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

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

3. State of Iowa Grasslands

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

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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Interviews & Focus Group
• Average of one hour
• Conducted on‐site
• Recorded digitally and transcribed verba=m:
~200 pages of single spaced text

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. 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. 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. Example of Axial Coding

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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Acknowledgements
Par=cipants
Family & Friends
The Middle Raccoon River
The PLUS Lab

44. Special Thanks

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. Ques=ons/ Discussion

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. •
•
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. Why grassland management?
Grasslands Managed with Grazing are
MulEfuncEonal
Foley et al. 2005, Doll et. al. 2009;
Jordan and Warner 2010.

50. 1992 RR BCA Landcover
(Iowa Gap)
Cool Season
Grass
Forested
Wetland
Upland Forest
Crops
Guthrie County, Iowa

51. 1800s GLO Map: RRSBCA
Warm Season
Prairie
Prairie/ =mber
Timber
2002 RRSBCA
Map by E. C. Hill
Guthrie County, Iowa

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. Selec=ve Coding
QSR 2008

54. Why the BCA system in Iowa?

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

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. 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.