Locally Led Farmer Groups for Sustainable Agriculture: The Study Circle Approach

1998 Annual Report for ENE98-044

Project Type: Professional Development Program
Funds awarded in 1998: $6,500.00
Projected End Date: 12/31/2000
Matching Federal Funds: $6,500.00
Matching Non-Federal Funds: $7,500.00
Region: Northeast
State: Maryland
Project Leader:
Jim Hanson
Department of Ag Resource Economics

Locally Led Farmer Groups for Sustainable Agriculture: The Study Circle Approach

Summary

Summary
Maryland Cooperative Extension and Future Harvest–Chesapeake Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture (Future Harvest–CASA) coordinated the development and implementation of small, participatory farmer groups or study circles. Study circle leaders attended an initial training session, “New Educational Techniques: The Study Circle Approach.” As a result of this initial training, Maryland Cooperative Extension offered a competitive grants program to support projects that use the study circle approach. Seven projects were funded as a result of the grant program. These projects varied in scope and dimension, and proved valuable in the continued evaluation the sustainability issues in agriculture in the mid-Atlantic region.

Objectives
Enhance knowledge of sustainable agriculture principals and methods for Cooperative Extension and farmers through collaborative learning process

Introduce co-learning methodology to Cooperative Extension

Provide training and support to Cooperative Extension to improve farmer-to-farmer networking and learning.

Methods and Approach
Study circle leaders attended an initial training session, “New Educational Techniques: The Study Circle Approach.” This session was led by Dr. Duane Dale of DFD Associates, Amherst, Massachusetts, and was held November 5, 1998. Training highlighted the guiding principles of study circles, illustrated what can be accomplished through them, and used concept mapping as a way to determine potential study circle topics. Twenty people attended this training; as a result of it, Maryland Cooperative Extension offered a competitive grants program on December 10, 1999, to support projects using the study circle approach. Eight projects were funded as a result of the request for proposals.

Results
LEAD Maryland Study Circle
A study circle called “Future of Maryland Agriculture: Visions of Emerging Leaders” was conducted by the LEAD Maryland Class I, with support and guidance from Dr. Nan Booth, extension specialist, and Susan Harrison, LEAD Maryland’s executive director. LEAD Maryland is a program designed to provide men and women interested in the future of Maryland agriculture with opportunities to expand their leadership abilities, develop a diverse and active network, increase their understanding of critical public issues, and enhance their knowledge of technological practices, marketing strategies, and environmental concerns. The purpose of the study circle was to develop and present to the public the future of Maryland agriculture as envisioned by the emerging leaders in LEAD Maryland’s Class I.

Class members learned the study circle approach as taught by Duane Dale. Over the first seven sessions, class members discussed the question, “What is the future of Maryland agriculture?”
This has led to the development of a general statement and vision statement. It reads:

Agriculture is economically, environmentally, and socially important to Maryland. Maintaining and improving a strong agriculture structure is in the best interest for the citizens of Maryland. Agriculture is a dynamic process that makes the most sustainable and productive use of natural resources. High quality food supply and natural resource products are benefits of Maryland agriculture. Additionally, working landscapes, stable social structures, and employment opportunities improve the quality of life for all Maryland citizens. Farms are economic entities, which must be profitable. To rise to the challenges of the twenty-first century, agriculture must use innovative technical and marketing skills. Producers, policy makers, educators, and other interested groups must cooperate to promote environmental stewardship and economic prosperity.

Many other related topics were brought up in the study circles. Notes were taken and some of the topics were revisited, when appropriate, to add to the progress of the work of the class. The statement created is just one of the end products from the study circle exercise. Much sharing and teamwork and other leadership elements were incorporated throughout the process.

Milk Futures—Risk Management Tool for Milk Producers: A Study Circle
On February 26, 1999, a proposal was submitted to develop a study circle in Carroll County to include immediately surrounding Maryland counties. The topic to be investigated by this study circle was “Milk Futures—Risk Management Tool for Milk Producers. This study circle’s first meeting was on April 23, 1999, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., and here the teaching and learning of the language and strategies of the futures industry began. The study circle decided to meet once a month for two hours for the reminder of 1999. Dairymen, representative of agribusiness (including several lenders), and extension personnel comprised the majority of this particular study circle.

Eight sessions were held. At each, we reviewed what was discussed at the previous session, answered questions, and discussed what had happened since the last session regarding milk futures before tackling new topics. Starting with the third session, we began using a model dairy farm to simulate trading with milk futures and options. Opportunities and strategies were discussed at length, and a unanimous decision had to be reached before action was taken. The Internet was used to provide additional resources to participants, and Web use included specific sites developed by Dr. McNew as well as those of other land grant universities and industry.

While most participants used milk futures and options trading on paper only, several actually used milk options for their personal businesses. Fortunately, those individuals were able to maintain/improve their financial situation. Transactions—on paper only—made on behalf of the model dairy farm resulted in a positive position. All participants gained knowledge and skills useful to using this method of risk management.

Each objective of this study circle was met. We were able to bring interested individuals together to discuss milk futures as a risk management tool and to expose producers to the language and strategy of milk futures. We were able to locate local people with varying levels of experience in the use of this risk management tool and increase the number of viable dairy farms in Carroll and surrounding counties.

Study Circle to Explore the Production of Native Warm-Season Grass Seed
Native warm-season grasses have many benefits: Wildlife habitat, livestock forage, soil erosion control, and nutrient management. In the Chesapeake region, warm-season grasses can be used in pastures, streamside buffers, or landscapes. Today, most warm-season grass seed is acquired from sources outside of Maryland—Midwest and Pennsylvania. A lack of native seed stock in Maryland has been identified as an obstacle to the reintroduction of these valuable grass species. Production of native warm-season grass seed could provide an income for farmers who can successfully master seed production and storage techniques.

The purpose of this farmer circle was to explore the requirements to successfully and economically produce native warm-season grass seed on Maryland farms. The initial meeting of this study circle focused on gathering information from plant breeders at USDA-NRCS and the University of Maryland. Seed availability, ecotypes, and plant breeding, were all discussed at this meeting. At subsequent meetings, discussion focused on determining who is currently providing warm-season grass seed for planting in the Chesapeake region. Much time was spent discussing whether it mattered if seed was produced in the Midwest and then planted in the Chesapeake region. The circle wanted to know whether warm-season grasses grown in the Midwest genetically were similar to warm season grasses growing on Maryland’s Eastern Shore. Genetic testing may answer this question.

The final meeting of the study circle was held at the Wye Research and Education Center in Queenstown, Maryland, and included a visit to research plots of native warm-season grasses. The connection between wildlife and warm-season grasses was also discussed. Four main options were suggested as ways to produce seeds for warm-season grass mixtures: Collect plant material, use released material, grow for Ernst Conservation seeds in Pennsylvania, or grow whatever Ernst is not growing. The project leader of the group visited Ernst Conservation Seeds in Pennsylvania and discussed growing opportunities for mid-Atlantic farmers. Seed storage, seed cleaning, and other production issues were explored. It was concluded that the opportunity exists to produce source-identified seed for resale in the mid-Atlantic region.

As a result of this project, participants of the study circle are now working to generate funds to determine genetic differentiation between local and non-local plant species. If a genetic difference is identified among a plant species, the difference could warrant the production of native seed and the creation of local seed suppliers.

Exploring marketing opportunities for fruit and vegetable producers
Future Harvest–CASA and Maryland Cooperative Extension convened a one-day workshop on Sept. 27, 1999, to explore the potential for a regional eco-label or other eco-marketing activities that might encourage bay-friendly agricultural practices in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Discussion focused on the various pressure points within the food system, including consumers, producers, processors, distributors, and retailers. Participants in the workshop included Cooperative Extension, the Maryland Department of Agriculture, USDA, the University of Maryland, Pennsylvania State University, the Dairy Network Partnership, various environmental organizations, local government, and the food retailer Giant Foods.

The first half of the workshop covered food production, processing, and distribution in the Chesapeake region. Presentations on various existing labels in the region were also provided. The second half of the workshop involved discussion of Cooperatives in the Chesapeake region and brainstorming of ways to expand current labeling efforts. Finally, the group identified some next steps that could lead to increased adoption of sustainable farming practices.

What Are the Next Steps?
Future Harvest—CASA and other interested parties should collaborate with and monitor the progress of the Environmental Quality Initiative’s USDA FSMIP grant. Future Harvest–CASA should be aware of any focus group research or other information that is being gathered in the course of FSMIP activity. Other actions might include:

Involve Maryland farmers in Chesapeake Milk. Such an action would involve identifying a small processor in Maryland that could handle the logistical constraints of milk production and transportation.

The Environmental Quality Initiative could be used on grain production if criteria were developed and made sense environmentally and economically.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation should get members to participate on consumer boards at Giant Foods to voice their opinions of organic and eco-labeling.

Use market research or surveys to determine consumer and producer interest in using a “Chesapeake Healthy” label.

In the future, Future Harvest—CASA and environmental groups such as Sierra Club, Rachel Carson Institute, and CBF should exchange information on their activities in agriculture and explore opportunities for collaboration.

Determine what strategy makes more sense—promoting locally grown food or promoting sustainably grown food, or both.

Water Resources Leadership Institute (WRLI) Class 1: A Study Circle
The purpose of the study circle grant was to develop a vision for the future of water resources on the eastern shore of Maryland as perceived by the Fellows in the Water Resources Leadership Institute (WRLI) Class 1.

The objectives were:

For Fellows learn the study circle approach as taught by Duane Dale.
For Fellows to devote one hour at each seminar to use the study circle approach to discuss the future of water resources.
For WRLI I Class 1 Fellows to develop consensus on a vision for water resources for the eastern shore of Maryland.

Actions Completed
Phil Favero and Nan Booth provided an overview of the study circle approach at Seminar 1 in February 1999. Each Fellow was also given reference material. After teaching the concept, Nan and Phil co-facilitated the first study circle, which focused on the stakeholders for water resources. Fellows were asked to volunteer to co-lead one a study circle in one of the following seminars. With assistance from Phil and Nan, study circles were conducted in Seminar 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Fellows volunteered to co-facilitate these circles.

During the fall, a small group worked between seminars to begin to draft a vision statement that was reviewed and approved by the entire WRLI Class. This vision statement is now being printed to give to WRLI Class I Fellows. Fellows have indicated they will frame the vision and use it as a reference as they work toward their leadership goals. The study circle was again introduced to the WRLI Class II and a similar protocol will be used to have and students develop their vision of the future of Maryland water resources.

Impacts
This project was successful in introducing the study-circle technique to extension faculty at the University of Maryland. Twenty Maryland Cooperative Extension faculty attended the initial study circle training session offered by Duane Dale in 1998; in a subsequent request for proposals, eight study circle projects where funded for 1999. Cooperative Extension educators were either project leaders or collaborators for the funded study-circle projects.

This project demonstrated that the study-circle technique was an excellent forum for groups to explore new opportunities to improve the profitability of farming through various means. For example, the topic of milk futures was assessed by a group of educators, dairy farmers and ag professionals. Another group of farmers, wildlife specialists, and plant breeders explored new crop opportunities for producers in the area of warm-season grasses and native seed production. Another study circle explored value-added marketing opportunities in the form of an eco-labels for fruit, vegetable, and milk producers.

Study circles in this project provided a forum for collaboration among farmers and local, state and rural development professionals working to increase profitability on farms. For example, the organic study circle is currently working with rural development agencies in Maryland to trademark the label Chesapeake Fields. This work is being done through the newly formed Chesapeake Fields Institute, which was developed in part as a result of the hard work of the organic study circle group.

Finally, the project was successful in engaging many new and emerging leaders involved directly and indirectly with agriculture. The leadership group LEAD MD successfully used the study circle technique as a training tool to define their vision of agriculture in Maryland. Much discussion and debate resulted from the use of the study-circle technique. This process let agricultural leaders examine the sustainability issues that Maryland farmers face in the coming years.

Outreach
Results and information from the projects varied in the degree of dissemination and outreach. The only information product that was developed was a report, “Ecomarketing in the Chesapeake Bay Region.” This report is a summary of a meeting that was held to explore the possibility of an eco-label, or other regional eco-marketing activities. A copy of this report was disseminated to workshop participants and was shared with evaluators and employees at the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.

That said, this project was successful in introducing the study circle technique to extension educators and other agricultural personnel. One hundred and twenty-eight people have participated in activities and study circles, and the leadership groups have adopted the study circle technique into their leadership curriculum. Several study circle groups are also continuing to meet on an as needed basis.

Reported November 2000

Collaborators:

Bruce Mertz

Future Harvest
MD 21666