a whole, a yearly mission statement, a schedule of priorities, and analyses of possible management options using Holistic Management® testing guidelines are all included in this remarkable document. The reader can follow Tom's thought process through each step of the testing guidelines for each management option he considers.

Stan Freyenberger of Kansas State University, field coordinator for the project, had an eye-opening experience with Holistic Management® training a few years ago: although participant farmers were very excited about the workshops they attended, a survey found that most had not been able to put their learning into practice. They attributed this difficulty to a lack of follow-up or networking after the training. The current project emphasizes continuing contact among the farmers and ranchers who have completed the training, as well as continuing encouragement and help from Jerry and Stan.

One aspect of the recent training sessions that differed from the earlier, less successful ones was the use of The Frantzen Family's Workbook, a record of an Iowa family's experiences with Holistic Management®. (See Modules article.) Once the participants saw the notebook, Stan says, Holistic Management® was no longer an abstract concept. Participants were inspired by the Frantzens' work and many began their own notebooks right away.

Some participant farmers have formed clusters with neighbors who have not had the training, while some have formed a temporary cluster among themselves, feeling that they can't try to lead others until they have become more experienced with Holistic Management®. Both kinds of clusters, though, are finding the decision-making and testing methods they learned very useful.

Rather than just chat about problems as if they were in a coffee shop, participant farmers follow a more disciplined approach based on Holistic Management®. Each cluster visits a different farm or ranch each month, and focuses on the host farmer's issues at hand. Working from the goals established by the farm family, they brainstorm alternative income sources and comment on potential problem areas and solutions. At each meeting the groups use testing guidelines to determine an action's potential impact on profitability, resource conservation, and quality of life.

Jerry says it's helpful to have a structure for addressing problems. "People tend not to be rigorous in their decision-making. Depending on whether you're a risk-taker or not, you either do whatever's new, or you only do whatever someone else has already done." Working with other farmers in the context of the decision-making method allows cluster participants to challenge each other and help each other be more creative.

This fall, Jerry and Stan will work with this year's participants to expand the group of farmers, ranchers and others who take the Holistic Management® training. New participants would form new clusters. Stan points out that as government payments are being phased out, more people will be seeking new ways of managing their farms and ranches, and he expects they'll be able to involve another thirty or forty people in the next year.

In progress are a series of decision cases, based on the participants' experiences, that should prove useful in future training sessions as well as in other classrooms.

The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) Research Foundation, along with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), met with almost 400 farmers, ranchers, agricultural organizations, and state and federal agency representatives in 26 states and Canada to identify the most successful resource management planning efforts. Successful efforts have been obtained where the activities were voluntary, used partnerships in a team approach, and met specific needs of each area. A major reason for this success was the input and buy-in of key stakeholders.

The RMP Concept

The RMP process is a re-emphasis of the basic elements of the NRCS planning process used in the past because it encourages:

• The identification of priority issues on a watershed or other geographic area basis by obtaining input and feedback from stakeholders;
• The use of partnerships to leverage resources to provide a better, more consistent product for customers;
• A coordinated information/education program;
• The use of a technical team to work with stakeholders and individual decision-makers;
• Flexibility of the process and plan document;
• A comprehensive planning approach that considers the interactions of resource decisions, enhancement of the resource base, and the goals and objectives of the decision-maker;
• Compliance with laws and regulations;
• Sensitivity for confidentiality; and
• The importance of plan implementation.

Aside from the desire to foster good stewardship, an important aspect of any voluntary program is the benefit gained by a participating agricultural producer in terms of reduced burden associated with regulation and liability. Voluntary programs should offer some form of presumption of compliance with objectives of regulatory programs, appropriate relief from water-related permitting requirements, and/ or reduced liability associated with off-farm environmental degradation.

Whether a plan is designed around one practice, a simple structure, or a very complex operation, producers should have access to expertise and experience not usually available.

The data used to develop a plan, and the plans themselves, must not be subject to the federal Freedom of Information Act or similar state statutes, and must not be allowed to be used against the farmer or rancher in a federal or state enforcement action. Rather, these plans, once implemented, should be a means to assure that the farmer or rancher will meet other environmental laws and regulations, and natural resource needs. They should also allow a producer to make a profit in the world marketplace.

Because the RMP process is voluntary, producers will need to commit to it for it to work. While the final outcome of writing a plan may be rather simple, the planning process can be relatively complex. The development of a plan is not the goal but only the outcome of the planning process. Producers will need to follow up to assess the implementation of their individual plans to see if they are meeting their goals. Planning is an ongoing process and is never really done.

Below are planning steps which could be used to develop RMPs:

• Determine Objectives
• Inventory and Assess Resources
• Assess Current Situation
• Identify Resource Priorities
• Develop Alternatives
• Make Decisions
• Document Decisions in Plan
• Implement Plan
• Evaluate and Modify Plan

Good News and Bad News on Conservation Farm Option

First the good news. By the June 1 deadline, the Department had received 120 proposals, totaling over $52 million, to compete for this year's $11 million. Group proposals totaled 78, while 42 individual farmers submitted proposals. The regional distribution was very good-31 states in all, including most of the Midwest (8 of 12 states), south (10 of 13), and northeast (9 of 12), plus 4 western states.