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

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 representatives from 5 state-level crop associations and 6 state-level cattlemen’s associations; 11 farmers who raise corn, soybeans, livestock, or a combination on a commercial scale; 11 state-level sustainable agriculture or conservation-oriented organizations; and 4 regional agriculture or conservation-oriented organizations, including one regional indigenous agriculture organization.

From February 2022 through end of October 2022 we conducted four large-group advisory group meetings to collect ideas and feedback, plus four additional focused input sessions specifically on infographic and survey instrument development. Discussions were very active and fruitful in all of these sessions, with 65 individuals participating in at least one session and 30 participating in three or more sessions. 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 working advisory group assembly and activities overlaps with the infographic and survey instrument development, because that’s the shared work we had the advisory group members do. Having advisory group members work together on real projects with real outputs that were going to be released to the public was our very intentional way of helping the group members hear each other’s points of view, work together on language and concepts that all could buy into, and build group cohesiveness.

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

Our advisory group meetings from 11/01/22 – 10/31/23 included representatives from10 organizations; 3 businesses relevant to crops or grazing; 8 University Extension people; 8 farmers who raise corn, soybeans, livestock, or a combination on at least 200 acres; and one regional indigenous agriculture organization. The organizations involved in meetings in this time frame were sustainable agriculture and conservation-focused organizations. Many of the Extension educators and farmers had direct ties to crop associations and livestock associations, but association representatives were less engaged. We anticipate they will re-engage when we have survey results to show and when we launch work on another infographic. 

From November 2022 through October 2023 we conducted four large-group advisory group meetings to collect ideas and feedback, plus three additional focused input sessions specifically on survey instrument development and survey outreach materials development. Advisory group meetings continued to be well attended with 20 to 30 participants at each meeting. 41 individuals participated in at least one session and 19 participated in three or more sessions. 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. This Google Drive folder contains all advisory group meeting notes and slide decks.

This working advisory group assembly and activities overlap 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. These two broad areas of agreement will be 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 many 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. By end of October 2022 we were on version 8 of the survey.

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

We went through 13 iterations to arrive at the final version of the survey. The final version is available online in Qualtrics and also in print format. It includes 56 questions, but an individual farmer will not answer all questions in the survey. There is 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

Schoepp-Farms-LLC_FINAL

Lubbens-White-Oak-Farm_FINAL

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 is to have one farmer case study from each state in the study.

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

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

Ron Schoepp (Lodi, WI)

Dave Lubben (Monticello, IA)

Two additional case study farmers have been interviewed and their write-ups are in progress:

Doug Hanson (IL)

Garth Gatson (MO)

The case study team met 5 times between 11/01/22 and 10/31/23. The team is working 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 an example. To that end we have been collecting Schedule F and other financial data from the case study farmers. That has proved very challenging. The farmers have incomplete records in some cases. Some of the farmers are using the cash basis of accounting and therefore are uncomfortable with use of their Schedule F data: they have wide swings in expenses and income from year to year that they believe are not representative of their operation. We have had many and extensive conversations with the case study farmers to arrive at numbers they feel are representative but that are grounded in their Schedule F data. These conversations have also involved parsing out income and expenses that pertain to their crop enterprises and to their livestock enterprises. Our goal with that parsing is to arrive at a way to value the flows of goods and services between enterprises within a single farm operation. 

We are working to develop 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

This framework will be the basis for a tool that will enable crop-only farmers to gain perspective on how a livestock enterprise could benefit their farm, and how to value things like manure for fertilizer replacement.

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.

In 2023 the survey has been 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 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 in Year 2 of the project. 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 include a QR code and URL for the survey.

Through 10/31/23, kits were distributed upon request to:

IA – Extension Beef Team

IA – Practical Farmers of Iowa

IL – Forage & Grassland Council

IL – The Land Connection

IL – Soy Association

IL – Corn Association

MN – Cattlemens Association

MN – Extension – Soils

MN – Soil & Water Conservation District

MO – Dairy Association

WI – Extension – Grassland 2.0

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 cattlemens associations

Promotion at physical events: 23

• 7 sustainable agriculture or conservation conferences/workshops
• 1 crop association conference
• 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

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 had tens of thousands of touches of promoting the survey, but survey responses from farmers number in the hundreds.

We recorded number of recipients of messaging when that number was known by the message distributors. 

Known distribution of newsletter articles, survey advertisements, and social media posts: 56,592 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.)

These numbers for message recipients undercount the actual distribution of messaging. We had numbers for fewer than half of the message distributions. With only the known numbers, we still documented nearly 60,000 recipients of the message about the survey.

Survey response summary as of 10/31/23:

• 302 usable responses
• 240 have livestock
• 21 do not have livestock

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 has depth of experience in working with sustainable agriculture-related projects and with survey analysis. She will begin work on the survey results in mid-April 2024.

The field days portion of this project is planned for summer of 2024. The project core team and the Case Study Team have a goal of a field day schedule in place by May 1, 2024. Most of the farmers featured in the case studies have agreed to also serve as field day hosts. Some of the case study farmers have planned field days already in collaboration with their local NRCS, Extension, or other organizations; so we will participate in those rather than scheduling a separate field day.