An Analysis of Environmental Management Approaches with Six Midwestern Dairy Farms: Informing Progress Toward a Sustainable Agriculture

An Analysis of Environmental Management Approaches with Six Midwestern Dairy Farms: Informing Progress Toward a Sustainable Agriculture

Summary

In Phase One of project, we compared six different environmental programs (certified Organic, Biodynamic and Food Alliance, a permitted CAFO, a farm under Holistic Management, and a “conventional” farm with the Wisconsin Farmland Preservation Program) to clarify how different environmental management approaches guide farmers in their awareness and management of the environment. We determined specific biophysical environmental dimensions not covered by any program, and also that other important program elements include responsibilities of farmers for record keeping and goal setting, employee welfare, livestock living conditions, opportunities for community input and other issues related to environmental management.

Objectives/Performance Targets

In Phase I of this 4-phase project we reviewed the histories and contexts of different environmental management approaches (See Appendices A and B) as well as a content analysis of the specific language of the requirements. Phase II involves in-depth case studies on six different farms considered to be exemplary in their implementation of each of the different programs. In Phase III, we employ an Environmental Management System approach (defined below) on each farm to test how the inclusive process of EMS might inform the six different approaches. Our Phase IV involves the ongoing evaluation efforts of this project and outreach activities.

Sustainability has been defined by many as a platform of action resting on, or emerging from, activities in three realms: economic, social and environmental. You cannot be fully sustainable, the argument goes, without answering to requirements of each of these different areas.

Our analysis of six different programs is an inquiry into how polices and programs may be responding to this discourse on sustainability. We examine the specific ways in which policies require farmers to attend to social, economic and ecological issues. We also investigate the range of policy tools relied on by certification and policy structures to motivate, mandate and facilitate agricultural sustainability. We use the farmer as our unit of analysis to capture the interrelation and dynamic context of these issues. Our investigation is oriented toward understanding, from the point of view of the farmer, the environmental performance requirements, but also dimensions of community support, program oversight, goal setting requirements and enforcement provided by different programs (Figure 2).

Our metrics for analyzing programs emerge from three areas: First, how programs create and expect personal motivations and choices. Does a program support a farmer as a decision-maker? How important is the power to make choices and decisions? Second, how does each program conceive of the “social neighborhood” or community of a farmer? That is, what sorts of resources are available for communications? Are there requirements for community participation? And finally, in reference to the biological and physical environmental context of a farm, what is identified as important; what kind of practices are recommended and required?

Accomplishments/Milestones

The programs analyzed here differ in history, scope, geography and intent (See Appendix A). As our analyses show, however, they share common concerns and are informed by a general rhetoric of agricultural sustainability, even if they react to that rhetoric in very different ways.

We researched the history of each program’s development and also took note of the social context: how people learn about the program, what appears to be expected of farmers in terms of paperwork, time to implement, responsibility for implementation, oversight and consequences for failing the program. We interviewed certifiers, educators, agency people and others involved in the implementation of different approaches.

The Matrix: As a result of our investigations we created a matrix of “Farmer, Community and Biophysical Dimensions of Six Environmental Agriculture Programs” (See Appendix B). The matrix is informed by content analyses of regulations and requirements of our six programs. As described, these programs are diverse and cross comparison is not always a straightforward process. A comparative approach is rewarding, however, in revealing overlapping interests in the programs as well as a general sense of how new policy and program developments are responding to new ideas about agricultural sustainability. Holistic Management, because it is completely voluntary and involves no permit or certification process, is perhaps an outlier in some sense, and yet is increasingly relied on by farmers interested in sustainable agriculture.

HM, as described in more detail in the appendix, encourages farmer to think about the environment in specific ways (i.e. shaped by mineral and water cycles) as well as interactions between animals, plants and other environmental aspects (community dynamics). Fundamental to HM is the idea that sustainability arises from a decision-making process that interweaves economic, social and environmental management. By comparing the guidelines it establishes for enabling farmers in making good decisions, HM provides some interesting insights into how regulation and certification processes might improve farmers ability to manage information.

A review of the biophysical environmental requirements of these six programs reveals a strong emphasis on soil and water quality. The conventional programs contain some of the most elaborated language about erosion; how, when and where to spread manure and fertilizers and requirements of farming to “T”.

The “alternative” programs, such as biodynamics, organics and Food Alliance, bring in the element of soil organic matter as a key aspect of management. Other environmental issues that receive far less attention include air quality, the conservation of resources, especially water and energy and other inputs into the farm system such as plastics. It is likely, given the current climate of growing concern that this will change.

Although just treatment of farm labor has been an issue of concern for decades, only Food Alliance has specific requirements concerning the ethical treatment of farm workers and opportunities for worker participation in farm management. Animal welfare is important to biodynamic, organic and Food Alliance certification, and yet is not a concern in the regulation of operations with the most animals – CAFOs. In terms of wider community focus, again Food Alliance is the only program to mention neighbors specifically, although the CAFO permit process does require a public hearing before a permit is granted in order to hear community concerns.

A black and white division between sustainable and unsustainable programs becomes harder to draw when these environmental certification and permitting structures are examined according to their requirements. The “conventional” program requirements such as farming to T, the balance of phosphorus in a farm system, and specific attention to avoiding nutrient-laden runoff from all fields and facilities, for example, provide clear guidance and measures of farmer success.

At the same time, the conventional focus on soil management continues to say little about soil organic matter, and completely avoids issues related to chemical pesticide impacts on soil health. Also, a focus on what might seem like some of the most basic elements of sustainability, such as energy use, water conservation and worker welfare reveals very uneven treatment of these issues.

Impacts and Contributions/Outcomes

Our general take-home message from this content analysis, we suggest, is that sustainability in agriculture is being pursued in many different dimensions. By deciphering the specific methods through which different programs pursue sustainability, we can provide information that can usefully inform the continued positive development of all. Examples of these potentially positive dimensions include increasing the ability of farmers to be good decision-makers; providing a firmer philosophy of serving one’s community; recognizing the value of specific measures in requirements to manage soil, water and energy; and the critical need for worker and animal welfare standards on all farms. Finally, we need to emphasize that we recognize that individual farmers will apply these rules within the context of their own philosophies, preferences and constraints. This “on-paper” review of programs is informative in terms of general “gaps” in environmental management, but to better understand the potential of these programs we need to consider them in action – on to Phase II!

Collaborators: