| Volume I, Number 3 | July 1996 |
I believe you have to change the mindset of the operator before you can set up a plan that can do all the things that every acre of a farm needs. You may be able to plan for some areas quite easily, but if you're going to look at the whole farm, there definitely has to be a mindset change.
That's kind of what happened to me. The way we managed the farm, the way we thought about farming, was that we concentrated on putting machinery to as efficient uses as we could, growing things better on our acreage. We were running a 160-cow dairy, raising all of our grain and all of our forages on 330 acres, trying to operate with all the newest technology of the time. We were harvesting nearly all our forages, feeding haylage and silage from bunker silos, using the newest mechanization.
We also had a loose grazing system, pasturing our bred heifers, because of the nature of the land. Every acre on my farm is HEL. It's sandy, rolling, not necessarily high quality land, definitely appropriate for something besides row crops. I'd say three-quarters of the farm was being managed properly under our system -- we had a good forage program, good soil conservation plans -- but the rest of it wasn't. As I say, you can lead people to change, but before they'll make the change, they've got to realize they have a problem.
I realized it when we had the drought in 1988. We were hit pretty hard and ran out of a lot of feed. If we could have managed things better, I thought, we probably would have gotten along better.
A year or so later, I was travelling with the Indiana Forage Council, and I heard a presentation about a rotational grazing project in northeastern Ohio. It encouraged me so much, I came back home and laid out 25 acres for a grazing trial. In 1988, this pasture had supported 25 bred heifers until the beginning of June. In 1991, which was really just as dry as `88, we rotated the same number of animals on those acres, three days to a paddock, and they were on that pasture until the end of July.
We laid out the rest of the farm for rotational grazing that winter. I didn't want to make a gradual transition and have grazing and crops and equipment all going at once. My farm would be less diversified than others, but that would allow me to specialize in this system.
First, we figured out where fencing and water lines would need to go. We put in five miles of fence and three miles of water line. We designed lanes for the cows to walk on as they move from pasture to milking parlor and back. The cow lanes are ten feet wide, and some of them are covered with rough stone about two inches deep, then ag lime so the stone doesn't hurt the cows' feet. We never have driven any machinery on these lanes, and after four years they're still in very good condition. During wet periods, the cows graze the pastures accessible by the stone-paved lanes. When it's drier, they use the earthen paths.
It took three years to get all the fields seeded to forages. In fields that had been pastures before the transition, we improved the forage mix, and have nearly doubled our production from those acres. I participated in the Integrated Farm Management Program Option (IFMPO) while converting my cropland to pasture. Under this program, part of the 1990 Farm Bill, I could preserve my corn base and still get deficiency payments, while converting my fields to forages. In order to participate in IFMPO, we had to have our farm plan down on paper, to show the NRCS the new system as we envisioned it. [The IFMPO program was not renewed in the 1996 Farm Bill, but new rules now offer similar opportunities.]
One challenge we faced as we began rotational grazing was that our cows have to cross a county highway that cuts through my land and separates the farmstead from much of the pasture. We worked with the county to get a cattle crossing that works like a stop sign -- cars stop, and if cows are in the road, cows have the right-of-way. Right now, the county sees this as a temporary solution.
I plan our rotations based on pasture fertility. Soil tests show which pastures need more nutrients, and the cows spend the winter in these areas. In the early spring, we harvest hay from about 90% of our land, while the cows graze the other 10%. The round bales are hauled to the poorer pastures for the winter. By spring, the winter paddocks are trampled, but very fertile. I drill new seed in and improve the mix of grasses and legumes.
On our farm, we have total nutrient recycling. Our only purchased input is pelletized grain that we give to our milking cows as they're grazing. The milking cows move first into new pastures. We move the wire that defines the paddocks two or three times a day, so they're always in a relatively small paddock with choice forage. Next day, the heifers come into these paddocks. They get adequate forage for growth. We also pasture some steers and sell grass-fed beef.
We became a seasonal dairy when I realized we were losing money milking in the winter. Now the cows are dried up when it's no longer economical to milk them (usually in December), and a decision based in economics has had the effect of making our life easier. During our "winter vacation," either my herdsman or I put in about two hours a day, unrolling round bales of hay and moving wires.
Spring is a time of really intense activity. All the cows calf over the course of a few weeks, and we start milking again while some are still calving. When we're cutting hay and rearing calves and rotating cows through the pastures in the spring it can be pretty busy. Then we breed all of the cows in early June -- but it's all downhill from there. Since we only have three groups of cattle -- milking cows, heifers and new calves, it's really simpler than having animals of all different ages.
Another economic impact from this transition has been a tremendous reduction in my investment. In 1988, I owned machinery with an appraised value of about $260,000. Now I've got about $80,000 in equipment. And vet bills have gone from about $60 a cow to $12 a cow -- now it's mostly reproductive work, making sure the cows are bred when we want them to be. My vet just stops by to visit.
This system has allowed me to keep a lot more in my pocket, and it was an easy changeover once I had the mindset to manage every inch of the farm. I think the operator's ability to manage the farm -- the land, animals, plants and people on it -- really limits the size of a farm like this. I've got my plan in mind all the time, thinking about what's going to happen, how I'm going to respond to things. I can't think big enough to manage thousands of acres.
I spend most of my time on the land with the animals and plants, instead of repairing and running machinery. I walk my fields, and I see every point on my farm every ten days. The only way to learn about your system is by doing, and it probably takes eight or ten years to really master the system. I've seen improvements in our forage, cattle health, soil health, water quality. There's no soil erosion at all now -- nothing leaves the farm.
Our soil has definitely improved over the last four years. We have lots of earthworms -- on a damp morning when I'm out in the pastures I can't help stepping on them. Cowpies disappear within about five days, taken down by the worms. Soil organic matter in 1990 was 1.7% -- now it's 4%. The amount of life in the soil is amazing.
I would say that Alan Savory's book, Holistic Resource Management, should be required -- if it were a little simpler to read. It's a real resource for information about nutrient cycles, organisms in the soil, and the role of animals in grasslands.
Over the past two years, I've visited 16 states, giving presentations about grazing. Some of the events were attended by hundreds of farmers. But this kind of a system isn't for every farmer. Confinement dairying, that's kind of a recipe. Your nutritionist, Extension agent, vet and equipment salesman can set you up with the recipe to follow. But nutritionist, Extension, vet and salesman are also the four sides of a box. The confinement dairyman is inside the box, until he asks questions and gets out of it.
There are 26 dairies in my county. I'm the only grazier, and only two of those 25 others have even come by to see my operation over the past four years. But in 1961 I had the first free stalls in the county, and I've continued to be an innovator. In some ways rotational grazing is new, but in some ways we're just returning to a model that has worked for thousands of years, of forage, grazing, and animals moving over the land.
--Dave Forgey
Dave Forgey presented his experiences with comprehensive farm planning and the transition to rotational grazing and seasonal dairying at a meeting of the Indiana whole farm planning working group.
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is the new consolidated conservation cost- share program, authorized at $200 million a year in the 1996 U.S. Farm Bill. It will provide technical assistance, cost sharing, and incentive payments to farmers who prepare a conservation plan and enter into a five to ten year contract. As the USDA staff rushes to write rules on implementation of the new farm bill, they face a window of opportunity to support farm planning as a meaningful component of this conservation incentive program.
The use of whole farm planning could be boosted if USDA decides to adopt the ideas promoted by the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, the position taking arm of the Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group. The Coalition offers the following recommendations concerning the content of EQIP farm plans, payment levels, distribution of funding, and technical assistance to farmers.
The new law states that to be eligible for EQIP payments, a farmer must agree "to implement an EQIP plan that describes conservation and environmental goals to be achieved through a structural practice or land management practice, or both, that is approved by the Secretary."
The basic farm plan for EQIP should be required to cover these elements for the entire farm: • a description of primary farm enterprises, including cropping patterns, grazing management, cultural practices, etc.
EQIP will cover 75% of conservation costs, up to $10,000 per year or $50,000 over five years. This maximum payment level far exceeds the $3500 per year, or $35,000 total for ten years allowed under the Agricultural Conservation Program. In order to justify a significantly higher payment level for conservation, the new program should require proportionately more from the farmer. A three tier approach could accomplish this.
The first tier would require a basic plan and would be for a farmer who is only planning to use one or two practices to solve a single conservation problem. The maximum payment amount would be $5000 per year or $35,000 total.
The second tier would require a whole farm conservation plan with practices implemented in a more integrated approach. For example, a farm might address problems with erosion, pesticides, and nutrients with an array of practices. A farmer in this tier could receive up to $7,500 per year or $40,000 total. Plans with practices that have significant off-site benefits to resources like wildlife, water quality and wetlands would receive closer to the maximum payment.
The third tier would require, in addition to a comprehensive conservation plan, a well-designed on-farm research or demonstration project. These farmers would be eligible for the maximum of $10,000 per year or $50,000 total.
The new EQIP law clearly states that priority funding should be given to targeted areas where there are serious environmental problems. How-ever, the law does not mandate that all money should go to these priority areas.
In the past, most cost-share funds were distrib-uted through county offices, which did some prioritizing but essentially distributed the money on a first-come, first-served basis to farmers with legitimate conservation needs. The Water Quality Incentive Program, on the other hand, awarded funding to selected watershed projects.
A hybrid of both approaches should be retained for EQIP. The majority of funds should be targeted to areas with documented conservation problems. Priority should be given to areas that leverage other federal, state, local, and private dollars to address conservation needs.
A portion of funds should go to the states to be distributed to individual producers who have demonstrable environmental problems and satisfactory conservation plans. Individual farmers should be eligible for EQIP because there may be very localized problems which do not constitute national priorities; there may be innovative solutions to be tried; or there may be highly motivated farmers not in a priority area.
The new law requires USDA to open the process of writing farm plans and providing assistance on implementation to individuals in agribusiness, including farmers, cooperatives, input dealers, and certified crop advisers. USDA should establish a certification process to ensure the competency of such assistance. Certified farm planners could then help farmers develop EQIP plans, using NRCS field guide specifications for all proposed conservation practices.
EQIP should also offer incentive payments allowing farmers to hire private consultants for technical assistance. These payments should not exceed 75% of the cost to the farmer of hiring the consultant.
It is critical to the success of EQIP that there be sufficient funds for education, farm planning, and technical assistance. The law sets no limits on USDA, unlike past programs which limited NRCS to taking 5% of available cost-share funds for technical assistance costs. USDA should go considerably beyond the current 5% to ensure they can provide adequate staffing for technical assistance. In addition, USDA should develop a process to transfer funds to other federal and state agencies which can provide farmers with direct technical assistance and help in writing farm plans.
--Loni Kemp
The Minnesota Project is a member organization of the Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group. We invite you to contribute to the ongoing policy debate by commenting on these ideas or expressing other points of view. The Whole Farm Planner welcomes submissions!
The assistance of private crop consultants can be essential for farmers developing a whole farm plan. Consultants often have farmers' cropping records on file, and know how to integrate crop rotations, production targets, and prices to help farmers reach their financial goals. Many crop consultants are also specialists in integrated pest management, soil health and alternative enterprises. Like Extension agents, NRCS personnel and other government employees, crop consultants are experts whose input may be invaluable in a whole farm plan.
For members of the National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants (NAICC), comprehensive farm planning is a logical extension of the services they provide. NAICC supports site-specific, flexible farm plans for environmental protection and farm profit. In a policy statement issued last year, the Alliance endorsed the concept of comprehensive farm planning as long as the planning process remains voluntary, the farmer can choose the service providers who help develop the plan, the service providers meet professional standards, and the farmer is rewarded for planning through regulatory relief or government program eligibility.
NAICC member Maggie Alms sees comprehensive farm planning as an opportunity for farmers and their service providers to have more flexibility in making management decisions, while still protecting the environment. "BMPs don't always apply," she notes, "but a competent agronomist can innovate in the field." Although independent crop consultants do not sell products to farmers, and therefore might be better able to give farmers unbiased advice, Alms believes farmers must always be able to choose their advisors themselves, and work with government agencies, crop consultants who are also salespeople, and any other agricultural consultants.
Mike Lovlien is a consultant and salesman for Midwest BioAg, a company that distributes "life-promoting and non-toxic" agricultural products. He has also been a dairy farmer and recently a board member for the Organic Crop Improvement Association (OCIA). During the time he spent on the OCIA board, he did not sell any products, but continued his consulting work, so he has helped farmers plan in a number of different roles.
His clients are farmers who are trying to reduce pesticide use and improve the health of their soil. He helps farmers assess the state of their soil through laboratory soil testing as well as by digging up a shovelful of earth and counting the worms. In healthy soil, Mike says, there are thirty to forty earthworms per cubic foot. Farmers also get his assistance in working out financial plans, manure management plans, and plans for soil improvement.
Usually, Lovlien encourages farmers to make a gradual transition from conventional farming towards biological farming, then to seek organic certification, if they want, a few years later. "Once they've eliminated toxic chemicals, then it's just a question of getting a higher price for their product through organic certification." He definitely discourages farmers from quitting chemical use "cold turkey," because the soil needs time to regenerate and become productive again without synthetic chemicals. Farmers could have setbacks during the transition time, so he tries to help his clients make changes slowly, and make a profit the whole time.
Larry Johnson, a water and land use management consultant for agriculture and industry, sees his role in helping farmers with their farm plans somewhat differently. He thinks of consultants as facilitators, not as teachers or farm plan designers. Farmers already have the knowledge they need to come upwith plans for the land they work; consultants can help them see a broader picture, or examine alternatives, but ultimately the farmer or farm family must own the plan. Johnson runs introductory workshops in Holistic Resource Management® (HRM), a decision making and planning process that has become especially popular with livestock farmers, but can be used to plan for other kinds of farms as well.
David Swaim is an independent crop consultant whose vision of whole farm planning encompasses many of these ideas. He conceives of the ideal farm plan as a tool that works on many different levels. The first level is water quality -- planning to prevent pollution. The next level is protection of other natural resources on the farm -- timber, wildlife, non-crop plants, soil life. Next, plans should contain business goals that will keep the farm prosperous. Goals should also be set for family issues and quality of life for the farm family and rural community. Many farm planning processes stop at this level, or even before this level, in some cases because service providers are only concerned with one area of farm planning. Farmers, Swaim points out, are concerned about the whole farm.
He would like to see farmers and farm service providers take the next step, and consider innovative enterprises and alternative practices. A comprehensive farm planning process, he thinks, should challenge assumptions about the farm and its management. HRM is an example of a planning tool that encourages this kind of thinking.
Beyond this level of planning might be a marketing plan that involves organic certification. Swaim thinks farmers who have gone this far in planning and implementing practices that are more environmentally-friendly, may be producing livestock and crops organically, or nearly so. If they are, certification can help increase farm income.
The farmers he works with are not doing this kind of planning yet, though, Swaim says. Right now, he's helping them concentrate on the first few levels, planning for nutrient management, conservation tillage, intensive rotational grazing, and integrated pest management. For some of his clients, these practices will fulfill their planning goals. For others, these may be the first steps in a transition from mainstream farming -- first conservation, then regeneration, then further innovations.
David Swaim has also come up with some guidelines for the format of whole farm plans, detailed below.
--Jill MacKenzie
A whole farm plan should not look like it was developed by the Army Corps of Engineers with the help of the IRS. Personalize the plan while maintaining a record of necessary information.
If you want farmers to relate to their farm plans, the plans must be theirs, not the government's.
The plan should reflect their view of their farming operation -- what they call their own farms and fields, not just numbers
The plan would ideally
Farmers need something they can show and easily explain to landlords, lenders, employees and family. The plan should be proof of good faith, a way to say, "See, I care." It should be something farmers enjoy referring to -- a place to chart success.
The farm operator must see the plan as practical and must want to make it work. We don't have an effective plan until the operator says, "Yeah, I'd like to do this. If the weather cooperates, I think we can make this happen."
--David Swaim
David Swaim is an independent crop and integrated
pest management consultant in Indiana. He is a past president of the Indiana Sustainable Agriculture Association, a sponsor of the Western Indiana Coordinated Resource Management Club and a member of the Indiana whole farm planning task force.
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