W.K. Kellogg Foundation

Integrated Farming Systems–Phase I

Testing, Demonstrating, and Promoting IFS Production Practices—Vision and Change

P a g e 2

Ack n owl e d ge m e n t sThese reports were taken from the cluster evaluation report writ-ten by David Scheie and a team at Rainbow Research, Inc., aM i n n e apolis-based nonprofit orga n i z ation providing eva l u ation.

Mark LelleOran HestermanTom ThorburnRick Foster

This is the second in a series of five reports on the first phase of theW.K. Kellogg Fo u n d a t i o n’s Integrated Fa rming Systems (IFS) initiative.It highlights project strategies for building collaborative re l a t i o n s h i p sand describes the results of these strategies and lessons learn e d .

On the cover: Hoop-houses, such as the one on this cover, were tested as an alternative to rais-ing pigs in climate-controlled confinement houses.

P a g e 3

P rojects by State

P roject Name G r a n t e e Key Initial Partners

Arkansas Land & Farm Arkansas Land & Farm University of Arkansas at Pine BluffDevelopment Corporation Development Corporation

California Alliance for University of California, California Institute for Rural Studies, University of California/Berkeley,Sustainable Agriculture Santa Cruz Bio-Integral Research Center, Rural Development Center, Lodi-Woodbridge

Winegrape Commission, California Alliance with Family Farmers

Georgia: The SE Region Alternative University of Georgia Fort Valley State College, Federation of Southern Cooperatives, Tuskegee Agriculture Project University, florida A&M University, North Florida Educational Development

Iowa: Shared Visions: Farming for Practical Farmers of Iowa Iowa State University Extension, Leopold Center for Sustainable AgricultureBetter Communities

Kansas: Heartland Network Kansas Rural Center Land Institute, Kansas State University

Kentucky Leadership for Agricultural & Community Farm University of Kentucky College of Agriculture, Berea College BrushyEnvironmental Sustainability Alliance, Inc. Fork Institute, Kentucky Farm Bureau, Center for Sustainable Systems

Massachusetts: Community Involved Hampshire College University of Massachusetts, US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) Conservation Service, Earth Arts Institute, New England Small Farm Institute,

Nuestras Raices, Institute for Science & Interdisciplinary Studies

Maryland/Delaware: Future Harvest: Chesapeake Bay Foundation American Farmland Trust, Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage, University of Delaware,Farming for Profit & Sustainability University of Maryland, MD Organic Farm & Food Association

Michigan Integrated Food & Farming Michigan Agricultural Michigan Department of Agriculture, Michigan State Extension, Michigan State Systems (MIFFS) Stewardship Association University College of Agriculture & Natural Resources, Michigan Environmental

Council, Michigan Farm Bureau, Natural Resource Conservation Service

Minnesota: Stewardship Farming Program Land Stewardship Project Minnesota State Department of Agriculture, Minnesota Extension Service,University of Minnesota, Sustainable Farming Association of Minnesota

Montana/Idaho/Washington: Alternative Energy Resources Palouse Clearwater Environment Institute, Idaho Rural Council, Montana State Northwest Ag Options Network Organization University, Gaining Ground Coalition

North Carolina:Partners in Agriculture: North Carolina Association Carolina Farm Stewardship Association,Rural Southern Voice for Peace,Sustaining Farms & Rural Communities of Black Lawyers Rural Advancement Foundation, North Carolina Coalition of

Farm & Rural Families, Inc. North Carolina State University,North Carolina AT&T State University

Nebraska IMPACT Project Center for Rural Affairs Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Ohio: The Darby Project The Nature Conservancy Operation Future Association, Ohio State University Extension,30 Partner Organizations

Oregon: The Food Alliance Oregon State University Washington State University, Stemilt Growers, Cascadian Farms, Oregon State University Extension, AGRIPAC, Inc., Pacific Green, Puget Sound Consumers Co-Op, Washington Toxics Coalition

Pennsylvania: Regional Infrastructure Reading Terminal Farmers’ SANRUE (Penn State & Rodale Institute Center for Sustaining for Sustaining Agriculture (RISA) Market Trust Agriculture & Natural Resources in Urbanizing Environments),

Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture

Washington: Holistic Management Washington State University Colville Confederated Tribes

Wisconsin Integrated Cropping University of Wisconsin Michael Fields Agriculture Institute, The Lakeland Agricultural ComplexSystems Trial (WICST)

P a g e 4

The Integrated Farming Systems Initiative

The Integrated Farming Systems (IFS) initiative grew out of a KelloggFoundation analysis concluding that the U.S. farming system had char-acteristics that, although widely accepted, suggested long-term p ro b-lems for fa rm e rs and consumers. These included dep e n d e n cy on culti-vating a single crop rather than on diverse crops, over reliance on purchased inputs (such as feed, equipment, and agrichemicals), anda focus on producing ever-higher yields per acre, at times withoutregard to impact on the soil and environment. While farmers withinthat system have produced plentiful quantities of food and fiber at rel-atively low prices, this approach has been linked to:

• soil loss;

• nutrient depletion in soils;

• contamination of surface water and groundwater;

• health risks for farmers, neighbors, and consumersthrough exposure to toxic chemicals;

• low profitability for many farmers with small and mid-sized farms;

• decline of opportunities for beginning farmers because of low returns on capital investments;

• decreases in the number of small and medium-sized farms and, therefore, in rural populations; and,

• demise of rural, agricultural communities.

The Foundation envisioned, instead, a more “integrated” farming system that combined preserving the environment; protecting thehealth of fa rm e rs, their fa m i l i e s, n e i g h b o rs, and consumers ; p rov i ding adecent income and a high quality of life; sustaining vigorous rural com-munities; and producing plentiful, nutritious, affordable food.

P a g e 5

It was believed that this more integratedsystem would improve incomes andhelp small and mid-sized farmersstay in business. In 1993, when the IFS initiative began to take shape,the beginnings of such a newintegrated food production system was alre a dy visible across the country.For example, growing numbers offarmers were beginning to rely lesson costly chemicals and more on free or less-expensive compostingresources, which not only saved moneybut also improved soil texture. Moreagricultural organizations and networks were starting to advise the useof integrated farming practices. In addition, environmental organiza-tions, such as The Nature Conservancy, were showing greater interestin food and farming issues and were constructively engaged in improv-ing the outlook for small and medium-sized farms. And at both the U.S. Department of Agriculture and many land grant universities, policy and institutional support for integrated farmingmethods were increasing.

In 1985, for the first time, a federal farm bill coming out of the U.S. Congress included policy and funding support for what senatorsand representatives called “sustainable” (integrated) agriculture systems.These provisions were strengthened in the 1990s with more funding forsustainable agriculture research and education. Many land grant univer-sities started directing their energies toward establishing new frame-works for thinking about farming systems that would help the s m a l land medium-sized fa rm e rs to surv ive. At the same time, c o nsumer sup-port for food and fiber produced with few or no chemicals was increasing as the “natural foods” industry began emerging as a growth sector.

P a g e 6

With all this new organizational and institutional support, the KelloggFoundation strategists asked why the features defined in the IFS initia-tive were not more prevalent. They concluded that adoption of thenew paradigm was being impeded by technical, institutional, policy,economic, community, and attitudinal barriers.

In response to this concl u s i o n , the Ke l l ogg Fo u n d ation began wo rking t oove rcome these obstacles and began its I F S i n i t i at ive with two go a l s :

• to help fa rm e rs adopt more integrated and re s o u rc e - e ff icient farming systems that maintain agricultural productivity and profitability while protecting the environment and

personal health, and

• to assist farmers and others in rural communities to e m p ower themselves to add ress the barr i e rs associated with adopting more resource-efficient and integrated farming systems so that these systems could become a foundation on which to revitalize and rebuild the economic and community bases of rural America.

By 1994, the Kellogg Foundation had funded 18 Phase 1 IFS p ro j e c t sa round the country. The Fo u n d ation re q u i red that these projects be (a) comprehensive, (b) collaborative, and (c) community-based.Each would (a) focus on several barriers with an overall goal of chang-ing present farming systems; (b) involve multiple partners, i n clude atm i n i mum a re s e a rch institution (usually a land grant university), oneor more community-based or nonprofit organizations, and farmers; and(c) feature farmers and rural community membersand their organizations in central roles.

Strategies

P a g e 7

IFS project groups used five strategies to change agricultural practices among farmers:

• building collaborative relationships;

• testing and promoting IFS production practices;

• stimulating institutional and policy change;

• building leadership capacities; and,

• developing markets for IFS-produced farm goods.

Who Was Involved?

IFS project participants included fa rm e rs and citize n s, c o m mu n i t y -basedand other nongove rnmental orga n i z ations (N G O s) , land grant u n ive rsities(LGUs), and other mainstream agricultural and rural institutions.

Farmers and Citizens

Most IFS farmers were involved in integrated agriculture before the ini-tiative began. On the whole, most participating farmers blended con-ventional or mainstream practices with integrated practices.

Generally speaking, IFS farmers had smaller rather than larger acreages,farmed diversified rather than specialized crop and livestock systems,were younger rather than older, and more reliant on on-farm inputsthan on purchased inputs. They tended to be innovators and earlyadopters of new strategies and technologies, and independent ratherthan contract producers. About half of the projects included ruralcommunity members who were not farmers.

Community-Based and Other Nongovernmental Organizations

P a g e 8

P a g e 9

Almost all projects involved at least one and sometimes several NGOst h at focused either on sustainable agr i c u l t u re or agr i c u l t u ral communitydevelopment. Some had primarily a farmer constituency, while othershad a more heterogeneous rural/urban mix.

Three projects included major national environmental organizations. Afew projects included mainstream agriculture NGOs, such as state FarmBureaus, the Farmers Union, or growers’ cooperatives. Farmworkerorganizations were represented in the California and Massachusettsprojects. Consumer-based NGOs or co-ops were partners in three pro j-e c t s. M o re often, c o n s u m e rs part i c i p ated in small nu mbers as interestedindividuals without an organized voice.

Virtually all projects had one or more NGOs and its top staff involved atthe heart of its leadership. Most used project grant funds to pay forproject staff.

Land Grant Universities and Other Research Institutions

The land grant university system is distinguished by its provisions fo ragr i c u l t u ral re s e a rch , t e a ch i n g, and community extension educat i o n . Everystate has an LGU established by 1862 law. A dditional 1 8 9 0 l aws e s t ab-lished sep a rate LG Us for A f r i c a n -A m e r i c a n s. S t ates with historically s i g n i f i-cant African-American fa rming populations have both 1 8 6 2 and 1 8 9 0 LG Us.All 1 8 I F S p rojects fe atured 1862 LGU involvement.

Other Public Institutions

One third of the 18 projects included their state Department ofAgriculture as a governing partner, and most of the rest activelyworked with their state agriculture departments. State environmental,h e a l t h , or economic development agencies we re often part n e rs in s p ec i f i cs u b p ro j e c t s, though ra re ly invo l ved on project steering committees.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Natural ResourcesConservation Service (NRCS) emerged as a major collaborator in more than a third of the IFS projects. NRCS has a network of region-al or county conservationists, similar to the Cooperative ExtensionService of LGUs. Their organization focuses on soil and water con-servation issues, and it publicized and helped fund IFS practices as away to achieve its soil and water conservation goals.It also started using IFS farmers and NGOs to provide training for NRCS staff.

Another public jurisdiction, the Federated Tribes of the ColvilleRe s e rvation in Washington Stat e, was a major partner in one pro ject.

Participation by Major Agribusiness Corporations

About a third of the projects featured active relationships with e s t ablished processing or marketing corp o rat i o n s, s u ch as superm a rketch a i n s, fa rm e rs ’ m a rke t s, and fruit and vege t able packe rs and s h i pp e rs. These re l ationships often developed as projects sought to enlarge market opportunities for farm goods produced using sustainable methods.

P a g e 1 0

P a g e 1 1

IFS Phase 1 Results Fa rms Changed Practices

IFS Phase 1 involved between 80 and 1,200 farmers per project.Between 50 percent and 80 percent of these made changes in favor of more integrated and sustainable farming operations.

Acreages varied from fruit and vegetable farms of less than 10 acresto cash-grain and grazing operations of several thousand acres. Onaverage, each of the 18 projects had an impact on about 66,000 acres.

New Agronomic Te c h n i q u e s

Project directors reported that the most common technical changes,influenced by IFS experiences, included improved grazing systems, useof cover crops, and tillage reductions.

Techniques for improving crop rotations and composting animalwastes also were implemented in several projects. In addition,elements of integrated pest management (IPM), such as scouting forpest levels, planting companion crops to attract beneficial insects, andinstalling owl houses to control gophers, also were adopted by manyfruit and vegetable growers in the IFS network.

Most of these practices—grazing, cover crops, rotations, composting,IPM—contributed to reduced chemical use. Cover crops and longerrotations broke up pest cycles, reducing the need for pesticides.Farmers began using beneficial insects and other biological controls i nplace of chemical pesticides. G ra z i n g, c o m p o s t i n g, “ green manu re ”cover crops, and rotations with legumes all improved soil health andreduced or eliminated the need for synthetic fertilizer.

P a g e 1 2

M a ny fa rm e rs combined seve ral or all of these practices to tra n s fer to certified organic farming, which completely avoids synthetic chemicals and additives. With price premiums available for most organ-ic crops, there was a strong market incentive for this path.

For example, acres under organic cultivation in Iowa grew from 13,000in 1995 to 62,000 in 1997. Farms certified “organic” by the MarylandDepartment of Agriculture increased from six farms in 1991 to 51 in 1997. The average organic farm size in Maryland also increased from 41 acres in 1991 to 50 acres in 1997, increasingthe total certified organic acreage from 246 acres in 1991 to 2,550acres in 1997.

Many IFS participants worked to develop farming systems that hadeven more comprehensive stewardship standards than those for organ-ic certification. Two noteworthy examples were The Food Alliance inthe Pacific Nort h west and the Califo rnia pro j e c t . C a l i fo rnia pro j e c tp a rt n e rs, the Califo rnia Alliance with Fa m i ly Fa rm e rs and the Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission, helped enact a state agriculture program called Biologically Integrated FarmingSystems (BIFS). BIFS supports research and demonstrations of farmingpractices that improve water and soil conservation as well as reduceschemical use. The Food Alliance’s stewardship guidelines coveredhuman resources management, including treatment of farm workers,along with soil and water management and pest controls.

P a g e 1 3

Some other agronomic techniques that were tested and adopted, andthe testing locations, include:

• band spraying of herbicides, using nozzles that spray directlyin 10-inch bands over the crop row s, l owering cost of p e s t icides and herbicides and reducing environmental problems from overspraying (MD/DE);

• flame control of we e d s, using a torch instead of herbicides (M N) ;

• soil testing to guide fertilizer applications, which lowers cost and benefits the environment (GA, IA);

• drip irrigation to conserve water (CA, NC);

• precision farming, which maps fields on a grid according to soil types, then uses equipment calibrated so that each area re c e ives the precise amounts of fe rt i l i zer and pesticides (A R , M I) ;

• using grazing sheep to renovate strawberry fields, rather than discs and herbicides, producing an on-farm foragesource and reducing herbicide use (MA);

• new mulching practices, including living mulches such as clover, which can fix nitrogen in the soil (MT);

• installing “hoop-house” hog facilities, a lower-cost method of providing space for hogs (IA, NE); and,

• shifting calving cycles to take advantage of grazing opportunities, which are best in the spring, and whichlower off-farm purchases (WA).

The expansion of hog hoop-houses was especially dramatic in Iowa. Inthat large pork-producing state, the number of hoop-houses grew fromalmost none in 1993 to an estimated 1,500 by 1998.

P a g e 1 4

New Crops and Bre e d s

IFS farmers in many regions shifted to horticulture from cash grain and livestock. In urban-fringe areas, such as the area aroundChesapeake Bay, western Massachusetts, and the North CarolinaPiedmont area, changes offered a way to generate higher revenue peracre. In North Carolina and Kentucky, where traditional crops such ast o b a c c o, with its attendant health concern s, we re losing market viab i li t y,many farmers expanded into fruit and vegetable production. TheKentucky project also investigated industrial fibers, including kenaf andhemp, as alternatives to tobacco. Limited-resource farmers in Arkansasand Georgia shifted from capital-intensive, low-revenue crops to high-er-profit vegetables that required less machinery.

Wisconsin, Nebraska, and other cash-grain IFS farming regions i n t ro-duced legumes and fo rages into their ro t at i o n s. These crops are not onlyviable in themselves, they take nitrogen from the air and distribute it to the soil, which is then replenished. In Montana, pea andlentil production increased from 1,500 acres in the early 1990s to 100,000acres by 1998. The Montana Dry Pea and Lentil Growers A s s o c i at i o nexpanded from 4 0 to 1 0 0 m e m b e rs between 1 9 9 3 and 1 9 9 7.

In southern Kentucky, a group of hog farmers shifted to a leaner strainof hogs. Some dairy farmers across the network shifted from Holsteinsto breeds such as Guernsey and Brown Swiss cows thatare better grazers.

W h o l e - Fa rm Planning

A change to whole-farm planning was inherent in the shift to longerrotations, which gave the soil time to recover from one crop whilegrowing another, and integrated cropping with livestock and organicsystems. Farmers improved their skills in using complementarycrops and resource management techniques so that outputs of one subsystem became inputs to another (as livestock eat crops), and one subsystem’s “waste” became a valued contributor to another (as manure fertilizes fields).

With whole-farm planning came skills in integrating multiple-profitcenters. IFS farmers began focusing on quality-of-life goals and notsimply yield or profit indicators as they involved family membersin the change and nurtured the next generation of farmers. Usingwhole-farm planning, family members could choose to take part in thefarming practices that they enjoyed most, such as spending more timewith animals and less with machinery, or the reverse.

Several projects sponsored training and organized support networks forfarmers in specific models of whole-farm planning. HolisticManagement training, adapted from the Center for Holistic ResourceManagement in New Mexico, was the centerpiece of the WashingtonState project. Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa, and the Maryland/Delawareprojects also featured workshops or “learning circles” on adoptingwhole-farm planning. In the Ohio and Pennsylvania projects, manyfarms adopted comprehensive nutrient management plans.

P a g e 1 5

The following paragraphs summarize otherexamples of farming practice changes andtheir impacts:

In Lincoln County, Kentucky, small-scale dairy farmers who replaced grainwith intensive grazing raised their netincome as much as $11,000 per farm.The Lodi-Woodbridge WinegrapeCommission, involving over 6 5 0 grow-e rs who produce nearly 20 p e rcent ofC a l i fo rn i a ’s winegrapes on 46,000 acres,established a district-wide IntegratedPest Management (IPM) program, thefirst of its kind in the winegrape

industry. By 1997, over half the acreage in the district was using at least one of the IPM strategies promoted by thecommission. Monthly grower-e d u c ation programs sponsored by thecommission commonly at t ra c t e d 60 or more participants. The commission was awarded an “IPM Innovator” award from Cal-EPA’sDepartment of Pesticide Regulation.

In the Darby Creek watershed in Ohio, the use of soil conservationp ractices increased from 4 0 , 0 0 0 a c res in 1 9 9 2 to 1 1 7 , 0 0 0 a c res by 1 9 9 6.This change represented 45 percent of total cropland in the watershed.Nutrient and pest management plans were adopted on 14,654 acres, and36,000 acres had been brought under resource management systemsplans. In addition, 563 acres of filter strips were planted and 18 newwetlands were created. Overland sediment transport (a soil erosionindicator) was reduced by 35,000 tons per year, and the s t re a m s ’ ra reand endange red species populations have remained steady.

P a g e 1 6

P a g e 1 7

Lessons and Insights

Limitations of the IFS Phase 1 Approach

While IFS Phase 1 showed many strengths, there were some actions it did not take, some tools it did not use much. We would offer the following observations on the limitations of the Phase 1 approach:

• IFS Phase 1 did not take full advantage of existing regional and national networks of IFS change agents.

• IFS Phase 1 focused relatively limited attention on changing regional and national dimensions of food and farming systems—possibly as a consequence of the focus on state-level collaborations.

• IFS Phase 1 did not take full advantage of media and public communications strategies. Instead, Phase 1emphasized person-to-person, relationship-based,word-of-mouth communications.

• IFS Phase 1 included little meaningful participation by two important food system constituencies: consumersand farm workers.

P a g e 1 8

Epilogue

Progress since Phase 1

Individuals and organizations involved in IFS Phase 1 continue to t ra n s fo rm the U. S. food and fa rming system, although Ke l l oggFo u n d ation funding for Phase 1 projects officially was completed in1998. However, under the banner of IFS Phase 2, the Foundation issupporting much of this continuing work. The Kellogg Foundationbegan making Phase 2 grants in late 1996, and by the end of 1998, hadinvested in 20 Phase 2 projects and four re l ated pro j e c t s. Some o f these projects ended in 1 9 9 8 or 1 9 9 9 ; others will continue into 2002 or2003.

Although more dive rs e, these Phase 2 p rojects are building substantiallyon the experience of Phase 1 p a rt i c i p a n t s. Some focus on policych a n ge, o t h e rs on market ch a n ge s, o t h e rs emphasize media and c o m mu n i c ations wo rk . A handful integrates all these elements,combining a local farming model with marketing, policy, and c o m mu n i c ations strat eg i e s. O t h e rs focus on netwo rking or bu i l d i n gknowledge and skills among their participants so that they can provide leadership in creating a more integrated farming system.

I F S ve t e rans leve raged almost $20 million in funding from sources otherthan the Kellogg Foundation. That is an average of more than $1.1million leveraged for each of the 18 Phase I projects. About three-quarters of this funding came from fe d e ral and state gove rn m e n ts o u rc e s, with other fo u n d ations providing about 15 percent.

rIFS 3751Item #11010005.0M HPARecycled PaperSoy Ink