Match made in heaven: livestock + crops

22_02 brainstorm slides v1

22_02 brainstorm slides v2

22_02 brainstorm spreadsheet - working

22_4_5 comment slides

MMIH_advisory_participation_013125

Our concept for the advisory group included two main objectives: 1) Assemble a group of farmers and organizations that cuts across traditional boundaries between sustainable agriculture and mainstream, conventional agriculture. 2) Create a truly working advisory group, actively contributing ideas and feedback to the project outcomes, especially in Year 1 participating in the development of an infographic and a survey instrument for crop and livestock farmers. We had good success on both objectives. Our advisory group included 5 state-level crop associations and 5 state-level cattlemen’s associations; 13 farmers who raise corn, soybeans, livestock, or a combination on a commercial scale; 20 state or regional  sustainable agriculture organizations including an indigenous agriculture organization; 5 state or regional conservation-oriented organizations; and 18 participants from universities or university Extension. 

From February 2022 through end of August 2024 we conducted ten large-group advisory group meetings to collect ideas and feedback, plus nine additional focused input sessions specifically on infographic and survey instrument development. Discussions were very active and fruitful in all of these sessions, with 81 individuals participating in at least one session. Of these 81 participants, 55 attended more than one meeting, 26 attended five or more meetings, and 11 people attended eight or more meetings. 

Our farmer advisors were the most engaged group with an average participation rate of 7.3 meetings. Five of the farmers attended 10 or more advisory group meetings. It was extremely beneficial to the large-group meetings to have so many farmers present and active in the discussions. That really helped the group stay grounded and focused on farmers’ needs, values, and concerns. The 44 organizational representatives had a 3.5 meeting average attendance, and the other 24 people had a 2.5 meeting average attendance. Fourteen of the organizational representatives and 8 of the other participants attended 5 or more meetings. 

Our average number of participants was 20 for advisory group meetings and 10 for office hours. These were good numbers to keep discussions moving and accomplish tasks. During these meetings and office hours, advisory group members were directly involved in creation of the project infographics and survey instrument, helped test the survey instrument, recommended case study subjects, and reviewed survey results. 

We used Google Slide decks to collect feedback during meetings and made offline commenting opportunities available as well, so more group members contributed feedback than were able to attend live sessions. Examples of feedback slide decks and compilations of comments are attached. This Google Drive folder contains all advisory group meeting notes and slide decks.

This working advisory group assembly and activities overlapped with the survey and case study work. We kept the advisory group updated on the progress of the case studies and sought their input in framing the narratives. We found broad agreement among advisory group members from all backgrounds in two areas: 1) Importance of soil health; and 2) Opportunities for a new generation to start farming. Those two areas of agreement then became the framework for development of additional crop farmer-focused promotional materials for the survey, and for additional infographics. These two broad areas of agreement were highlighted in the case study narratives as well. 

The Infographic Story

An infographic showcasing aspects, benefits, and challenges to crop and livestock integration was completed and made available in multiple formats to the public. Advisory Group members provided extensive input and feedback as the design process progressed. We worked with the design firm Background Stories to incorporate advisory group feedback into the design in four iterations of development. Project core team members then developed an accompanying narrative at the request of Advisory Group members.

The result is an infographic that can be used by farmers, farm advisors, commodity groups, conservation advocates, and others to explain the concept of crop and livestock integration, highlight benefits, and acknowledge challenges. The infographic is a conversation-starter. It has a space for local organizations or businesses to drop in their own contact information, and also includes a link to the Midwest Grazing Exchange where crop and livestock farmers can list grazing opportunities from both the land and livestock sides.

lit_review_social_science11_16_

MMIH_survey_print_version

It proved to be an unexpectedly large challenge and lengthy process to develop a survey instrument to survey crop and livestock farmers about their attitudes, practices, and barriers regarding integration of livestock and crops. We worked with the Advisory Group to collect ideas and feedback to start the process. Then the project core team worked through 13 iterations of survey drafting with the University of Wisconsin Survey Center; informed by collection of feedback from the Advisory Group, literature review, and conversation with entities recommended by Advisory Group members.

We had focused meetings with Extension educators and university faculty members with specific expertise in farmer sociology, survey development, and farmer adoption of practices; and as a result incorporated a set of questions specifically designed to allow comparison of our survey results to prior research on farmer attitudes and adoption of practices. We conducted exhaustive testing of the survey question language and question order with the active participation of many of the farmer members of the Advisory Group and other interested Advisory Group members. The final version was available online in Qualtrics and also in print format.

11_16_MMIH_survey_professional version

It included 56 questions, but no farmer would answer every question in the survey. There was a different pathway through survey for four types of farmers:

• Farmers who raise both livestock and crops; pasture and forage are considered crops.
• Farmers who raise crops only and previously had livestock
• Farmers who raise crops only and never had livestock
• Farmers who have livestock only, no crops

interview questions printer-friendly

We convened the team for Case Study protocol development for its first meeting on 3/25/22 and had five meetings of the team by 6/21/22 to discuss and develop the concepts for the farmer case studies, determine key data points to obtain from farmers, and create an interview template. The team consisted of livestock and grazing educators from university Extension and university faculty, NRCS grazing and economics specialists, and non-profit organization staff who work as farm educators and advisors. The goal of this phase of the Case Studies work was to create a set of questions that would enable understanding of how money, labor, equipment, resources, and benefits flow from crop enterprises to livestock enterprises and vice versa on integrated crop and livestock farms. A related goal was to structure the interview questions so farmers could answer based on their top-of-mind familiarity with their operation, without having to dig deep into financial records or do complex calculations.

The first farmer was interviewed in September 2022. The Case Study team met on 10/13/22 to discuss the interview and draft narrative, and continue the process of identifying additional farmers to be interviewed. The goal was to have one farmer case study from each state in the study. We ended with extra case studies from Missouri, but none from Minnesota. 

Seven farmer case studies have been completed and are available on the Match Made in Heaven website:

Ron Schoepp (Lodi, WI)

Dave Lubben (Monticello, IA)

Doug Hanson and Maddie Hanson (IL)

Garth Gatson (MO)

Dave Haubein (MO)

Macauley Kincaid (MO)

Gregg Spegal (IN)

The project core team worked with Andrew Bernhardt, Agricultural Program Specialist with WI-DATCP, to develop ideas about outreach to BIPOC farmers. Our original idea in the proposal was to find venues to collect survey responses from BIPOC farmers directly, perhaps with a modified version of the survey instrument used for crop and livestock farmers more generally. Based on advice and guidance from Andrew we settled instead on a plan for him to interview leaders and/or staff from BIPOC-led organizations that serve farmers. The rationale here was partly that this would be a less invasive way to gain insight about BIPOC farmer attitudes toward and interest in crop and livestock integration. Other considerations included: 1) the ability to make contact with organization leaders at BIPOC-led conferences or conferences typically attended by BIPOC organizations; and 2) the ability to gain insight about needs of BIPOC organizations for support in working with their members on crop and livestock integration. In collaboration with Andrew we developed an interview template for him to use in conversations with BIPOC organization leaders. He was able to test the template at an event in fall of 2022 in preparation for more conferences and workshops happening in early 2023.
shortened BIPOC Interview Template

11/01/22 - 10/31/23 Update:

BIPOC interviews have been challenging to obtain. Andrew Bernhardt has been able to have conversations with some BIPOC-led or BIPOC-serving organizations, although these diverged from the template. He is intending to have narrative write-ups of those conversations completed by 3/31/24. 

Laura Paine and Jane Jewett met with a sociological research group based at Purdue University, who were intending to pursue similar conversations with BIPOC groups. That group was in an earlier stage of organizing, so we shared our interview template with them.

Laura Paine and Jane Jewett met with Kate Larson, a staff person with Angelic Organics in Illinois. That group was planning to pursue some livestock options for BIPOC farmers.

Jane Jewett has had several conversations involving livestock production interests with staff members of Big River Farms and New Roots, both incubator farms serving immigrant and BIPOC farmers in Minnesota. 

Lessons learned so far from these various conversations:

1. BIPOC organizations generally are stretched very thin; everybody wants to work with them because so many federal grant programs now prioritize BIPOC involvement.
2. Many organizations serving immigrant and BIPOC farmers, other than tribal organizations, are primarily interested in poultry and small ruminants. These farmers tend to be smaller-scale, with limited land bases and may not own land. Short-term poultry production can happen on rented land over the course of a summer.
3. There is interest in goat and lamb production by farmers from immigrant communities that want that meat, especially halal. Lack of land access and land tenure is a barrier. There may be interest in a production model of purchasing young animals in the spring, getting grazing contracts to graze them on public or private lands through the summer, and getting the animals butchered in the fall - eliminating the need for winter housing and winter feed.

3/31/25 Update:

We held a Zoom session with Andrew in September of 2024 to capture information he had collected but had not been able to set down in writing. We contracted with Emily Reno of the Mezclada consulting firm to edit the transcript of that session and create a summary document. 

_2024-09-15 MMIH BIPOC Interviews Summary

_Edited Transcript with Time Stamps 

The survey was promoted through a wide variety of organizations, event venues, social media, articles in newsletters, and other means. Our budget for the project included $1,000 stipends for 20 organizations to use to promote the survey through their own channels, to their own membership. We found many organizations willing to do promotion without accepting the funds. We saw more engagement from corn, soybean, and livestock associations around survey distribution than around attending advisory meetings. Lesson learned: crop and livestock associations will engage when there is something specific and tangible for them to do. 

We developed a table-top display kit for events that included:

• 62 Postcards for people to pick up: crop focused or livestock focused
• 125 Business cards for people to pick up: crop focused or livestock focused
• 20 copies of an 8.5” x 11” glossy print of the Livestock+Crop Integration infographic

Postcards and business cards included a QR code and URL for the survey.

Kits were distributed upon request to:

IA – Extension Beef Team

IA – Practical Farmers of Iowa (2 kits)

IA - Soybean Association

IL – Forage & Grassland Council

IL – The Land Connection

IL – Soy Association

IL – Corn Association

MN – Cattlemen's Association

MN – Extension – Soils

MN – Soil & Water Conservation District

MN - Sustainable Farming Association

MO – Dairy Association

WI – Extension – Grassland 2.0

WI - Corn Growers

Additional promotional work:

Promotional blurbs in organization newsletters:  22

• 6 crop associations
• 5 cattlemens associations
• 9 sustainable agriculture or conservation organizations
• 1 general farm organization
• 1 Extension 

Social media posts by organizations: 10

• 1 NRCS
• 1 SARE
• 2 Extension
• 3 sustainable agriculture or conservation organizations
• 3 cattlemen's associations

Promotion at physical events: 33

• 7 sustainable agriculture or conservation conferences/workshops
• 3 crop association conferences
• 2 cattlemens association conferences
• 4 watershed- or county-based workshops, pasture walks, field days
• 6 grazing conferences
• 1 Indigenous agriculture conference
• 2 general farm conferences
• 8 U of MN Extension Beef Cow-Calf workshops

Print copies of the survey were distributed by Eric Mousel at the MN Beef Cow-Calf workshops. Amy Fenn did the majority of data entry for these surveys, which amounted to nearly half of all usable survey responses.

More detail about survey distribution efforts is available in this tracking spreadsheet.

We did have some organizations decline to distribute the survey to their members. Those responses were collected in this Google Drive folder. The reason was generally around survey fatigue, not lack of interest in the project. We think it’s worth calling out the survey fatigue issue, because we saw it with the numbers of survey responses. We were able to document more than 60,000 touches of survey promotion. Specific numbers came from about one-quarter of organizations; the remaining organizations did not provide specific numbers of people reached. 

Known distribution of newsletter articles, survey advertisements, and social media posts: 57,544 recipients

Known number of participants at physical events: 2,258 (not counting the WI Farm Technology Days with 50,000 participants; no record of how many viewed the survey information at that event.)

We were hoping for 3,000 farmer responses to the survey. When data were cleaned of duplicates and bot responses, we ended up with 553 usable farmer responses. 

The person originally intended as the one to analyze survey data and create a report was a University of Wisconsin faculty member, Brad Barham, who has since retired. We have made alternate arrangements with Gigi DiGiacomo, a research fellow in the Department of Applied Economics at the University of Minnesota, to have her do the analysis of survey results. Gigi had depth of experience in working with sustainable agriculture-related projects and with survey analysis. She began analyzing the survey data in mid-April 2024 and created summary reports for the complete data set, as well as reports by state and by type of farmer: crops only, crops+livestock, and livestock only. 

Laura Paine also worked on survey data with a different approach, producing fact sheets including graphic charts that showed comparisons of responses between crops-only farmers and farmers with both crops and livestock. Her work required combining items from multiple survey questions to show, for example, the range of grazing practices and soil health practices used by livestock farmers. These were also done for the complete data set, by state, and by type of farmer. Laura also produced a version showing beginning farmers, with 5 years or less experience; and an experienced farmer version, those with 6 or more years.

All of the data summary reports and the fact sheets are available on the Match Made in Heaven web page:

https://greenlandsbluewaters.org/match-made-in-heaven-livestock-crops/#survey

We were able to get the complete data set entered into the DRUM digital repository at the University of Minnesota. Persistent link: https://doi.org/10.13020/Y5KA-4C47

field days spreadsheet

The field days portion of this project was planned for summer of 2024. The project core team and the Case Study Team had a goal of a field day schedule in place by May 1, 2024. We achieved that for about half of the field days, but the remainder were scheduled later. Four of the farmers featured in the case studies agreed to also serve as field day hosts: Gregg Spegal in Indiana, Dave Haubein in Missouri, Doug and Maddie Hanson in Illinois, and Ron Schoepp in Wisconsin. We worked with partners to recruit Langdon Collom in Minnesota and Rick and Damien Matt in Iowa.

Some of the farmers had planned field days already in collaboration with their local NRCS, Extension, or other organizations; so we participated in those rather than scheduling a separate field day. We recruited in-state organizers to assist the farmer hosts for each of the field days, and held three planning calls with each state team in advance of their field day. 

Food became a bigger part of each field day than we had originally anticipated, and in most cases showcased local production. The state Cattlemen's Associations sponsored burger meals in both Iowa and Illinois. In Illinois, the beef came from Maddie Hanson's beef sales business. In Indiana the field day host, Gregg Spegal, also co-owned a butcher shop and a restaurant that served his beef, so he arranged a burger meal. In Minnesota a neighbor of the host supplied ground beef to a local bar and grill that set up a burger bar for attendees. The Missouri field day featured a meal prepared by the host's son-in-law, a notable local chef. Wisconsin went for pizza in the field. 

Field day attendance:

Iowa - 90
Illinois - 45
Indiana - 33
Minnesota - 38
Missouri - 13
Wisconsin - 20

Total attendance at field days: 239

Farmers: 57%

Farmers who also work for universities, agencies, or nonprofits: 17%

Agency or University staff: 15%

Private sector:  4%

Non-profit staff: 4%

Other: 4%

Total number of evaluation surveys received: 114

Evaluation results:

• "How would you rate your overall experience of today's event?" Average 4.8 on a 5-point scale.
• "Please rate how much you learned about Cover crop grazing:"  95 answered A great deal or Quite a bit
• "Please rate how much you learned about Crop and livestock integration:" 87 answered A great deal or Quite a bit
• "Please rate how much you learned about Connection between soil health and livestock production:" 80 answered A great deal or Quite a bit
• " Please rate how much you learned about Marketing options for livestock products and services:" 56 answered A great deal or Quite a bit
• "As a result of this event, how likely are you to reach out to one of the presenters or exhibitors to access products, services, or information?" 80 answered Very likely or Will do
• "As a result of this event, how likely are you to follow up with a participant I met at the field day?" 85 answered Very likely or Will do
• "As a result of this event, how likely are you to do further research about something I heard at the field day?" 102 answered Very likely or Will do

We are very proud of these field days. They were well-planned, well-executed, and well-received as evidenced by evaluation survey results. Nearly half of field day attendees completed evaluation surveys, and those who completed the evaluation surveys appear to have been very engaged with the information and happy with the field day overall.

Complete evaluation survey data is on the "evaluation" tab on the field days spreadsheet.

MMIH_Partial_Budget_factsheet

After developing an interview template and identifying farmers for Jim Paulson to interview, the case study team met an additional 10 times between 11/01/22 and 12/04/24. The team worked on creating a template for crop farmers to test the potential impact of adding a livestock enterprise to their operation, using collated real data from the case study farmers to create a composite farm example. To that end we collected Schedule F and other financial data from the case study farmers. That proved very challenging. The farmers had incomplete records in some cases. Some of the farmers were using the cash basis of accounting and some the accrual method. Several expressed discomfort with use of their Schedule F data because they have seen wide swings in expenses and income from year to year that they believed were not representative of their operation. We had many and extensive conversations with the case study farmers to arrive at numbers they felt were representative but still grounded in their Schedule F data. These conversations also involved parsing out income and expenses that pertained to their crop enterprises and to their livestock enterprises. Our goal with that parsing was to arrive at a way to value the flows of goods and services between enterprises within a single farm operation. 

We used a partial budgeting framework to hold this farmer data, based on Iowa State University’s Ag Decision Maker information about partial budgets:
Partial Budgeting: A Tool to Analyze Farm Business Changes. Iowa State University : https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/wholefarm/html/c1-50.html

We initially worked with detailed financial data from two of the farmers to create a draft concept that incorporated both crop and livestock enterprises. We made an assumption that we would treat the crops as the primary enterprise and the livestock as the potential added enterprise in the partial budget. This assumption was made because our intent was to develop a tool that educators could use to have conversations with crops-only farmers about the potential to add a livestock component to their operation. 

We then created a composite farm profile using median data from five of the seven case study farmers. We did not receive sufficient financial data from one of the farmers, and we removed one farm from the data set because it was a true outlier in its size, level of assets, and business model. The data from the five farms was primarily from 2022, when crop prices were fairly high. Our composite example used a corn price of $6/bu and soybean price of $15/bu. The composite farm price per head of livestock sold was $1,557. This included sales across all classes of livestock: feeder calves, fed steers, cull cows, and breeding stock. 

With the five-farm composite, we refined the partial budget framework and created a spreadsheet-based calculator that farmers and educators can use to game out scenarios of crop and livestock enterprises. The tool requires entry of farmers’ data on crop acreage, yields, number of head of various classes of livestock, and production expenses. Farmers should be able to estimate the required data or easily pull it from Schedule F tax forms. From this farmer data the tool uses a series of embedded formulas to create a partial budget analysis of the impact of the livestock enterprise that accounts for:

• Fertilizer value of manure
• Value of retained soil due to acres in perennial crops or cover crops instead of annual row crops
• Reduced crop production costs due to acres in perennial crops instead of annual row crops
• Reduced crop sales income due to feeding crops to livestock instead of selling the crops

A further enhancement of the partial budget tool was the addition of two-way sensitivity analyses, following the example of Ecotone Analytics. The net gain at the composite farm crop and livestock prices was centered in the analysis, and then we varied crop prices and livestock prices 50% in each direction, by 10% increments. We created sensitivity analyses for:

• Livestock enterprise
• Crop enterprise
• Combined livestock + crop enterprise
• Hypothetical scenario of no livestock and all crops sold from all tillable acres
• Livestock + crop enterprise set against the hypothetical of no livestock and all crops sold from all tillable acres

And finally, we created a sensitivity analysis that incorporated all the previous sensitivity analyses, showing the crop and livestock price combinations in which livestock were a net benefit or a net drag on the overall farm operation. We believe we succeeded in creating a tool that will enable crop farmers to test and understand the potential impact of a livestock enterprise on their farm. The tool could also be useful to livestock farmers, to understand the value of their livestock enterprises to their farm. It could even find some utility for policy-makers, to help them envision the impact of changing prices for livestock and grain crops on farmers' net gains. 

Match Made in Heaven_ Livestock + Crops Library

We offered advisory group members and recipients of the project update newsletters an opportunity to suggest resources in every meeting and every update. We got very little response. The project team did our own searching online and we connected with the Soil Health Nexus group in two online sessions to discuss resources and housing of resource collections. The Soil Health Nexus was working on a new project that would include a database, and we discussed having the crop + livestock integration library added as one of the collections in that database. However, our timelines did not exactly match up for that to happen during the Match Made in Heaven project.

We decided to focus exclusively on crop and livestock integration resources rather than get into related resource areas, as other groups were compiling collections in those related areas. We completed a collection of 40 items. The collection is linked on the Match Made in Heaven web page:

https://greenlandsbluewaters.org/match-made-in-heaven-livestock-crops/#library-of-resources

The collection will be updated as we find more resources.

Bridging_Generations_MMIH_Infographic

Partnerships_MMIH_Infographic

We had budgeted funds for either videos or additional infographics. The first infographic turned out so well that we decided to do two additional infographics in collaboration with Background Stories, and no videos. We focused one of the infographics on the potential for partnerships between crop farmers and livestock farmers, and the other on generational change in farming operations. Development of these infographics were the final activities for the large advisory group. We were impressed that people hung in there with us through 19 advisory group meetings and office hours, and we still had participation of 9 to 10 people at the very end.

We were able to feature two of our case study farm families in the infographic focused on generational change. Both are great stories of how a younger person in a farm family was able to carve out their own niche while complementing the work of other members of the operation. 

The infographic focused on partnerships incorporates results from the survey and reprises some of the scenery from the original infographic, with a goal of helping farmers see how crop farming could be improved by adding livestock.