I N T H I S I S S U E
Reality Check
Vic Madsen
Well-Being of Women in Sustainable Agriculture
Regina Striegel
Shared Visions
Questions & Answers
Group Applications Approved
Greenfield Launches Farm
Notes and Notices
Lubben to Leopold Board
Sustainable Ag Library
Pasture Walks
Buffer Strip Twilight Tour
Rural Church Gathering
Job Announcements
Hartwig Named Interim Extension Ag Director
Profits of Narrow Strip Intercropping
Don Davidson
PFI Profiles: Dan & Lorna Wilson,Colin & Carla Wilson
Rick Exner
Transition to Sustainable Ag, II: Corn Production
Rick Exner
What Kind of Sustainability Do We Want?
Thayne Cozart
Footprints of a Grass Farmer: Shaping Our Mental Attitude
Tom Frantzen
>From the Kitchen
Marj Stonecypher
PFI Officers & How to Join Practical Farmers of Iowa
PLEASE NOTE:
The text of this newletter as well as associated graphics files
can be obtained through FTP with the username
"anonymous.dnexner".
To do so, your prompts and responses would be as follows:
(the computer): (you):
ftp vincent1.iastate.edu
vincent1.iastate.edu username(): anonymous.dnexner
vincent1.iastate.edu password (): enter your email address
ftp> get filename
ftp> quit
This issue of the newsletter will reside in a subdirectory of the
"anonymous" directory named "nlet9_2". You can also list the
files in the directories and perform other ftp functions. If you
would like to leave a comment, there is a subdirectory for that
purpose called "incoming." A "lcd incoming" should get you
there.
Graphics accompanying the newsletter will be in encapsulated
postscript (.eps filename extension), or some bitmapped format
(.pcx, .tif, et cetera), or perhaps the metafile format (.cgm,
wmf extensions). The bitmapped graphics take more bytes than,
say, a metafile format would, but at present our software doesn't
create the latter format with much accuracy.
REALITY CHECK
Vic Madsen, Audubon
Profit is a six letter word that is often hard for us to talk
about. Our midwestern rural ethic allows us to complain and
point fingers when prices are low, but we don't say much when the
money is good. Therefore, with this summer's crash in the cattle
business, the big swings in the grains, and the probability of a
1995 hog bust, I can write about money.
I believe no farm is more competitive or durable than a
sustainable type farm. I also believe, as I will explain, that
no farm is more vertically integrated than a sustainable farm.
The problem is that I don't know anyone who has developed a truly
sustainable farm. Many of our cooperators and members and
friends are doing some parts well but I'm not sure anyone has
tied all the pieces together.
You may not agree that sustainable farms are more vertically
integrated, but disagreement is good if we can stimulate
thinking. A conventional farm that is trying to be more
sustainable must first discard the agri-business mindset of
purchasing solutions and of relying on stand-alone enterprises.
A sustainable farm is like a person's body with the various parts
doing their own thing but each organ dependent on the others. A
conventional farm is like a person on life support in intensive
care.
The farm I am seeing as a goal has several enterprises that are
crafted to mesh in a symbiotic relationship. We would see
something like (you can add to this I'm sure) gates made from
lumber cut from the grove keeping in cattle or sheep grazing oats
stubble whose straw is stored to bed hogs this winter and whose
grain will feed the calves or lambs or pigs and also supply seed
for next year. The ruminants will, after corn harvest, glean the
fields, haul their own manure and eliminate volunteer corn and
the need for Poast or Scepter. The cover crop under the oats
provides stockpiled forage for winter grazing as well as a part
of the nitrogen for next year's corn crop. The straw soaked with
manure and hauled back to the field after grazing provides
another part of the fertility. Toss in the soybeans and alfalfa
and the interrelationships expand dramatically.
If the animals are born on the farm, the grain grown there, the
feed ground there, and a little direct marketing occurs, we have
almost complete vertical integration. Probably the only things
purchased were a little salt and mineral and a few medications
plus some diesel fuel.
Now the reality check. Many of us started too late. Old
mistakes and old purchases of iron and concrete have us locked
into a non-flexible management style. The narrow margins that we
will have to live with will make it difficult for many farmers to
meet cash flow needs.
So as we look at those cash flow needs we will have to ask
ourselves if we really needed to purchase that input. Many times
I have purchased things because agri-business makes it so easy
and so much fun to buy them. We need to try to think how we can
either eliminate that expense or generate the input on the farm.
I am reminded of a story I read some time ago about one of the
small church colleges in northern Iowa. The founders didn't have
much money, but they were sharp enough to pick a wooded site with
limestone under it. The first buildings literally rose from the
ground as they were built from lumber milled on the site and
stone quarried on the property. We can use the same mental
attitude as we develop our farms.
Another reality check. Each of the enterprises needs good
performance for the sustainable farm as well as the conventional
farm. Having diversity is self defeating if each segment is not
well managed.
Ultimate reality. My farm management style was completely
conventional ten years ago. The transition to sustainability is
much slower than I like, but we are making changes. In a way, we
are like the scientist trying to develop a perpetual motion
machine. We know we will never quite make it but enjoy the
challenge of seeing how close we can get. ]
WELL-BEING OF WOMEN IN SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
Regina Striegel, What Cheer
A year and half ago, I began formally working on my master's
equivalency project in the Counseling Psychology Ph.D. program at
the University of Iowa. The reason I chose to do research in the
area of sustainable agriculture is because my husband and I have
been living and working for 25 years on a farm in Keokuk County,
Iowa. The whole Striegel family, consisting of my husband and
his six brothers, are very aware of the importance of farming
practices that make a positive contribution to the environment
and to the future of farming. In addition, as a psychologist who
will be practicing in the rural community, one of my concerns is
the psychological well being of my friends and neighbors who are
farming. As we in farming well know, the last few years have been
frustrating to say the least, and we all know good honest farmers
who are no longer farming because of situations beyond their
control.
Last fall I contacted the Practical Farmers to ask for permission
to use your membership list. After obtaining permission from the
board, I began telephoning women all over Iowa. I talked to 93
women and 75 agreed to participate in the study. I received a
total of 53 replies, so the results are based on this group.
Ages ranged from 25 to 67 years of age, with 44 of the 53 being
married. Number of children ranged from 0 to 8. There was a
wide range in educational level, from less than a high school
education to college graduates and some with graduate training.
Number of hours spent at farm work varied, with the sustainable
farm women averaging 15.5 hours per week and the more
conventional women averaging 6.2 hours per week.
The goal of the research that the PFI women so graciously
participated in was to establish whether or not Iowa farm women
are satisfied with their lives and to become better acquainted
with those aspects of their lives that make them meaningful and
fulfilling. Another goal was to separate the women into two
groups based on prevalence of sustainable practices. After doing
this I wanted to find out if there were differences between the
two groups on life satisfaction and depression.
The results of this study indicate that farm women as a whole
lead very satisfying lives. No difference was found between
sustainable farm women and conventional farm women. As one would
expect there were multiple reasons for this satisfaction. A few
major ones indicated by many women were the importance of family
and their part in supporting their children and husbands; being
able to raise their children in the wholesome rural environment;
volunteer work; church work and spiritual life; working outside
and participating with their husbands in the farm work; and good
neighbors.
Another area of interest for me was the incidence of depression
among these two groups of women. It would seem possible, with
the farm crisis still dragging on and the flooding of 1993 a very
real threat to harvest and financial solvency, that depression
could be a very real problem. What this study showed was that
farm women are not depressed. Sustainable farm women as a whole
did have a greater number of symptoms of depression than the
conventional farm women but neither group was clinically
depressed. A possible reason for one group having more symptoms
could be that sustainable farm women spend more hours both in
off-farm employment and on-farm work. This could leave less time
for pleasurable activities with family and less time to refuel
themselves.
I was excited by the results and believe they indicate that farm
women have become resilient through learning to face many
difficult factors in their lives. A researcher in this area
believes that in order to become resilient there are several
factors necessary. These factors include: protective factors
such as close personal relationships and development of self
esteem along with a range of opportunities; also, ability of the
person to appraise the stressful situation, process the
experience and attach meaning. These factors enable that person
to incorporate the experience into their belief system and
establish patterns that lead to success in solving future
problems.
It is important to note that this research used a specific group
of farm women (PFI members) that were aware of sustainable
farming practices. These results may not transfer to all farm
women in Iowa. It is still noteworthy that this group is
psychologically healthy, goal oriented, and very satisfied with
their lives.
I wish to thank you once again for making my project an enjoyable
experience and being so gracious to me. ]
SHARED VISIONS: FARMING FOR BETTER COMMUNITIES
The Shared Visions section of this newsletter includes a series
of questions and answers about Shared Visions, descriptions of
recently funded projects of two groups involved in Shared
Visions, and a report on the dedication of the Neely-Kinyon
Research Farm, near Greenfield.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT SHARED VISIONS
What is the purpose of Shared Visions?
The purpose of Shared Visions is to develop community-based
groups that will provide the support and teamwork needed for the
acceptance and use of farming systems that are financially and
environmentally sustainable.
How can Shared Visions help my community?
Shared Visions can enhance the ability of farm families and
communities to sustain themselves by helping groups bring their
ideas into focus and make and implement plans to achieve the
types of farming systems and communities they desire.
How does Shared Visions work?
Groups must apply. Groups complete Group Request to Participate
forms and group members complete Individual Request to
Participate forms. Forms are reviewed by the Shared Visions
Advisory Council, and the PFI board selects the groups. Further
information may be sought before selections are made.
If selected, groups create a "shared vision" of the components of
desirable farming systems for their communities. Groups then
develop one or more projects aimed at helping achieve their
vision. Groups submit project plans to the PFI board. Groups
with approved plans are awarded small grants and receive
technical assistance to help implement plans. Groups are linked
through annual conferences, site visits with other groups, and a
newsletter.
What should groups look like?
Groups should strive for diverse membership. Groups should
include women and men who are both farmers and non-farmers.
Groups need not be large. They can begin with a core of five to
seven interested people, perhaps expanding to ten to twenty.
What are the expectations of group members?
work as part of a team and assume leadership responsibilities
as needed
be open to the ideas of others and flexible about their own
attend meetings and undertake needed activities between
meetings
share experiences with other communities during annual site
visits and conferences
Will participants attend a lot of meetings?
The number will depend on the diversity of the group and the
complexity of the issue they address. The group involved in
Shared Visions from Davis County met four times to develop a
project plan, while the group from the Grundy and Hardin County
area met seven times.
What kinds of projects might groups pursue?
The possibilities are many. The group from the Grundy and Hardin
County area is developing a community-based beginning farmer
initiative. The AG 2020 group in Poweshiek County is focusing on
options for CRP land. The Davis County group is trying to
increase livestock numbers.
Projects could range from developing networks of small or
moderate-sized hog producers to pursuing value-added processing
to examining options for managing nitrogen use for corn. The
desire is to support projects that create a supportive climate in
the community for farming systems that are:
resource-efficient
maintain productivity & profitability
protect the environment & personal health
support rural communities
provide increased opportunities
What about a group that has a project in mind? Will it fit?
The process is as important as the project, which means
individuals or groups seeking funds for a predetermined project
may not be a good match.
What resources are available to support a group?
funds for supplies, travel, advertising, and local assistants
small grants to implement approved projects
a community groups coordinator to help during planning
sessions
a farming systems coordinator to help during project
implementation
a project director to help with financial aspects of groups'
involvement
What is the time frame?
A second set of groups will be selected for involvement in the
fall of 1994, and a third set will be selected in the fall of
1995. Selected groups will develop project plans during the
winter to submit for approval. The time frame for implementing
approved plans will vary by project. Groups can be involved
until funding for Shared Visions ends in 1997.
How do I get started?
Call Gary Huber or Rick Exner and ask for an application packet
(see back cover of the newsletter for the phone number). This
packet contains the information needed to get started. ]
GROUP PROJECT APPLICATIONS APPROVED BY PFI BOARD
(Editors' note: The process for approving project applications
of groups involved in Shared Visions includes recommendations to
the PFI board by the Shared Visions Advisory Council. In June
the Council recommended the approval of project applications from
the Poweshiek County AG2020 group and the group from the Grundy
and Hardin County area. In early July the PFI board accepted the
Council's recommendations. The following articles describe each
project of these projects.)
AG2020 CRP Project
The approval of the AG2020 group's project application provides
$1,200 to support a survey of CRP landowners in the Poweshiek
County area. The survey is viewed as a first step in preparing
to help these CRP landowners use this land in ways that are
environmentally sound and financially sustainable.
The survey has been designed, tested, and sent to over 500 CRP
landowners. The response rate as of mid-July was over 60
percent. The results will help the group determine the presence
and condition of buildings, water, and fences, as well as reveal
the intentions of CRP landowners, including their willingness to
talk with beginning farmers.
Poweshiek County is ninth among Iowa counties in the amount of
land in the CRP. Of its 46,646 CRP acres, close to half is
slated to be released for some other use in 1997.
The information gained from the survey will help AG2020 members
develop options for owners of CRP land as it becomes available
for other uses. Of particular interest are opportunities for
grazing and options for establishing new farm families in the
area.
The group would like to eventually build a program in which CRP
landowners, new and current farmers, and town and business people
work to further the sustainable use of this land. Additional
funding from Shared Visions will be available to the group for
the next phase of this project.
The group's effort fits well with the objectives of Shared
Visions. Gene Smith, an Advisory Council member who is president
of the Sloan State Bank, noted about the application, "I liked
it. They've got something coming at them in a year or two, and
they are getting ready."
BEGINNING FARMER INITIATIVE FOR GRUNDY AND HARDIN COUNTIES
The group involved in Shared Visions from the Grundy and Hardin
County area has focused on the problem of an aging farm
population and the lack of successors.
The purpose of their project is to determine the steps a
community can take to help people start farming. The project's
approval provides the group with nearly $3,500 to begin
developing their community-based beginning farmer project.
Four project components are planned. One is a "Program Outline."
This outline will describe (1) expectations of the parties
involved, (2) procedures to identify and match prospective
farmers with owners of land , (3) training and resources
available to develop the required skills in beginners, and (4)
oversight processes and communication requirements to insure
smooth progress of matches.
The group will next develop a "Program Guidebook" that will
document farming practices that can be used to help insure the
success of beginning farmers, such as intensive grazing
management and using manure for fertility requirements. Other
information to be included in the guidebook examples of
alternative leasing arrangements, descriptions of creative
approaches to acquiring the use of equipment, and listings of
resources available both within the community and elsewhere.
The group's project plans include a "Pilot Operation" that will
match a prospective farmer with a landowner to test the program
in a real-life situation. The prospective farmer will prepare a
multi-year business plan that will include, among other things,
anticipated cash-flows and projected borrowing needs.
Documentation of the experience will allow for necessary
adjustments in the program.
The fourth component of the project is a "Community Awareness
Campaign" aimed at gaining the support of people in the area's
business community. This component is important to achieving the
group's ultimate goal, which is to establish a local program of
opportunities and supports for beginning farmers that will become
a normal part of the area's economic and social vitality. ]
GREENFIELD GROUP LAUNCHES NEELY-KINYON RESEARCH FARM
As described in the last issue of this newsletter, a group of
farmers and business people in the Greenfield area has come
together to establish the Neely-Kinyon Research Farm, a gift from
Wayne and Margaret Neely to the Wallace Foundation for Rural
Research and Development. The farm was dedicated June 27 at a
field day attended by several hundred. Speakers at the
ceremonies included David Topel, dean of ISU's college of
Agriculture, and Jerry DeWitt, former director of Extension
agricultural programs. Hay rack tours of the farm visited
demonstrations of grazing, pasture interseeding, forage
stockpiling, narrow strip intercropping, and nitrogen management
for corn.
The farm, which became a Century Farm in 1978, was the boyhood
home of Wayne Neely. He spent his adult working life teaching
sociology at Hood College, in Maryland. During this time, the
farm was managed by Keith and Myrtle Kinyon, and the Neelys have
graciously included the Kinyon name in the farm title. During
his career out of Iowa, Wayne Neely maintained active interest
the in Greenfield community and the farm, particularly the herd
of registered shorthorn cattle. It was out of this interest and
concern that the Neelys donated the farm to the Wallace
Foundation in 1993. The Greenfield community has come together
to make the farm a reality, and those involved see it as a tool
for agricultural development in Adair County. ]
NOTES AND NOTICES
Lubben Named to Leopold Board
David Lubben, a PFI cooperator from Monticello, has been named to
the Advisory Board of the Leopold Center for Sustainable
Agriculture. He and three other new ex officio members will
increase farmer representation on the board. The other new board
members were selcted from the Iowa Farm Bureau, the Farmers
Union, and the Iowa Agribusiness Association. The 17 member
board sets overall policies and direction of research for the
Center. It meets about six times a year. Congratulations to
Dave for agreeing to represent us!
Sustainable Agriculture Library
Harold Wright maintains a personal library on sustainable
agriculture of over 75 books plus books, newsletters, journals,
and magazines. You may have seen some of his references on
display at PFI meetings. They are available for loan to
organizations doing on-farm research, for annual meetings,
workshops, seminars, and other gatherings. Contact Harold at
1718 Clark Ave., Ames, IA 50010, (515) 232-3361.
Pasture Walks in Dubuque and Delaware Counties
Tony Harvey, Extension Dairy/Beef Livestock Field Specialist in
northeast Iowa, sent us information about pasture walks scheduled
for August and September. Pasture walks are an informal exchange
of ideas while walking a pasture. Each will have a different
focus.
August 23
Summer Pasture Management; Pat Freiburger, RR 2, Delhi
September 6
Converting to Pasture and Streambank Stabilization; Bob and Paul
Mueller, 13189 Hammerand Rd., Sherrill
September 20
Late Season Management and Preparing for Winter; Larry Thier,
13938 Hickory Valley Rd., Farley
These walks were organized with the help of Mike Freiburger,
Bloody Run Creek Watershed project coordinator. There is no
cost. For more information, contact the Dubuque County Extension
office at (319) 583-6496.
. . . And a Walk in Wisconsin
1:00-3:00 pm, September 15
Herd Health for Seasonal Pasure-Based Dairying. Tom and Sally
McMahon farm, RR 1, Box 124, Muscoda, Wisconsin (just east of
McGregor, Iowa).
Dr. Greg Brickner will discuss his results from the first year of
study of herd health among pastured dairy cattle. Brickner is
studying reproduction, heifer rearing, forage management, ration
balancing, disease and body condition.
>From Hwy. 14, take Hwy. 171 through the town of Boaz. 1+ miles
past Boaz, turn right on Creek Road. This is the only farm on
Creek Road. For more information contact: Greg Brickner, (608)
647-6837. (Courtesy of Wisconsin Dept. of Agriculture, through
Sustainable Agriculture Program grants.)
August 30 Twilight Tour of Stream Buffer Strip
A research project in northern Story County is examining how to
establish and maintain multi-species stream buffer strips. A
twilight tour of the buffer strip created by this project will be
held on the evening of August 30. To attend, be at the VF
Factory Outlet Mall off I-35 at the Story City exit at 6:15 p.m.
People will carpool four miles east on County Road E15 to the Ron
Risdal farm.
The Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture sponsored this
research project. The tour is a joint effort of ISU Extension
and the Soil Conservation Service in Story, Hamilton, Franklin,
and Hardin Counties. For more information call the ISU Extension
office in one of these counties.
September 8-10 - Rural Church: Cultivating a Promising Future
The 1994 National Catholic Rural Life Gathering will be in Des
Moines on September 8-10. Various presentations, such as "The
Rural Church: The Soul of the Rural Community," will be given.
Also, Rev. Norm White of Dubuque and Rev. John Cain of Sioux City
will be recognized. For more information, call the National
Catholic Rural Life Conference at (515) 270-2634.
Job Announcements
I) A job announcement was recently received from our neighbors
to the west for a half-time position as western Nebraska
organizer for the Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society. The
closing date for applications is September 1. For more
information, call Wyatt Fraas at (402) 254-2289.
II) Program Associate/Education Coordinator, North Central
Sustainable Agriculture Training Program
The associate will: participate in planning with regional project
leaders; organize and conduct regional and state workshops and
other tours and training sessions; access and evaluate a wide
range of teaching materials; prepare learning materials.
Qualifications: M.S. degree or educational equivalent; prior
classroom or extension experience with adult audiences; knowledge
of sustainable agriculture principles and practices; on-farm
experience desirable; non-profit experience desirable. Salary
based on experience, benefits from University of Nebraska.
Contact Dr. Chuck Francis, (402) 472-1581.
III) Iowa State University Extension to Communities will soon be
seeking an Extension Program Specialist for Leadership and
Organizational/Community Development. This position serves the
Practical Farmers of Iowa Shared Visions project. Tasks include:
working with local groups to solicit participation of individuals
and organizations in the project; developing strategies and plans
of action among local community groups to further integrated
farming systems and sustainable agriculture; and organizing and
using local advisory committees. Qualifications include a
successful record of working with diverse community groups and an
M.S. degree or B.S. with equivalent competence in rural
sociology, community development, or closely related area.
Contact the interim Director of Extension to Communities, Dr.
Steven Padgitt, at (515) 294-1122.
Hartwig Named Interim ISU Extension Agriculture Director
Nolan Hartwig, ISU Extension veterinarian, has been named interim
director of ISU Extension to Agriculture effective July 1.
Hartwig succeeds Jerry DeWitt, who is now an extension specialist
for sustainable agriculture.
Hartwig was professor in charge of veterinary extension. He has
been with ISU Extension for 11 years. Before that he served nine
years as faculty member and extension veterinarian for The Ohio
State University. He has also been a supervisor with the US
Department of Agriculture's Meat and Poultry Inspection Program.
Soon after assuming the interim director position, Dr. Hartwig
wrote the following in a message to ISU agriculture Extension
staff and department heads. "I am a strong believer in extension
programs that stress economic development, and are sensitive to
the environment and social issues. Agriculture must be
competitive and profitable, but it also must be sustainable in
the broad sense of the word." ]
PROFITS OF NARROW STRIP INTERCROPPING: 1993
Don Davidson, Grundy Center
I'm sure that 1993 was a year we'd all like to forget. However,
it gave us an opportunity to see how well sustainable farming
systems perform under adverse conditions. In 1992, six PFI
research cooperators initiated narrow strip intercropping (NSI)
demonstrations on their farms in a two-year study supported by
the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture. These
cooperators analyzed the cost, returns, and profits of this
system through the use of the Iowa State University Crop
Enterprise Record system. The results showed that in a very good
year crops in strips produced higher profits ($47 per acre) than
crop in block fields ($32 per acre).
Then came 1993: floods, hail, incessant rain, late planting,
missed cultivations - a brutal year for crop producers. The same
six cooperators continued the NSI demonstrations in 1993 and
analyzed the costs, returns, and profits of the farming system in
a disastrous production year. Surprisingly, NSI still managed to
produce a higher profit per acre ($15.15) than in blocks of
separate crops ($2.36). Unfortunately profits were 1/3 of those
achieved in 1992.
Table 1 (table1.wmf for ftp users) is a summary of the crop
enterprise records from 1993. Four cooperators compared three
crops in strips to the same three crops in block fields (corn,
beans, and small grains). Two cooperators, Alert and
Thompson, compared the three crops in strips to the
conventional corn/soybean rotation in block fields.
As you can see in Figure 1 (figure1.wmf for ftp users), corn
yields were very low, bean yields were below average, and oat
yields were pretty much nonexistent. Fortunately, corn and
bean prices had recovered by harvest time, taking some of the
sting out of the depressing yields.
As in 1992, corn yields in strips were higher than corn yields in
blocks (88.7 bushels per acre versus 77.8 bushels), contributing
to the higher income in strips. Corn production costs were
slightly higher in strips than in blocks ($240.67 vs. $235.61),
but this small difference was more than offset by the difference
in gross income ($272.90 vs. $240.38). I think it's amazing that
cooperators were able to make any profits at these yield levels.
Soybeans were the bright stars for the 1993 crop year. In spite
of the mediocre yields (32.8 bushels per acre for strips and 30.9
bushels for blocks), gross income remained high and costs
remained low, to produce profits that were much higher than
average ($101.72 and $91.92). How was this achieved when the
bean yields were so low? For one thing, good yields at the Mugge
and Olson farms made for higher gross incomes and profits. Tom
and Irene Frantzen had a June hail-out of their beans; however,
they had a good hail insurance policy which compensated them well
for their crop loss. Crop insurance payments are considered to
be a part of the gross crop value at harvest. When the numbers
are averaged out, the result is higher soybean income and
profits.
Oats? Well, as you all know, oats had a terrible year in 1993.
At two of the four three-crop sites, the oats weren't even
harvested, while the other two sites harvested extremely low
yields. Unfortunately, zero crop means negative profits. Every
demonstration site lost money on oats, since land and machinery
costs had to be paid regardless of yield. However, when the
negative oats profits are averaged in with the positive profits
of corn and soybeans, the overall picture is positive.
A different picture emerges from the Thompson and Alert sites,
where the three-crop intercrop system was compared to the
conventional corn-soybean rotation. Here the three crops in
strips were a full $47 per acre more profitable than the
conventional rotation. These two sites had higher costs for corn
and soybeans in block fields and substantially lower yields. The
crop yields in strips at these sites were higher than at the four
other NSI demonstration sites. It is interesting to note that
the oats in strips lost less money than the corn in block fields!
What conclusions can be drawn from enterprise records of NSI?
For two years in a row, the three crops in strips have been more
profitable than the three crops in block fields. And the
profitability of three crops in strips have been equal to or
better than the conventional corn-bean rotation. Corn yields for
both 1992 and 1993 have averaged higher in strips than in block
fields - but not really much higher. Some people may find that
frustrating. Corn yields in 1992 were 14 bushels higher in
strips compared to blocks. In 1993 corn yields were 13 bushels
higher. That's an average 12.5% increase. Some sites (Fig. 1)
seem to have consistent, big increases in corn yield (15%) or
more, while others seem to show much smaller yield increases (10%
or less). Cover crops (I know!) reduced corn yields in some
cases. Also, there was some indication from the 1993 data that
corn strips with a north-south orientation benefited more from
increased sunlight than did east-west strips.
Soybeans seem to be producing better in strips than previous
research had indicated. Are they also benefitting from more
sunlight? My guess is that soybeans might be enjoying the
relative "windlessness" in strips. I'm sure they are benefitting
from the longer crop rotation in the strip systems.
The oats portion of this crop trilogy has been a disappointment.
So far, all they have been good for is increasing light
penetration for the corn strip, providing a place to grow some
nitrogen for the corn, and breaking up soybean disease cycles.
These are all very good reasons to grow oats, but, in the long
run, are they enough? I feel oats profitability must be much
better than it has been the last two years before this cropping
system will be adopted by more farmers. It's good to see that in
a disaster year this system still produced a profit,but how many
farm families could make a living on the $15 per acre profit
generated in 1993, or even the $47 per acre profit generated in
1992?
What is in store for 1994? Some cooperators are looking at
alternative small grains in place of disease-intolerant oats as a
way of increasing profits. Others are seeking to use the oats
for greenchop or postharvest livestock forage, considerably
increasing the value of the strip. Some cooperators are
interested in raising high-value crops in strips, for example,
food-grade, pesticide-free soybeans. We'll harvest the results
and let you know how things turn out! ]
PFI PROFILES: DAN AND LORNA WILSON, COLIN AND CARLA WILSON
Rick Exner
I pull into Dan and Lorna Wilson's driveway at fifteen minutes
before noon, late again. Dan's brother Colin welcomes me, saying
I'm right on time. Dan and Colin, with their wives Lorna and
Carla, farm together in O'Brien County, in northwest Iowa. They
are new cooperators, and I am delivering a PFI sign in
preparation for their field day, August 26.
People begin pouring out of the house and piling onto a van and a
pickup. Dan is here by now, explaining that they're going over
to the Quaker Meeting House for a community dinner. Soon we are
heading down the road, discussing the art of coordinating 14
people and a farm. Dan indicates that serious thought has been
given to a CB radio, but for now mental telepathy works fairly
well. At a crossroads Carla and some more kids pull up, and she
and Colin have a quick conference in the road before she heads
off to join us later.
In the basement of the meeting house a line of youngsters and
adults moves slowly from sloppy joes to desserts and into seats,
all the while catching up on the latest. The dinners are a
spin-off of the weekly quilting group, I learn. My napkin does
double duty as a notepad, as Dan reels off the ages of his
children: Robbin, 17; April, 14; Torray, 12; Faye, 8; and Jaron,
4. Just now most of them are preoccupied with the chickens,
sheep, hogs, and fine arts projects they are taking to the county
fair. I add this to information gained from Colin in the pickup:
David, 16; Becky, 14; Levi, 11; Caleb and Jacob, 9. Also in 4-H,
they are each studying at least one musical instrument,
apparently following the example of Carla, who plays several.
Before the meal is over I've met Dan and Colin's parents, Ernest
and Beth. Ernest started farming with his brothers in the 1940's.
After returning from ISU, Dan began farming with his dad in 1972.
Colin joined them three years later, after studying at ISU and a
small, liberal arts college in Wilmington, Ohio. Their cousins
Doyle and Lowell Wilson, PFI members from Primghar, are another
"brother team" in farming.
After the meal there's just time for a snapshot of the two
families before everyone scatters. Dan and Colin doubtless have
other things to do, but they take the time to show me around
their two farmsteads. Hogs are the mainstay here. "We farm (740
acres of crops) for the feed and the diversity," they say, "but
this is our love!"
They raise purebred boars and gilts on Colin and Carla's place
and produce feeders and finished hogs at Dan and Lorna's. They
have used a cross of Poland and Chester White, but they proudly
point to their first Tamworth sow, which they hope to use for the
mothering ability of the breed and its adaptability to outside
conditions. They feel they can acquire these traits while
maintaining favorable carcass characteristics. A local slaughter
plant is using sonagrams to measure muscle, so they will be able
to track their progress.
Colin leads us into a small confinement unit they bought in 1993
for $20,000 - eight nursery pens and two lactating pens. It's
nearly empty now, although they will bring in fall-farrowed
piglets later. "This is a case," says Dan, "where we bought into
the world's advertising. The vet said we'd love it. Friends
said we'd love it. Well, we don't love it." Concerns include
the working environment, stress-related pig behaviors, and
disease. Next door is a 14-stall farrowing barn. They have
built some of their own pens here, which are easier to clean and
to catch pigs in, they say.
Now it's over to Dan and Lorna's to see the production operation.
It's a small village of A-frames, carrying 120 liters and 100
gestating sows on 17 acres of orchardgrass/alfalfa. Some of
these A-frames, I'm told, were purchased 28 years ago for $35
each. One recent modification to increase the houses' longevity
is the iron cross-brace at the entrance. More recently, the
Wilsons were featured in New Farm Magazine, and the plans for
their A-frame hog house have been among the items most requested
at the magazine.
"People think they'll put hogs out on pasture and forget them,"
says Dan. "To make the system work, you have to provide ample
straw bedding when it's needed, open and close A-frame doors
about twice a day, watch the stocking density, and rotate to new
pasture when appropriate." The kids are important in the
day-to-day management tasks.
The Wilsons calculate their breakeven cost, including living
expense, at $32 per cwt. Participants in the Iowa Farm Business
Association, they know that their return on feed cost is "at the
top of the chart," and their return to labor is in the top
one-third of producers. This statistic bears on the argument
that pasture farrowing is too labor intensive.
The hog pastures are presently part of a three-year crop
rotation. Because they think weed pressure is building, Colin
and Dan are considering including an extra year of hay in the
rotation. We tour a field where part of the soybeans were
ridge-tilled and part were planted with an air seeder and drill
units on a field cultivator. The solid-seeded beans will have to
yield an extra five bushels to pay for the higher seeding rate,
but they were tried here because the crops weren't ridged in
1993.
They have even adapted ridge tillage to fields with terraces that
their dad built. More than once in our conversation, Dan and
Colin credit their father's example. "He was willing to be a
little different, he was a perfectionist, and he kept good
records. He started pasture farrowing 30 years ago, at a time
when all the interest was in confinement."
Not content with their success in pasture farrowing, the Wilsons
are studying the "Swedish system" of hog production. This is a
confinement system, but it provides ample bedding, more space,
and stable groupings of sows to reduce stress and take advantage
of pig psychology. In September, Dan and Lorna will travel to
Sweden with a group led by University of Minnesota researcher
Marlene Halverson. "We just did some five and ten-year goal
setting," explains Colin. One goal is to allow our kids to farm
if they want." The Swedish production methods may help that
happen, since there are many unused buildings in the area that
could be adapted to the system.
Dan and Lorna Wilson, Colin and Carla Wilson and their families
are farming together successfully and enjoying the life of their
community. Like many PFI members, they are pursuing agricultural
sustainability, and they are planning for the sustainability of
farming in the next generation. ]
THE TRANSITION TO SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE IN IOWA, PART II: CORN
PRODUCTION
Rick Exner
The last issue of the Practical Farmer reported results of a
study carried out by PFI, Iowa State University, and
organizations in four other states for the Northwest Area
Foundation. That article focused on soil fertility, weed seed
numbers in the soil, and the late season corn stalk nitrate test,
comparing 95 sustainable and conventional
("production-maximizing") farmers. These farmers were chosen
from an initial cross section sample of 1,067 producers and 169
members of sustainable agriculture organizations. Ranking on a
sustainable-conventional scale was based on nine criteria related
to farming practices and two measures of attitudes. The 169
farmers were chosen not to be representative of their
organizations but to provide an "anchor" of examples on the
sustainable end of the scale.
The Iowa study focused on corn - simply because it is a "common
denominator" that can be compared across most farms. The
previous article showed that, while sustainable farmers were less
likely to have soil tests in the excessive range, many farmers of
both types could profitably cut back on fertility amendments. It
also noted that weed seeds were more prevalent in the soil of
sustainable corn fields but were not correlated with corn yields
in the study year of 1991.
To many people, however, these statistics are of secondary
interest. The real question to them is "bottom line profit."
What does it matter if soil tests and input costs are high if the
yields are great? This is a line of reasoning you may recognize
from your own coffee shop. You may also remember headlines like
"Alternative Farming Less Profitable," that reported study data
but really didn't go beyond yields to get to net profit. ISU
researchers and their PFI advisors made sure from the beginning
that this project would look at production costs as well as
yields.
Detailed information on production costs were gathered for the
1989 crop year on a "typical" corn field designated by each
respondent. In 1991, researchers actually went to the field to
measure yields and soil characteristics. Between typical 1989
production costs and 1991 yields, a hypothetical net profit can
be reached, but it should be kept in mind that costs and yield
actually came from different years.
Here's the long and short of it: sustainable farmers had
significantly lower 1991 corn yields than conventional farmers,
and they also had significantly lower production costs.
Combining 1989 costs and 1991 yields, the bottom line net profit
was not statistically different between sustainable farmers and
production maximizers. Figure 2 (figure2.wmf for ftp users)
shows overall costs, yields, and theoretical partial net for the two
groups. Figure 3 (figure3.wmf) details production costs for:
1) conventional farmers, chosen through the cross-section sample
of the farming population;
2) sustainable farmers selected through the cross-section sample;
3) members of two sustainable agriculture groups (PFI and the
Farm 2000 group in Poweshiek County); and
4) members of two organic-sustainable organizations (Iowa Organic
Crop Improvement Association and Iowa Organic Growers and
Buyers Association).
These costs include: nitrogen (including manure N), herbicides
and insecticides, application of these inputs, labor and
machinery from field preparation to harvest but not harvest
itself, and corn drying costs. Not included here are costs for
harvesting, other fertilizers, and land.
Conventional farmers tended to spend more on nitrogen and
pesticides. Sustainable farmers spent more on planting and later
operations. Overall, selected production costs for the three
sustainable groupings was $24-$32 less than for the conventional
farmers. PFI and Farm 2000 producers ("Sustainable orgs." in the
figure) spent less than the other three groups on preplant tillage.
In fact, Figure 4 (figure4.wmf) shows that, based on this fairly
small and nonrandom sample, participating PFI members enjoyed
as good or better net profits from corn production as other
conventional and sustainable groups.
These averages for yields, costs, etc. obscure the fact that
within each group there is a wide distribution. In fact, there
are more differences among farmers within these groups than there
are between group averages.
Among the 95 farmers, we looked for the top-yielding and
low-yielding quarters in the sustainable group and in the
conventional group (Figure 5, or figure5.wmf for ftp users).
These quartiles amounted to only about a dozen farmers each, but
you can see that the high-yield quarter of both groups resembled
each other in yield and net profit more than they looked like the
low-yield quartile in their own group. Also, the low-yield
sustainables ended up with a better bottom line than did the
low-yield conventional farmers. The difference is largely due to
lower production costs among those sustainable farmers.
This study is showing that:
1) the bottom line net profit in corn production is similar among
Iowa farmers pursuing sustainable and conventional
(production-maximizing) agriculture;
2) sustainable farmers tend toward a strategy of reducing costs,
while conventional farmers tend to look for profitability
through yield;
3) the categories "sustainable" and "conventional" encompass
great variability, with differences between the groups being
less than differences among farmers within each group.
In the next article, we will look again at the characteristics of
sustainable and conventional farmers, sketching a picture of each
group and examining attributes of success. ]
WHAT KIND OF "SUSTAINABILITY" DO WE WANT?
Thayne Cozart
(Editors' note: This article contains the views of Thayne Cozart
on the term "sustainability." Mr. Cozart is director of
communications for the National Farmers Organization.)
The term "sustainable" brings to mind different images and
definitions for various groups and individuals in agriculture.
Since the term itself is being used more and more these days,
perhaps we need to review three separate definitions.
For instance, many farmers have switched or are switching from
what they call "conventional" production to what they call
"sustainable" production. To these folks, "sustainable" means
crops and livestock that are "organically grown" using no
artificial fertilizers, pesticides, antibiotics or growth
stimulants. To them, sustainable means ag production by
"natural" means. They believe that American consumers are
becoming more health conscious and are willing to create a
growing market for commodities grown under "sustainable"
conditions.
On the other end of the production spectrum are farmers who
interpret "sustainability" in the same way, only they reject the
idea, rather than embrace it. They believe that their farms are
incapable of generating enough income unless they use many
production-enhancing technologies. These farmers believe
consumers don't pay much attention to how food is grown so long
as it's cheap, eye-appealing and plentiful.
There's another definition of "sustainability" that some
economists and rural sociologists are using with more frequency.
It has nothing to do with production methods. It refers to the
ability of farm families, rural communities, and rural beliefs
and values to sustain themselves from one generation to the next.
That's the definition of "sustainability" that makes the most
sense to me. Just what do we want to sustain in rural America?
Do we want to sustain the family farm structure with its wide
distribution of land, people and benefits? Do we want to sustain
rural communities with their schools, churches, 4-H clubs, FFA
chapters, small businesses and cultural heritages? Do we want to
sustain such qualities of life as clean air, clean water, peace
and quiet, and neighborliness?
If we do, then we need to scrap the arguments about sustainable
production and concentrate on simply sustaining the rural America
that we all enjoy and value so highly. ]
FOOTPRINTS OF A GRASS FARMER
Shaping Our Mental Attitude
Tom Frantzen, Alta Vista
The process of changing our farms into profitable, diverse, and
stable operations is what most people regard as the development
of a sustainable agriculture. The basic tenet of this philosophy
is that our agricultural activities need to be harmonious with
nature, economically viable, and a core element in sustaining our
rural communities. With these concepts in mind, I would like to
share some thoughts on how we can shape our mental images in a
fashion that will improve our prospects of farming the kind of
agriculture we want to see.
"If your only tool is a hammer, you will view all of your
problems as nails" (anonymous source). If your only crops are
corn and soybeans - and confinement hogs to feed them to - then
you tend to see anything else in your fields as weeds or unwanted
pests. Most of the people in the sustainable community realize
that we need more tools (crop diversity) in row crop production.
On our farm, we have made a serious effort to broaden our row
crop spectrum with grain amaranth and narrow strip intercropping.
This is a difficult challenge with poor grain prices and
undeveloped alternative crop markets. However, if we can alter
the way we see our activities as farmers, we can open up new
possibilities for profit. For example, "pesty weeds" like Canada
thistle, quackgrass, and lambsquarter, hated and attacked with
every expensive means known in row crop agriculture, become
"crops" when they appear in our planned grazing cells. If these
cells can produce livestock at a profit, then a great stride is
taken on the path to sustainability. Weeds, with no seed,
fertilizer, or maintenance expense, become a diversification crop
after we alter the way we view our occupation.
Another way to improve on our mental image of sustainable
agriculture would be to see our operations as an "economic
airplane." Consider a single engine plane on a long journey.
Everything rides on one power source. There isn't anything that
the people on board wouldn't do to maintain performance. Even if
some of the "tinkering" would cause more troubles long term, that
engine must perform!
Now a sustainable operation should be managed with the concept of
a multiple engine plane on a very long journey. Flight on this
economic aircraft is powered by four or more engines or economic
enterprises. If one powerplant develops difficulty, the
remaining ones carry us along. A quick-fix cure, like excessive
reliance on chemicals or nonrenewable resources, would be avoided
by the flight crew because they would see that long term, the
quick cure may cause another set of more serious difficulties.
The cycles of natural biological processes becomes the mechanic
on board. The flight crew of the sustainable plane know that
nature seldom strikes all of its enterprises at one time.
With this view in mind, we seek out opportunities to diversify
our farms. We as a family desire to change our agricultural
practices and help stabilize our rural community. It is
critically important that we avoid seeing ourselves as victims of
financial circumstances. If we see ourselves as victims, we will
in time become as such. Perhaps the most important improvement
that we can all make is to shape our mental image in a positive
fashion. We need to view our operations as a tract of land that
harvests the energy of the sun and transforms it into saleable
products in a sustainable manner. ]
FROM THE KITCHEN
Marj Stonecypher, Floyd
Time out of my busy schedule to send you all a couple more
recipes from my kitchen, where I don't seem to have much time to
spend. Kids coming for horseback handicap therapy, weeds, lawn
mowing, checking cattle twice a day and moving them every other
day, and Ray keeps me hopping.
Did you have a chance to try the baked Spinach Casserole a couple
of newsletters back? I've changed it a bit, added one cup of
fresh broccoli stems and four packed cups of fresh spinach
(instead of frozen). Cook in the microwave until done. Mix in 3
tablespoons butter, 4 oz. cream cheese, and 1/2 to 3/4 cup
stuffing. Micro one minute or 'till butter and cheese is melted.
Mix 1/2 to 3/4 cup more stuffing and melted butter (amount you
desire) together and put on top. Microwave 1 minute. This is
easier and faster than baking. You can add more of cheese,
butter and dressing to your taste (or decrease).
Note: Cut fresh spinach off, leaving at least 3" of stem. It
will come back.
Now to keep cool, try this:
Banana Split Dessert
3 large bananas
1/2 gallon vanilla ice cream
1 cup chopped nuts
1 cup choc. chips
1/2 cup butter
2 cups powdered sugar
1 1/2 cups evaporated milk
1 tsp. vanilla
1 large Cool Whip
Crumb crust:
3 cups graham cracker crumbs
6 Tbsp. sugar
2/3 cup butter, melted
Cover 11 x 15" pan with crumb crust (save 1 cup for top). Cover
with layer of banana, sliced cross-ways. Slice 1/2" slices of
ice cream over bananas and sprinkle chopped nuts; freeze. Cook
choc. chips, butter, milk and powder sugar until thick. Add
vanilla; cool. Pour over ice cream; freeze. Spread with cool
whip and top with reserved crumbs. Keeps for weeks in freezer.
(Note: choc. chip mixture is also a good hot fudge topping for
ice cream, if you don't want to make the rest of the dessert.
This can be cooked in the microwave). ]
PFI MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION AND RENEWAL FORM
Name _______________________________________
Address ______________________________________
City _________________________________________
County ______________________________________
State _________________________________________
Zip Code ____________________________________
Phone # _________________________________________
This is a _____ new membership
_____ renewal
Do you derive a significant part of your income directly from
farming in Iowa?
_____ yes _____ no
Please enclose check or money order ($10 for one year, $25 for
three years) payable to "Practical Farmers of Iowa" and mail to:
Practical Farmers of Iowa
2035 190th St.
Boone, IA 50036
CORRESPONDENCE
Correspondence to the PFI directors' addresses is always welcome.
Member contributions to the Practical Farmer are also welcome and
will be reviewed by the PFI board of directors.
OFFICERS AND STAFF
District 1 (Northwest): Paul Mugge, 6190 470th St., Sutherland,
51058. (712) 446-2414.
District 2 (North Central): Raymond Stonecypher, 1321 March Ave.,
Floyd, IA, 50435-8058. (515) 398-2417.
District 3 (Northeast): Laura Krouse, 1346 Springville Rd., Mt.
Vernon, IA 52314. (319) 895-6924.
District 4 (Southwest): Vic Madsen, PFI President, 2186 Goldfinch
Ave., Audubon, 50025. (712) 563-3044.
District 5 (Southeast): Jeff Olson, PFI Vice President, 2273
140th St., Winfield, 52659. (319) 257-6967.
Associate board member for District 2: Don Davidson, RR 1, Box
133, Grundy Center, IA, 50638. (319) 824-6347.
Associate board member for District 3: Walter Ebert, RR 1, Box
104, Plainfield, 50666. (319) 276-4444.
Associate board member for District 5: David Lubben, RR 3, Box
128, Monticello, IA 52310. (319) 465-4717.
PFI Treasurer: Dick Thompson, 2035 190th St., Boone, 50036.
(515) 432-1560.
Coordinators: Rick Exner, Gary Huber, Room 2104, Agronomy Hall,
ISU, Ames, Iowa, 50011. (515) 294-1923
Internet: dnexner@iastate.edu.
Public Relations Coordinator: Maria Vakulskas Rosmann, 1222
Ironwood Rd., Harlan, 51537. (712) 627-4653.