an analysis of environmental management approaches with six midwestern dairy farms: informing...
TRANSCRIPT
An Analysis of Environmental Management Approaches with Six Midwestern Dairy Farms:Informing Progress Toward a Sustainable Agriculture
Mrill Ingram & Karl Hakanson, UW-Madison
Driving through Wisconsin and Minnesota you pass similar looking dairy farms that are managed in very different ways, each with different emphasis and approaches to environmental and business management.
Is this an organic farm?Is it a Biodynamic Farm?A large permitted dairy?Or is it a “conventional” farm?
Is this a “sustainable” farm?Is it an “unsustainable” farm?Is it more or less sustainable than the neighbors?
This research project studied six dairy farms managed under six different environmental programs.
The main objective was to learn from successful farmers what the necessary conditions for bringing about a more sustainable agriculture might be.
Project Goals• How do different programs and policies
focus on the environment? Gaps? Overlap?
• What do successful farmers engaged in these different programs have in common?
• How might an environmental management system (EMS) improve/inform these programs?
Methods1. “On-paper” comparison of the six
program’s rules, regulations, standards.2. Case studies of six exemplary farms.3. Development of EMS on each farm to
explore sustainability.
PART I: How might agricultural-environmental programs and policies be directing farmers to act toward the environment?
Agricultural environmental management programs
Six Ag-Environmental Programs
-- USDA Certified Organic (NOP)
-- Food Alliance Certified (FA)
-- Holistic Management (HM)
-- Demeter Certified Biodynamic (BD)
-- WPDES Permitted (CAFO)
-- Soil & Water Conservation programs
(S&W)
How are these different programs informing agricultural sustainability?
Dimensions of Ag-Environmental
Programs
Ag-environmental programs require attention to certain biological and physical environmental aspects and rely
on various elements of community involvement and individual farmer performance.
Biological / Physical Environment
CommunityScrutiny / Support
Farmer Responsibility / Program Oversight
Program dimension:
Biophysical Environment
• Soil Quality• Water Quality• Air Quality• Resource Conservation• Wildlife & Biodiversity • Crops and Livestock
Program dimension:
Farmer Responsibility / Program Oversight• Records, Reporting, Inspection• Plan requirements• Certification• Application costs; time• Goal setting• Flexibility• Continuing education• Continual improvement• Consequences of noncompliance
• Employee health and safety • Employee participation• Neighbor relations• Farmer networking• Product quality• Wider community input• Governmental oversight
Program dimension:
Community Scrutiny & Support
Findings: Program Emphasis Biological & Physical Dimensions
o Soil erosion & water quality (state/fed programs)o Soil organic matter (“alternative” programs)o Wildlife/biodiversity (Food Alliance, organic)o Animal welfare (biodynamic, organic, Food
Alliance) Farmer Responsibility & Program
Oversighto Record keeping (all)o Continual improvement (HM, Food Alliance)o Goal setting (HM)
Community Dimensionso Worker health and welfare (Food Alliance)o Wider community input (Food Alliance, CAFO)o Consumer health (organic but especially BD)o Wildlife/biodiversity (Food Alliance, organic)o Animal welfare (biodynamic, organic, Food
Alliance)
Findings: Program Gaps
Important biophysical dimensions of sustainability currently receiving little
attention from the six programs:
Energy conservation
Air quality
Water conservation
Resource conservation
Agricultural sustainability is being pursued in positive dimensions:• Increasing the ability of farmers
to be better decision-makers• Providing a stronger philosophy
of serving one’s community• Recognizing the value of specific
measures to manage soil, water, biodiversity
• Human health & safety• Livestock welfare
Conclusion from Content Analysis:Distinctions between “sustainable” and “unsustainable” programs hard to draw
PART II: Case Studies of Six FarmsWhat are common traits of successful
environmental management?
Commitmentenvironmental stewardship is business excellence
Three “C’s” of Sustainable Agriculture
Communityno farm is an island
Continual ImprovementRequirements are the starting point
Certified Organic Farm
Food Alliance Certified Farm
Holistic Management Farm
Certified Biodynamic Farm
Permitted (WPDES) Farm
Soil & Water Conservation Farm
PlanDo
Check
Act
EMS: A self-directed process of continual improvement, environmental stewardship & business efficiency.
PART III: Develop environmental management systems on each farm to further explore sustainability
Conduct “Environmental Aspects Inventory”
Prioritize two aspects to work on
Assess current status of aspects
Develop objectives and plan for improvement
Implement plan, document actions
Monitor and document results
The EMS Process for this study
Identification and Prioritization of Environmental Aspects
Farm Energy Priority Other Priority
Food Alliance Energy use: milk house Runoff: winter-spring pastures
WPDES Operation efficiency/SOPs Worker safety
Soil & Water Energy Use: dairy barn Soil Conservation & Nutrient Mgmt plans
Organic Fuel Use: row crops Upland & riparian bird habitat
Holistic Mgmt. Feasibility of wind power Runoff: milk house
Biodynamic Fuel use: straw handling Compost management
Benefits of EMS• Development of standard operating procedures
• Framework to systematically consider various aspects of environmental management
• Considering new ideas and approaches
• Taking care of known issues that need attention
• Taking the time to plan
• Consideration of energy conservation and efficiency
• Attention to family and employee communications
• Working with new people, advisors, specialists
• Working with a “coach” to move process along
Barriers to EMS Implementation
• Time constraints; additional administrative and record-keeping requirements; takes away from time-sensitive tasks
• Incentives/results/proof of benefits lacking• Coach/consultant/personnel necessary to keep
process/projects on track not available• “Paperwork”, meetings, planning not valued
– It’s not farmwork; getting something done
• ISO/certified EMS not scale-neutral• Perception that “an EMS” is yet another
program or set of practices to adopt
Recommendations on EMS• Emphasize key parts of the process --assess, prioritize,
plan, monitor, communicate-- not “EMS” per se• Introduce processes into management approaches
already in use• Create documents, instructions that emphasize action• Create simple record keeping, monitoring protocols• Identify ways for existing personnel, consultants,
service providers to serve as process coaches• Focus on “what’s in it for me?” --Benefits must be real• Engage all “stakeholders” in improving environmental
management, especially specialists, staff• Stress need for effective communications at all levels
Policy Implications
• Voluntary EMS has limitations as a stand-alone program. It should be coupled with complementary incentive or regulation programs.
• Supply chain pressure and civil society pressure can also play a role in providing incentives for environmental management.
• EMS as a process tool can be “married” with existing programs.
• Farms/communities can assess highest environmental priorities and utilize parts of the EMS to move farmers toward greater sustainability.
Grateful thanks to the funding provided by the North Central Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SARE), the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)!
www.sare.org/ncrsare
www.csrees.usda.gov
www.usda.gov
Investigators:
Mrill Ingram Karl [email protected]
Contact:
Sharon [email protected]
Environmental Resources CenterUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison445 Henry Mall, Room 202AMadison, WI 53706http://www.uwex.edu/farmandhome/