Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Mapping
the
social
landscape
of
working

grasslands
in
the
Corn
Belt:
stakeholder

percep.ons
of
the
mul.func.onality
of
I...
Mapping
the
Social
Landscape

•  Overview
of
the
funcEons
of
grazing
in
Iowa

grasslands

•  Study
Area

•  Research
desig...
State
of
Iowa
Grasslands

Private/
Farm
Level
Benefits

•  Dependent
on
grazing
management

•  What's
in
it
for
producers?

–  Buffer
against
fluctua=n...
Pastures
epitomize
agricultures’

provision
of
‘mul=ple
func=ons’

•  In
addi=on
to
private
benefits,
these
lands
(perennia...
What
kind
of
management?
Back
to
the
basics

•  Principles
of
pasture
management:
Maintaining

perennial
polycultures
by
m...
Mul=func=onal
Grazing
(MFG)

Commonly
Understood

Ecosystem
Services


Emerging
Ecosystem
Services


Fiber

Biofuel

Feeds...
Grazing
as
a
land
management
tool
has
proven

benefits
for
grassland
and
game
bird
species


Herkert
1994;
see
also
Paine
e...
Logic
Model


Iowa's
land

Use

Context:Large

scale
annual

row
crop

produc=on


Remaining

grasslands
can
be

managed
f...
Stakeholder
groups:
at
the
same
table

about
MFG?


Farmer/ Producer

Federal Agencies

Iowa
NRCS


HAT
Ranch

Research
Objec=ve

To
explore
social
percepEons
regarding
the
ability

of
MFG
to
balance
producEon
&
ecological
goals

in
...
Bird
Conserva=on
Areas
in
Iowa

•  Idea
conceived
by
Partners
in
Flight
in
collabora=on

with
regional
experts

–  See
Jac...
Raccoon
River
Bird
Conserva=on
Area


Map
by
Elizabeth
C.
Hill

Social
goals
of
the
BCA
system

•  “To
create
a
partnership
with
landowners

and
foster
an
understanding
of
the

importanc...
Trends
in
Pasture
Use:
Iowa
&


Guthrie,
Carroll
and
Greene
Coun=es

In
2007,
Iowa
farmers
grazed
approx.
32.9%
fewer

acr...
Social
Landscape
of
the
Study
Area

Coon
Rapids,
IA:


Popula=on

1,300


Regen
et
al.
(2008)
survey
of
local
community
le...
Methods:

Stakeholder
Based
Case
Study

•  ‘how’
or
‘why’
a
social
phenomenon
works,

with
a
focus
on
contemporary
events
...
Sampling
technique

•  ‘Snowballs’
within
the
stakeholder
categories

that
were
relevant
to
the
management
of
a

BCA
in
Io...
Make
all
same

color


20
Case
Study
Par=cipants

FOCUS GROUP:
IA DNR Private
Lands Biologists
5
University
Research/NonGo...
Semi‐structured
Interviews
&
Focus
Group

Livestock Producers/
Farmers

Natural Resource
Managers/ Experts

Context

•  La...
Interviews
&
Focus
Group

•  Average
of
one
hour

•  Conducted
on‐site

•  Recorded
digitally
and
transcribed
verba=m:

~2...
Analysis
techniques

In
the
tradi=on
of
‘grounded
theory’

–  Open
coding
is
iden=fying
essen=al
concepts
and
paperns
that...
Grounded
Theory:


Glaser,
Strauss
&
Corbin

•  Results
are
derived
from
the
study/
phenomena
represented;
they
are
‘groun...
Example:
Theme
of
‘Producer
Based

Learning
Networks’


•  Open
coding:
Management
and
Resources

“Producer‐
based

Networ...
Example
of
Axial
Coding

What
is
MFG
to
par=cipants?

•  All
stakeholders
express
interest
in
the
broader
applica=on
of

grazing
systems
that
can
b...
Results:
Stakeholder
Analysis

Factors
that
par=cipants
described
as
inhibi=ng

or
facilita=ng
the
development
of
MFG
syst...
I.
IdenEfied
Challenges
to
the
Development
of

MFG
Systems


•  Divergent
Landowner

Goals

•  Access
to
Pasture

•  Access...
Divergent
Landowner
Goals

•  Recrea=onal
landownership
increasing
in
the

area,
who
don’t
perceive
grazing
as
posi=ve
for...
Access
to
Pasture

•  Conversion
of
pasture
to
cropland
locally
over
the

past
three
decades

•  Compe==on





“...just
fi...
Access
to
Diversified
Markets

•  Nega=ve
percep=ons
consumers
have
of
livestock

produc=on
hinders
apempts
to
develop
alte...
Variability
in
Technical
Support

•  Dependent
on
geography

•  Knowledge
of
grazing
by
technical
assistance

providers
ge...
Summary
of
Challenges

Divergent

Landowner
Goals


• Associa=on
of
grazing
with
nega=ve
wildlife

outcomes


Access
to
Pa...
II.
Factors
IdenEfied
as
Necessary
to
Facilitate

the
Expansion
of
MFG
Systems

•  Needs

–  Knowledge
exchange

–  Access
...
Knowledge
Exchange
for
MFG

•  Value
of
Local
Experien=al
Knowledge


•  Direc=onality
of
Learning
and
Exchange
to
‘sell’
...
Access
to
Trusted
Networks
and

Management
Support


•  Geographically
accessible

•  Able
to
navigate
balance
between
ent...
Need
for
Direct
Experience
of
&
with

Models
of
Grazing
for
Mul=ple
Benefits

•  Demonstra=on
areas
as
well
as
who
the
expe...
Summary
of
Needs

Knowledge

Exchange


•  Value
of
local
knowledge

•  Direc=onality
of
exchange


Access
to

Trusted

Re...
III.
Vision
for
Outreach
that
Supports

Development
of
MFG
Systems

•  Independent
character
of
livestock
producers

requi...
Opportunity
for
Conserva=on
on
Working

Lands:
The
Scale
of
the
BCA
System

•  Low
awareness,
some
distrust

•  Ideal
scal...
A
‘Map’
to
Take
Home


•  Spectrum
of
stakeholders
are
on
the
same
page

about
MFG
systems

•  A
more
decentralized
approa...
Overview


Photo
by
M.
Petrehn


FuncEons
of
grazing
in
Iowa
grasslands

The
Raccoon
River
BCA

Research
design‐Case
Study...
Acknowledgements

Par=cipants

Family
&
Friends

The
Middle
Raccoon
River

The
PLUS
Lab

Special
Thanks

•  “Prairie
is
a
very
complex
community.
In
one’s
early

study
it
seems
somewhat
elusive…This
vagueness
of

understanding
...
Ques=ons/
Discussion

Bibliography


• 

Boody,
G.,
Gowda,
P.,
Westra,
J.,
van
Schaik,
C.,
Welle,
P.,
Vondracek,
B.,
and
Johnson,
D.
(2009).
Mul...
• 
• 

Bibliography,
cont.


Hogberg,
M.
G.,
S.
L.
Fales,
F.
L.
Kirschenmann,
M.
S.
Honeyman,
J.
A.
Miranowski,
and
P.
Las...
Why
grassland
management?


Grasslands
Managed
with
Grazing
are

MulEfuncEonal


Foley et al. 2005, Doll et. al. 2009;
Jor...
1992
RR
BCA
Landcover


(Iowa
Gap)

Cool
Season


Grass


Forested


Wetland


Upland
Forest


Crops


Guthrie
County,
Iow...
1800s
GLO
Map:
RRSBCA


Warm
Season


Prairie


Prairie/
=mber


Timber


2002
RRSBCA

Map
by
E.
C.
Hill


Guthrie
County,...
Briske
et
al.
2008

•  “We
contend
that
this
has
occurred
because

recommenda=ons
have
tradi=onally
been

based
on
percep=...
Selec=ve
Coding


QSR
2008

Why
the
BCA
system
in
Iowa?

Organizations
concerned with
grassland
management

State and
Federal
Regulatory
Agencies

County/
Regional Land
Management...
Other
‘Social
Landscapes’
of
Grazing
Systems

•  
For
example:

–  N.
Hassanein
(Wisconsin)

–  J.
F.
Nerbonne
and
R.
Lent...
Where
does
a
case
study
fit
in
natural

resource
management?

•  Environmental
problems
are
human
decision‐
making
problems...
Mapping the Social Landscape of Grazing in Iowa
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Mapping the Social Landscape of Grazing in Iowa

275 views

Published on

Findings from a social research project exploring the conversation surrounding the use of grazing as a land management tool in Iowa's remaining grasslands.

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Mapping the Social Landscape of Grazing in Iowa

  1. 1. Mapping
the
social
landscape
of
working
 grasslands
in
the
Corn
Belt:
stakeholder
 percep.ons
of
the
mul.func.onality
of
Iowa
 grazing
systems
 Mae
Rose
Petrehn,
M.S.
Defense
Presenta=on
 January
10,
2011
 Graduate
Program
in
Sustainable
Agriculture
 Departments
of
Sociology
and
Natural
Resource,
Ecology
&
Management
 Iowa
State
University
 Ames,
Iowa

  2. 2. Mapping
the
Social
Landscape
 •  Overview
of
the
funcEons
of
grazing
in
Iowa
 grasslands
 •  Study
Area
 •  Research
design
 •  Methodology
 •  Results
&
Conclusions
 •  Acknowledgements

  3. 3. State
of
Iowa
Grasslands

  4. 4. Private/
Farm
Level
Benefits
 •  Dependent
on
grazing
management
 •  What's
in
it
for
producers?
 –  Buffer
against
fluctua=ng
cost
of
feed
 –  Lands
unsuited
for
crop
produc=on
 –  Alterna=ve
&
emerging
market
channels

 –  Economic
winner
when
subsidy
payments
not
 considered
 Cherney
and
Kallenbach
2007;
Janovick
et
al.
2001;
Digiacomo
et
al.
2001;
Entz
et
al.
2002;
Mathews
and
Johnson
2010;
Acevedo
et
al.
 2006;
Hogberg
et
al
.2005;
Flora
et
al.
2004.

  5. 5. Pastures
epitomize
agricultures’
 provision
of
‘mul=ple
func=ons’
 •  In
addi=on
to
private
benefits,
these
lands
(perennial
 systems)
can
be
managed
with
grazing
for
ecosystem
 services
for
public
benefit
 –  Water
Quality/
Management
 –  Soil
Health
and
Carbon
Storage
 –  Biodiversity
via
Habitat
Maintenance

 ConEngent
on
management...
 Boody
et
al.
2005,
2009;

Jordan
and
Warner
2010;

Burras
and
McLaughlin
2002;

Jackson
et
al.
2010;
Sanderson
et
al.
2009,
Wiltshire
et
 al.
2010;
Schulte
et
al.
2008.


  6. 6. What
kind
of
management?
Back
to
the
basics
 •  Principles
of
pasture
management:
Maintaining
 perennial
polycultures
by
manipula=ng
 frequency
and
intensity
of
grazing.
 –  Sustainable
stocking
rate
 –  Adequate
recovery
=me
 Drawing
by
C.
Petrehn

  7. 7. Mul=func=onal
Grazing
(MFG)
 Commonly
Understood
 Ecosystem
Services
 Emerging
Ecosystem
Services
 Fiber
 Biofuel
 Feedstocks
 Feed
 Soil
Carbon
 Food
 Soil
 conserva=on
 Water
quality
 Ecosystem
Services
 Provisioned
by
 Pastureland
 Biodiversity
 Conserva=on
 Grassland
 Bird
 Habitat
 Adapted
from
Wallis
DeVries
et
al.
1998

  8. 8. Grazing
as
a
land
management
tool
has
proven
 benefits
for
grassland
and
game
bird
species
 Herkert
1994;
see
also
Paine
et
al.
1996,
Walk
et
al.
2010,
Vickery
et
al.
1995

  9. 9. Logic
Model
 Iowa's
land
 Use
 Context:Large
 scale
annual
 row
crop
 produc=on
 Remaining
 grasslands
can
be
 managed
for
 ecosystem
 services
 Grazing
systems
 managed
for
 mul=ple
benefits
 can
leverage
 these
services
 How
do
social
dynamics
and
 dis=nct
stakeholder
groups
 challenge
ecosystem
service
 management?

  10. 10. Stakeholder
groups:
at
the
same
table
 about
MFG?
 Farmer/ Producer Federal Agencies Iowa
NRCS
 HAT
Ranch

  11. 11. Research
Objec=ve
 To
explore
social
percepEons
regarding
the
ability
 of
MFG
to
balance
producEon
&
ecological
goals
 in
a
designated
bird
conservaEon
area.
 •  Do
divergent
goals
prevent
these
groups
from
 collaboraEng
to
promote
expansion
of
MFG?
 –  
If
so,
how
can
this
be
addressed?
 •  What
is
a
‘road
map’
for
increasing
the
viability
 of
MFG
systems?
 Photo
by
M.
Petrehn

  12. 12. Bird
Conserva=on
Areas
in
Iowa
 •  Idea
conceived
by
Partners
in
Flight
in
collabora=on
 with
regional
experts
 –  See
Jacobs
et
al.(2005),
Fitzgerald
and
Pashley
(2000)
 Guthrie,
Carroll,
Greene
 Coun=es

  13. 13. Raccoon
River
Bird
Conserva=on
Area
 Map
by
Elizabeth
C.
Hill

  14. 14. Social
goals
of
the
BCA
system
 •  “To
create
a
partnership
with
landowners
 and
foster
an
understanding
of
the
 importance
of
the
need
to
 conserve...grassland
birds.”
 •  Has
this
been
realized?
 Brad
Jacobs
et
al.
2005

  15. 15. Trends
in
Pasture
Use:
Iowa
&

 Guthrie,
Carroll
and
Greene
Coun=es
 In
2007,
Iowa
farmers
grazed
approx.
32.9%
fewer
 acres
of
pasture
than
in
1982,
with
an
average
 decrease
of
7.6%
every
5
years
 •  Tri‐County
1992‐2007
 –  334
fewer
farms
with
 beef
cows
 –  1997‐2007:
29,597
 fewer
acres
of
pasture
 •  Fewer
farms
 •  Farms
have
fewer
cows
 •  Declining
forage
and
 pasture
use
in
general

  16. 16. Social
Landscape
of
the
Study
Area
 Coon
Rapids,
IA:

 Popula=on
 1,300
 Regen
et
al.
(2008)
survey
of
local
community
leaders
and
landowners

  17. 17. Methods:
 Stakeholder
Based
Case
Study
 •  ‘how’
or
‘why’
a
social
phenomenon
works,
 with
a
focus
on
contemporary
events
 •  Useful
for
data
that
is
exploratory,
descrip=ve
 and/or
explanatory
 •  The
BCA
is
a
managerial
unit
with
 interconnected
scales
that
operate
within
it
 •  Qualita=ve
data
from
stakeholders
within
BCA

  18. 18. Sampling
technique
 •  ‘Snowballs’
within
the
stakeholder
categories
 that
were
relevant
to
the
management
of
a
 BCA
in
Iowa
 •  Interfacing
interview
and
focus
group
data
 Knight
2001;
Klapowitz
et
al.
2001

  19. 19. Make
all
same
 color
 20
Case
Study
Par=cipants
 FOCUS GROUP: IA DNR Private Lands Biologists 5 University Research/NonGovernmental Organizations 3 Exclusively Manage Cattle on Pastures and/ or Feedlots 4 Manage Crop and Beef Enterprises 3 Government Field Agents Who Manage Land/ Provide Technical Assistance 5
  20. 20. Semi‐structured
Interviews
&
Focus
Group
 Livestock Producers/ Farmers Natural Resource Managers/ Experts Context •  Land use History •  Reliance on grazing •  Scope of job •  How involved with graziers? Community/ Place • Resources for grazing • Influence/ knowledge of RRSBCA • Experience with livestock enterprises in area • Understanding of/ role in BCA Characterizing Knowledge • Benefits of grazing system • Understanding of pasture health • View of grazing systems for multiple benefits • Examples Characterizing barriers and facilitating factors • Grazing relative to goals • Factors that inhibit application • Ability to promote implementation • Factors influencing viability • Ideal farm landscape • Vision for outreach and ways to influence implementation Vision
  21. 21. Interviews
&
Focus
Group
 •  Average
of
one
hour
 •  Conducted
on‐site
 •  Recorded
digitally
and
transcribed
verba=m:
 ~200
pages
of
single
spaced
text


  22. 22. Analysis
techniques
 In
the
tradi=on
of
‘grounded
theory’
 –  Open
coding
is
iden=fying
essen=al
concepts
and
paperns
that
 emerge
from
data
upon
reflec=on
upon
raw
data
 –  Axial
coding
is
rela=ng
and
connec=ng
these
categories
and
 ‘tes=ng’
them
against
the
rest
of
the
data
 –  Selec.ve
coding
is
when
discrete
categories
are
further
defined
 to
develop
overarching
principles
that
help
explain
a
social
 behavior


 •  Two
main
analyses


 I.

General
themes
in
the
en=rety
of
the
data
available

 2.
Preferences
regarding
communica=on
and
educa=on
strategies
 to
support
broader
applica=on
of
MFG

  23. 23. Grounded
Theory:

 Glaser,
Strauss
&
Corbin
 •  Results
are
derived
from
the
study/ phenomena
represented;
they
are
‘grounded’

 •  Offers
plausible
explana=on
to
social
 phenomena

 •  Links
diverse
facts
in
a
coherent,
pragma=c
 and
useful
way
 Corbin
and
Strauss
1990;

Glaser
and
Strauss
1999


  24. 24. Example:
Theme
of
‘Producer
Based
 Learning
Networks’

 •  Open
coding:
Management
and
Resources
 “Producer‐ based
 Networks”
 Labor/=me
 Management
 monitoring
 At
farm
scale
 At
landscape
 scale
 ownership
 Philosophy/
 preferences
 Economic
 Capital
 Trusted
 Networks
 Knowledge/
 Informa=on

 Physical
 Infrastructure
 Resources
 Available

  25. 25. Example
of
Axial
Coding

  26. 26. What
is
MFG
to
par=cipants?
 •  All
stakeholders
express
interest
in
the
broader
applica=on
of
 grazing
systems
that
can
balance
livestock
and
wildlife
needs.

 •  Something
learnt
through
experimenta=on
and
experience
 




“I
started
out
with
5
acres
and
then
10
acres
of
switch
grass,
because
I
didn’t
 know...I
thought
that
was
prairie….you
know
there
is
a
benefit
to
lightly
grazing
 na=ve
prairies…so
you
can
have
birds,
insects,
and
you
can
have
diversity
and
you
 can
have
really
good
water
quality,
as
opposed
to
heavy
grazing.”
 –  Farmer/
livestock
Producer
1
 




“With
caplemen
our
interest
is
to
try
and
see
what
the
best
grazing
rates
are
for
the
 pasturelands
that
might
be
more
amenable
to
getng
some
addi=onal
bird
nes=ng
 on
the
area,
its
kind
of
an
unfortunate
fact
in
Iowa
that
a
lot
of
pasturelands
are
 badly
overgrazed,
look
like
pool
tables
for
the
most
part.
 –  DNR
Wildlife
Expert
1

  27. 27. Results:
Stakeholder
Analysis
 Factors
that
par=cipants
described
as
inhibi=ng
 or
facilita=ng
the
development
of
MFG
systems
 Organized
as:
 I.
Challenges
 II.
Needs
 III.
Vision

  28. 28. I.
IdenEfied
Challenges
to
the
Development
of
 MFG
Systems
 •  Divergent
Landowner
 Goals
 •  Access
to
Pasture
 •  Access
to
Markets
 •  Variability
in
Technical
 Support

  29. 29. Divergent
Landowner
Goals
 •  Recrea=onal
landownership
increasing
in
the
 area,
who
don’t
perceive
grazing
as
posi=ve
for
 game
species
 •  Prevalence
of
overgrazing
fuels
these
percep=ons
 


“I
hear
a
lot
of
pride
from
landowners,
that
say
 ‘when
I
moved
here
it
was
that
terrible
situa=on’,
 and
they
say
‘we
got
them
[beef
caple]
off,
we
 saved
it,
yet
I
have
less
quail
and
turkey’...we
 blame
caple
for
bad
management.”
 –  Private
Lands
Biologist
1

  30. 30. Access
to
Pasture
 •  Conversion
of
pasture
to
cropland
locally
over
the
 past
three
decades
 •  Compe==on
 



“...just
finding
out
that
the
ground
is
available,
it
is
 rented
before
it
comes
into
the
paper,
it
is
very
much
a
 network
deal...in
my
opinion
there
is
a
lot
of
pasture
 ground
that
comes
up
for
rent
every
year
even
with
the
 liquida=ons
(in
area
beef
herds).
A
guy
might
know
 who
will
be
ren=ng
his
ground
before
he
liquidates
his
 cows.”
 –  Cow‐calf
producer
1

  31. 31. Access
to
Diversified
Markets
 •  Nega=ve
percep=ons
consumers
have
of
livestock
 produc=on
hinders
apempts
to
develop
alterna=ve
 markets
 •  Price
of
grain
garnering
more
apen=on
to
cropping
 enterprises
on
farms,
who
then
have
less
=me
to
 manage
grazing
systems
 



“Why’d
they
want
to
make
liple
…grazing
and
haying
 ground
that
we
can
raise
$5
‐
$6
corn
on
....That’s
the
 downside
of
people;
they
go
where
the
money
is
at.”
 –  NRCS
employee
and
cow/calf
producer

  32. 32. Variability
in
Technical
Support
 •  Dependent
on
geography
 •  Knowledge
of
grazing
by
technical
assistance
 providers
generally
described
as
‘foreign’:
 


“…I
can
see
that
being
very
frustra=ng
for
a
 landowner
who
may
go
into
an
office
and
to
[the
 staff]
cows
might
be
like
[a
foreign
language].
So
by
 that
I
mean,
I
can’t
communicate
the
way
you’re
 trying
to
communicate
with
me.”
 –  Soil
and
Water
Conserva=on
Technician
1

  33. 33. Summary
of
Challenges
 Divergent
 Landowner
Goals
 • Associa=on
of
grazing
with
nega=ve
wildlife
 outcomes
 Access
to
Pasture
 • Conversion
of
pasture
to
other
land
uses
 • Compe==on
 Access
to
Markets
 • Nega=ve
percep=ons
of
animal
agriculture
 • Commodity
market
dynamics
 Variable
Technical
 Support
 • Dependent
on
loca=on
and
exper=se
 available

  34. 34. II.
Factors
IdenEfied
as
Necessary
to
Facilitate
 the
Expansion
of
MFG
Systems
 •  Needs
 –  Knowledge
exchange
 –  Access
to
trusted
networks
and
management
 support

 –  Showcasing
models
of
MFG
 •  Vision
 –  Land‐use
planning
that
allows
conserva=on
 management
professionals
to
target
the
use
of
 available
resources

  35. 35. Knowledge
Exchange
for
MFG
 •  Value
of
Local
Experien=al
Knowledge

 •  Direc=onality
of
Learning
and
Exchange
to
‘sell’
a
model
 




“He
[extension
agent
who
raises
caple]
told
me
everything
 I
had
read
in
this
magazine,
that
you
have
got
to
fill
in
the
 gaps...well
can
this
work
in
our
area?
I
would
be
interested
 in
talking
with
someone
who
is
knowledgeable
about
 different
types
of
grasses…”

 –  Cow/calf
producer
2
 



“...getng
farmers
into
it,
showing
farmers
what
can
 work...they
are
cau=ous
to
try
anything
different.
So
we
 need
to
get
a
few
people
in
each
county
to
jump
in,
you
 know
and
have
them
sell
it.
Because
we
can’t
sell
it
by
 ourselves.”

 –  DNR
Wildlife
Expert
1

  36. 36. Access
to
Trusted
Networks
and
 Management
Support

 •  Geographically
accessible
 •  Able
to
navigate
balance
between
enterprise
needs
 and
ecological
needs
 


“We
want
clean
water,
we
want
real
environmentalists
to
 think
we
are
doing
the
right
thing
and
so
you
have
to
 meet
their
set
of
expecta=ons
…we
are
void
of
the
 produc=on
elements,
pounds
on
the
hoof
kind
of
thing,
 …they
[livestock
producers]
have
their
own
ways
of
doing
 things.
So,
that’s
why
it’s
hard
to
find
that
merge
point,
 that
model.
I
don’t
know
how
you
would
do
that
except
 for
talking…it
is
so
highly
localized
to
individual
needs.”

 –  Whiterock
Conservancy
Employee

  37. 37. Need
for
Direct
Experience
of
&
with
 Models
of
Grazing
for
Mul=ple
Benefits
 •  Demonstra=on
areas
as
well
as
who
the
experience
is
 with;
producers’
experien=al
knowledge
key
for
 credibility
 


“We
need
to
get
all
these
groups
together,
the
NRCS,
 naturalists,
farmers,
and
come
to
some
kind
of
 conclusion
where...the
wildlife
are
s=ll
there...we
need
 more
people
involved…get
guys
[livestock
producers]
 together
and
they
will
exchange
ideas
themselves.”
 –  Cow/calf
producer
3

  38. 38. Summary
of
Needs
 Knowledge
 Exchange
 •  Value
of
local
knowledge
 •  Direc=onality
of
exchange
 Access
to
 Trusted
 Resources
 •  Geographically
accessible
 •  Ability
to
nego=ate
towards
a
 ‘merge
point’
 Direct
 Experience
 •  Demonstra=on
areas
emphasizing
 experien=al
knowledge

  39. 39. III.
Vision
for
Outreach
that
Supports
 Development
of
MFG
Systems
 •  Independent
character
of
livestock
producers
 requires
programming
to
cater
to
personal
goals
 




“…the
benefit
of
organiza=ons
like
Whiterock...
 They
don’t
have
an
impact
on
a
state‐wide
basis… they
have
a
different
cons=tuency.
The
advantage
 of
the
impact
of
these
organiza=ons...is
in
terms
 of
getng
informa=on
out
and
energizing
people
 in
the
presence
of
a
BCA
or
a
number
of
BCA’s.”
 –  Wildlife
Researcher
1

  40. 40. Opportunity
for
Conserva=on
on
Working
 Lands:
The
Scale
of
the
BCA
System
 •  Low
awareness,
some
distrust
 •  Ideal
scale
to
target
scarce
human
and
economic
 resources
 “Bird
conserva=on?
That’s
a
load
of
crap!”
 •  Cow/calf
Producer
2
 “…our
thinking
is
with
the
influence
of
the
Garsts
 and
the
INHF
that
it
will
probably
be
a
self
starter.
 It
will
influence
other
landowners
without
us
 having
to
have
a
role
in
it.”
 •  DNR
Wildlife
Expert
1

  41. 41. A
‘Map’
to
Take
Home

 •  Spectrum
of
stakeholders
are
on
the
same
page
 about
MFG
systems
 •  A
more
decentralized
approach
to
conserva=on
 planning
(i.e.
BCA)
with
the
opportunity
to
cater
 programming
and
management
to
local
 landowners

  42. 42. Overview
 Photo
by
M.
Petrehn
 FuncEons
of
grazing
in
Iowa
grasslands
 The
Raccoon
River
BCA
 Research
design‐Case
Study
 Methodology‐QualitaEve
interviews
and
focus
 group
 •  Results:
Challenges,
Needs
&
Vision
 •  •  •  • 
  43. 43. Acknowledgements
 Par=cipants
 Family
&
Friends
 The
Middle
Raccoon
River
 The
PLUS
Lab

  44. 44. Special
Thanks

  45. 45. •  “Prairie
is
a
very
complex
community.
In
one’s
early
 study
it
seems
somewhat
elusive…This
vagueness
of
 understanding
can
be
overcome,
once
the
species
are
 known,
by
visiAng
the
prairie
several
Ames
through
 the
growing
season,
examining
it
closely…and
always
 with
a
definite
purpose
in
mind.”
 Whiterock
Conservancy/
Mae
Petrehn
 
‐Naturalist
J.E.
Weaver
(1958),
in
reference
to
Guthrie
 County,
Iowa’s
remnant
prairies.


  46. 46. Ques=ons/
Discussion

  47. 47. Bibliography
 •  Boody,
G.,
Gowda,
P.,
Westra,
J.,
van
Schaik,
C.,
Welle,
P.,
Vondracek,
B.,
and
Johnson,
D.
(2009).
Mul=func=onal
grass
 farming:
science
and
policy
considera=ons.
In
A.J.
Franzluebbers
(Ed.),
Farming
with
grass
(171‐191).
Soil
and
Water
 Conserva=on
Society:
Ankeny.
 •  Boody,
G.,
Vonracek,
B.,
Andow,
D.A.,
Krinke,
M.,
Westra,
J.,
Zimmerman,
J.,
Welle,
P.
(2005).
Mul=func=onal
agriculture
in
 the
United
States.
BioScience,
55
(1),
27‐38.
 •  Burras,
L.
and
MacLaughlin.
2002
Soil
Organic
Carbon
in
fields
of
switchgrass
and
row
crops
as
well
as
woodlots
and
pastures
 across
the
Chariton
Valley,
Iowa.
Final
Report.
Coopera=ve
Agreement
between
Chariton
Valley
Resource
Conserva=on
and
 Development,
INC.
and
Iowa
State
University
Iowa
Agricultural
and
Home
Economics
Experiment
Sta=on
.
(ISU
#400‐46‐76)
 •  Cherney
J.H.a.K.,
R.L.
(2007)
Forage
Systems
for
Temperate
and
Humid
Areas,
in:
N.
Barnes.
R.F.,
J.C,
Moore,
K.J.,
and
Collins,
 M.
(Ed.),
Forages:
The
Science
of
Grassland
Agriculture,
Blackwell,
Ames.
pp.
277‐290.
 •  Digiacomo
,G.,
Ireonger,
C.J.,
Kemp,
L.,
van
Schaik,
C.,
and
Murray,
H.
(2001)
Sustainable
Farming
Systems:
Demonstra=ng
 Environmental
and
Economic
Performance,
in:
Minnesota
Ins=tute

for
Sustainable
Agriculture
(Ed.),
University
of
 Minnesota,
Saint
Paul,
MN.
 •  Entz,
M.H.,
Barson,
V.S.,
Carr,
P.M.,
Meyer,
D.W.,
Smith,
S.R.,
Jr.,
&
McCaughey,
W.P.
.
2002.
Poten=al
of
forages
to
diversity
 cropping
systems
in
the
northern
Great
Plains.
.
Agronomy
Journal
94:240‐250.
 •  Flora,
C.,
J.
R.
Black,
T.
J.
Dalton,
R.
Kershegan,
M.
Liebman,
S.N.
Smith,
S.
S.
Sapp,
and
G.
K.White.
2004.
Reintegra=ng
crop
 and
livestock
enterprises
in
three
northern
states.
Preliminary
Report
on
USDA‐IFAFS
Project
2001‐52101‐11308.
Iowa
State
 University,
Ames.
 •  Giuliano,
W.M.
and
Daves,
S.E.
2002.
Avian
response
to
warm‐season
grass
use
in
pasture
and
hayfield
management.
 Biological
Conserva.on.
106:1‐9.
 •  Glaser,
B.,
and
Strauss,
A.
1999.
The
discovery
of
Grounded
Theory:
strategies
for
qualita.ve
research.
AldineTransac=on:
 New
Jersey.


  48. 48. •  •  Bibliography,
cont.
 Hogberg,
M.
G.,
S.
L.
Fales,
F.
L.
Kirschenmann,
M.
S.
Honeyman,
J.
A.
Miranowski,
and
P.
Lasley.
2005.
Interrela=onships
of
animal
agriculture,
the
environment,
and
 rural
communi=es.
J.
Anim
Sci.
83
(13_suppl):E13‐17.
 Jackson
R.D.,
Paine
L.K.,
Woodis
J.E.
(2010)
Persistence
of
Na=ve
C4
Grasses
under
High‐Intensity,
Short‐Dura=on
Summer
Bison
Grazing
in
the
Eastern
Tallgrass
 Prairie.
Restora=on
Ecology
18:65‐73.
 •  Jacobs
B.,
Koford,
R.R.,
Thompson,
Frank
R.
III,
Woodward,
H.,
Hubbard,
M.,
Fitzgerald,
J.A.,
&
Herkert,
J.R.
.
(2005)
Grassland
bird
conserva.on
efforts
in
Missouri
and
 Iowa:
how
will
we
measure
success?
USDA
Forest
Service
Tech.
Rep.

 •  Janovick,
N.A.,
Russell,
J.R.,
Strohbehn,
D.R.,
&
Morrical,
D.G.
(2004).
Produc=vity
and
hay
requirements
of
beef
caple
in
a
Midwestern
year‐round
grazing
system.
 Journal
of
Animal
Science,
82,
2503‐2515.

 •  Jordan,
N.,
and
Warner,
K.D.
2010.
Enhancing
the
Mul=func=onality
of
US
Agriculture.
BioScience
60
(1):60‐66..

 •  Kaplowitz,
Michael
D.,
and
John
P.
Hoehn.
2001.
Do
focus
groups
and
individual
interviews
reveal
the
same
informa=on
for
natural
resource
valua=on?
Ecological
 Economics
36
(2):237‐247.
 •  Knight,
P.
(2002)
Small‐scale
Research:
Pragma=c
Inquiry
in
Social
Science
and
the
Caring
Professions.
Sage:
London.

 •  Mathews,
K.H.
Jr.,
and
Johnson,
R.J.
2010.
Grain
and
Grass
Beef
Produc=on
Systems.
edited
by
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture:
Economic
Research
Service
 Newsleper.
 Sanderson
M.A.,
Goslee,
S.C.,
Soder,
K.J.,
Skinner,
R.H.,
and
Adler,
P.R.
(2009)
Managing
forage
and
grazinglands
for
mul=ple
ecosystem
services,
in:
A.
J.
Franzlubbers
 (Ed.),
Farming
with
Grass:
Achieving
Sustainable
Mixed
Agricultural
Landscapes,
Soil
and
Water
Conserva=on
Society,
Ankeny.
 •  •  Sanderson,
M.
A.,
R.
H.
Skinner,
D.
J.
Barker,
G.
R.
Edwards,
B.
F.
Tracy,
and
D.
A.
Wedin.
2004.
Plant
Species
Diversity
and
Management
of
Temperate
Forage
and
 Grazing
Land
Ecosystems.
Crop
Science
44
(4):1132‐1144
 •  •  Schulte,
L.,
H.
Asbjornsen,
R.
Atwell,
C.
Hart,
M.
Helmers,
T.
Isenhart,
R.
Kolka,
M.
Liebman,
J.
Neal,
M.
O'Neal,
S.
Secchi,
R.
Schultz,
J.
Thompson,
and
J.
Tyndall.
2008.
 A
targeted
conserva=on
approach
for
improving
environmental
quality:
mul=ple
benefits
and
expanded
opportuni=es.
PMR
1002.
Iowa
State
University
Extension,
 Ames,
IA.

 Strauss,
A.,
and
Corbin,
J.M.
1990.
Basics
of
qualita.ve
research:
Grounded
theory
procedures
and
techniques.
Sage:
Newbury
Park.
 •  WallisDeVries,
M.F.,
Bakker,
J.P.,
and
Van
Wieren,
S.E.,
Eds.
1998.
Grazing
and
Conserva.on
Management.
Kluwer
Academic
Publishers:
Dordrecht.

 •  Wiltshire,
K.,
Delate,
K.,
Wiedenhoe~,
M.,
and
Flora,
J.
2010.
Incorpora=ng
na=ve
plants
into
mul=func=onal
prairie
pastures
for
organic
cow‐calf
opera=ons.
 Renewable
Agriculture
and
Food
Systems.
DOI:10.1017/S174217051000044X

  49. 49. Why
grassland
management?
 Grasslands
Managed
with
Grazing
are
 MulEfuncEonal
 Foley et al. 2005, Doll et. al. 2009; Jordan and Warner 2010.
  50. 50. 1992
RR
BCA
Landcover

 (Iowa
Gap)
 Cool
Season

 Grass
 Forested

 Wetland
 Upland
Forest
 Crops
 Guthrie
County,
Iowa

  51. 51. 1800s
GLO
Map:
RRSBCA

 Warm
Season

 Prairie
 Prairie/
=mber
 Timber
 2002
RRSBCA
 Map
by
E.
C.
Hill
 Guthrie
County,
Iowa

  52. 52. Briske
et
al.
2008
 •  “We
contend
that
this
has
occurred
because
 recommenda=ons
have
tradi=onally
been
 based
on
percep=on,
personal
experience,
 and
anecdotal
interpreta=ons
of
management
 prac=ces,
rather
than
evidence‐based
 assessments
of
ecosystem
responses,
which
is
 a
common
phenomenon
in
ecosystem
 management
(Pullin
et
al.
2003;
Sutherland
et
 al.
2004).”

  53. 53. Selec=ve
Coding
 QSR
2008

  54. 54. Why
the
BCA
system
in
Iowa?

  55. 55. Organizations concerned with grassland management State and Federal Regulatory Agencies County/ Regional Land Management Specialists Landowner
 Producer

  56. 56. Other
‘Social
Landscapes’
of
Grazing
Systems
 •  
For
example:
 –  N.
Hassanein
(Wisconsin)
 –  J.
F.
Nerbonne
and
R.
Lentz
(S.
Minnesota)
 –  J.G.
Arbuckle,
Jr.
(N.
Missouri)
 •  •  •  •  •  Research
mostly
on
the
prac==oners
 Was
par=cipatory
 Associated
with
pre‐formed
networks
of
prac==oners
 Focus
typically
on
dairy
 In
specific
ecosystem

  57. 57. Where
does
a
case
study
fit
in
natural
 resource
management?
 •  Environmental
problems
are
human
decision‐ making
problems.
 •  Humans
impose
anthropogenic
units
onto
 landscapes.
 •  Case
studies
are
adaptable
to
mul=ple
scales
and
 allow
tools
to
analyze
complex
socio‐ecological
 systems
in
depth.
 •  Case
studies
are
ideal
venues
for
interdisciplinary
 research.


×