The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Appendix 5: Summary of Qualitative Research - Facilitators, Monitor Farmers and Community Groups

Set Up Process

Generally Monitor Farmers felt that the set up process worked well and at least one commented that he did like the way it was done, (in that there was no financial incentive given to the farmer to take part). In most cases farmers were invited to open meetings directly or advertisements were placed in local papers. At these meetings farmers were asked to put their names forward if they wished to be the monitor farmer. Short lists were then interviewed and selections made following visits to the farms by funders In some case the monitor farmer was suggested by the other farmers at the open meeting. Community groups sometimes emerged from these meetings also.

One farm did have some difficulty ion attracting group members, due to its concentration on dairy and therefore the belief among non dairy farmers that it would not be relevant for them.

We had to try to get over the idea that it was open for everybody (Monitor Farmer)

The facilitators pointed out that the meetings were open to anyone who wanted to attend. Prior to the meetings, adverts were placed in local papers, and although generally targeted to farmers/crofters, there were no restrictions.

"It was open to all - couldn't keep anyone out. Once it got to 50, we tried to discourage as the group was becoming too big and it was harder to get the discussion going. One farmer travelled over 100 miles throughout the three years. Anyone involved in agriculture- merchants, local vet, consultants were all welcome". (Facilitator)

Overall Attitudes to the Monitor Farms programme

Generally respondents felt positively towards the programme.

It's a fantastic programme. It gave me an in depth look at my business, there's far more gathering of figures, more analytical. You see 10 years improvement in 3. You get a chance to look at figures in a different way. (Monitor Farmer)

It was very successful - gave you a lot more confidence. The openness was really refreshing; often people had a good input. (Monitor Farmer)

It works very well. Farmers getting together is a good thing and a good chance for them to exchange ideas. There was also good facilitation. (Monitor Farmer)

It's a good idea - you always get something out of it. (Community Group)

The Monitor Farm programme is unique in style, as it really allows you to see how a business works. (Facilitator)

It's a very positive project on the whole and farmers get a lot out of it. The facilitator and farmer are equally important - if either is poor it will be detrimental. You can get rid of poor community group members. (Facilitator)

"As a result of the programme, monitor farms are now better at decision making, there's more awareness of alterative practices and have a better understanding of accounts". (Facilitator)

"The business has shown improved productivity and efficiency". (Facilitator)

Most Facilitators, Monitor Farmers and Community Group members believe that the on farm practical approach worked well. This provided the opportunity to experience everything in situ and allowed farmers to see changes made over time.

A number of specialists were also liked (such as one who provided a talk on grassland and another who focussed on analysing financial data). It would seem that the farmers involved in the programme and particularly the Monitor Farmers have become more market focused and aware of financial aspects of their businesses such as input costs for each particular area.

Most monitor farmers has stressed the importance of social aspects of the programme, and stated that although there wasn't any sharing of labour etc, there was more co-operation and communication.

It's been great socially, for getting to know each other and sharing problems. It helps the morale of the rural community. Often people have the same problems and you don't know it. (Monitor Farmer)

There is a consensus, amongst both facilitators and MF's, that the meetings have enabled networking with trade members and other farmers. The group environment also enables them to take part in decision making for the business and ownership of the group. Similarly, taking suggestions from the community group and putting things in place works well. This meant a range of challenges could be identified and solved.

Facilitation of the process generally worked well and it was agreed that facilitators did add a lot to the programme and it was felt that the facilitator along with monitor farmer was key to the success of the programme.

Regarding aspects of the programme which haven't worked as well, one common theme from facilitators and monitor farmers was the limited sharing of data from community group members, particularly financial information. This made comparisons between farms, and an assessment of the overall impacts difficult. With some there was undoubtedly reluctance to share what was considered to be quite confidential data; within community group members the reason given was lack of time.

We tried to do more in depth financial analysis for the whole group, but it proved difficult to get information from the rest of the group. They said it was too difficult, but even after simplifying the process, they were still not coming back with it. (Facilitator)

The monitor farm benchmarks fertility in the suckler herd, growth rates of cattle and scanning results. There was an idea for group members to do the same. Only 20 out of 70 sent the information back to the facilitator. Time was identified as the main issue behind the poor response. (Facilitator)

We tried to encourage doing detailed analysis on calving performance for herds after doing it for the monitor farm. We sent the forms out to farmers for them to fill in but not many came back. They were all keen in the meetings but when it came to the crunch they didn't do it themselves. (Facilitator)

Most of us are one man bands, the last thing I want to do at 9 o'clock at night after a hard day is to sit and go through figures (Community Groups)

Most Facilitators felt there is limited confirmation of the extent to which the information shared during the group discussions is taken on board by the Community Groups ( CG). Some facilitators believe that CG members take in information and apply it on their own farms I. Where some of the farmers are also ongoing clients, it is possible to see some of the changes implemented and the impact they have had.

It's difficult to measure this (applying knowledge to own business) but members did go back to the facilitator and mention topics previously discussed and how it was going on their farm - for example, herd health and creep-feeding. (Facilitator)

An issue at certain times for some facilitators was low attendance at meetings. This has been attributed to there being too many meetings in general - it was noted in Ayrshire that Wiseman have regular meetings for dairy farmers and one monitor farmer said that he could go to meetings every week. Also concerning the monitor farms, it was considered sometimes that there were too many sub-group meetings.

Related to the above, one facilitator highlighted the need to attract particular attendees at meetings. Some monitor farmers also commented on group participation and dynamics and it was generally felt that some members could be forthcoming with their views. It was noted however, that group members tended to feel more relaxed with time; confidence and trust develops within the group.

There's a critical mass needed and particular personnel who are really needed. They will ask questions and make comments. Now some people are far more relaxed in the second year. (Facilitator)

Some facilitators found it difficult to cover everything in detail - e.g. for a mixed farm, there are a lot of issues to discuss and it is not possible to cover subjects which will be of interest to all members of the community groups all of the time. This problem was also identified by the monitor farmers.

A general comment from some Facilitators was the challenge to try to keep the topics discussed at group meetings fresh over a 3 year programme.

One facilitator commented that the group found the concept that it should be sustainable after the 3 year programme difficult to absorb and he has encountered difficulties in trying to get the farmers to manage the group themselves. Another found that the knowledge transfer to farmers who are not within the community group was difficult. He felt that they are unsure of their target audience (e.g. progressive farmers or average farmers). This could be made clearer through better defined objectives for the programme.

One Monitor Farmer commented that while he felt that the overall programme was very worthwhile, he thought that the improvements in business performance was not as dramatic as he'd hoped for. A Community Group member questioned the impact of the Monitor Farm. He felt that the biggest recent boost to farming has been the hike in cereal prices. Furthermore, he suggested that the Monitor Farm programme should also include subject areas such as marketing.

Setting and Monitoring Objectives

The facilitators commented that they set the objectives mainly through discussions with the MF at first and then in consultation with the Community Groups. The objectives could then be reviewed again with the facilitator and changes made as necessary. For two of the farms, the community group determined the objectives, with the facilitator having little involvement. There was general agreement in the community groups that the final say must be with the monitor farmer himself as it is his business. In some farms, objectives were quite general.

"There were no specific objectives set for the farm in detail - keeping them broad to try and get numbers to things is an aim. Then we go back every year and look back to see where progress is going. One aim was to reduce lamb losses from the current 19%. We look back at how changes implemented have affected losses." (Facilitator)

The consensus amongst the facilitators is that this approach has worked very well. Farmers are happy to be involved in decision making and setting up the objectives. Similarly, the monitor farms involvement in deciding the programme' objectives helps to shape the future practices undertaken on the farm and are continually changing throughout the programme.

The level and methods of monitoring objectives amongst facilitators varied and one facilitator said that it took 8-12 months to put a monitoring process in place. In one farm, the objectives are too vague to allow for such monitoring; some have reviews contained in the annual report at the end of the year. For another, it was too early to say, but data was being kept for analysis at the end of year one for before and after comparisons. For a farm which had completed its term and kept very good records, specific measurements such as spaneing (weaning) weight, lambing percentage, DLWG and profitability were measured at the end of the project and the effectiveness of specific changes could be estimated.

"Each year, the group revisited the topics covered and what we had planned to cover and based the second year on the outcomes from the first. It was broad farm objectives that were set for this farm. We looked at financial performance over the 3 year period to see how objectives were affecting the final outcome." (Facilitator)

Some farms use a variety of measures including enterprise costing and benchmarking and net margin analysis conducted throughout the year. The MF accounts are analysed at the end of the year. A few have related outcomes back to the objectives e.g. simplifying the suckler cow enterprise system. One farm which had the objective of "improve marketing of sheep and cattle" brought in a local auctioneer to review what they were doing.

It seems clear that CG farms did not set their own objectives as a result of the programme, but did pick up tips and advice.

Key Changes made to Monitor Farms and Community Group Farms due to the Programme

All the farmers and community groups have identified changes to their farm practices as a consequence of the programme. Most of these changes are associated with increasing the efficiency of their practices, with a view to increasing margins. For some, the programme has gone beyond a change in practices, bringing about a change in mindset, such as more attention to detail, or a better understanding of their businesses strengths and weaknesses.

"I am becoming more of a manager and less of a worker-I am looking at the bigger picture". (Monitor Farmer.)

The extent to which these changes had impacted upon their performance of the businesses is less clear. It is determined by the degree of monitoring undertaken.

For most, the monitoring of changes was undertaken for the monitor farms only. Therefore changes happening on community group farms are not recorded on such issues as cost, structures, prices etc. It was felt that it would be difficult to state what financial impact any changes made as a specific result of MF have had upon Community Group farms, but also many farmers don't have detailed enough accounts to be able to analyse this in detail.

Most facilitators felt that community group farmers are encouraged to put some of the ideas into action and indeed do.

"It was difficult to measure objective success on the CG on things such as grazing management and arable topics. They listened and agreed but don't take it on board and implement changes". (Facilitator)

Three monitor farms monitor objectives and the changes noted have been related to the farms financial performance, i.e. before and after involvement in the MF programme. However, it is acknowledged that objectives do change and hence the impact upon the monitor farms would be influenced by this, making it difficult to measure.

"The main objectives set are to make the whole enterprise more profitable to do this we are looking at feeding, breeding, markets that we sell into and our finishing/production systems but we may set the objectives then have to change them six months later due to the market". (Monitor Farmer)

One farm which is in the earlier stages of the programme intends to carry out detailed analysis at the end of the process.

"It's too early to tell what the effect is so far but the data is being kept in order to analyse at the end of year one. The depth of information is there already so we will be able to compare the position before, during and after the Monitor Farm. We have years of yield and average price data - all this will be collated and reviewed". (Monitor Farmer)

For one, the MF programme is running in parallel with arable business groups in the area and there is some cross over in what they do.

" HGCA benchmarking is done in a quarter of the meetings, and post harvest we have a financial review via benchmarking for the entire group". (Monitor Farmer)

Those facilitators that have been monitoring the MF's activities in relation to the objectives, described evidence of changes made, these including;

• Adoption of a herd health scheme (they now vaccinate for different diseases which they didn't do previously).
• Increase in benchmarking on performance.
• Monitor of feeding and rations, enabling them to see the benefits of changes in provision, relating it to financial performance.

The monitor farmers acknowledge that more monitoring should be done in order to make the programme more effective.

"We don't discuss this enough - we could discuss more within the group. Nothing is in place for the group. It is a stimulation of thought processes, not necessarily something that is happening here on our farm, it could be something that has triggered a thought process, makes them go home and change something". (Monitor Farmer)

"We need to start getting information in because you cannot improve things if you do not know where the business is. We need to get feed back and more information in from the community". (Monitor Farmer)

Although monitoring activities are limited, many examples were given, by both the monitor farmers and the community groups, of changes that have made to farming practices as a result of the programme. Those mentioned include;

"Calf weaning was not going properly and calf steering group suggested ventilation - this was taken on board." (Facilitator)

"They were aware of more efficient feeding practice - ewe condition scoring - concentrate to pregnant ewes. We shared a table of results on silage". (Facilitator)

"Local auctioneer advised that they should be batching lambs together, rather than selling small lots". (Facilitator) (Also auctioneer fed back on who the buyers were).

" MF had a problem with calf scour for a few years, the CG discussed it and we brought in a vet in March 07 in run up to spring calving. He recommended a new form of treatment and scour reduced". (Facilitator)

" MF weighed weaned calves and they were in a better state for selling. Dec/Jan cows due to calf in spring are tested and MF has idea of number of calves expected.- single or twin". (Facilitator)

A grassland expert gave a talk in June 2006 and did some soil samples. In 2007, physical examination showed some changes. We could also see improvement in performance of cattle over the season, .with more weaned calves sold in September. (Facilitator)

"You can see the consequences of some decisions. One which didn't work so well - On the Monitor Farm we took the decision to sell heifer calves as 2 year old calving heifers - this didn't do so well". (Facilitator)

"For our suckler cows, we have changed our finishing regime back to selling store regime. We previously reared them through, we are now selling stores because we have no arable- so we had to buy in all the feed". (Monitor Farmer)

(This farmer went on to say that by monitoring they have noticed a difference this year - he had been selling yearling steers at 180p per Kilo; across the board they have averaged 452k giving £800 per animal, so buying barley at £300/tonne to finish them is uneconomic.)

"My feeding regime used to be very simple, but I was over feeding some stock and under feeding others. We have started to put in an extra feed to feed more accurately. I've also decreased cattle numbers as the profitability of the cattle was not high enough to justify increasing numbers. (Monitor Farmer)

"We've started to grow stubble turnips and out wintering cows. This has worked really well-we had calves outside 26p per day instead of 6p we halved the costs for a while. A grass seed company came in and gave us advice and some seed to try". (Monitor Farmer)

"I reviewed how we use fertilisers and the value of slurry and muck". (Monitor Farmer)

"We've done a soil improvement programme looking at P, K and N, and have blood sampled livestock for mineral and trace element deficiencies as well as undertaking forage analysis". (Monitor Farmer)

I supply a report to the vet each month. As a result of this, I know how much the herd is costing me in terms of pence/litre of milk and also feedwise - 6.82p/litre of feed. (Monitor Farmer)

This farmer has also now a better understanding of his calving intervals on account of the MF. He had no idea before, then found it was 13 months. He is also aware of live weight gains - at up to 24/25 months old it was worked out that it should be 1 kilo per day. Also, in the previous year it was costing him £119/tonne for feed, in this year this has increased to £200/tonne (£1 to £2 per day change). He believes detailed information like this is needed on all farms and you cannot base it on the very best farm, a range of data needs to be incorporated.

We brought in a cost effective system for calf rearing - we worked out the cost of calves per day with the rep from Bolak (calf powder producer) (Monitor Farmer)

We changed grass management - got advice it was too high in magnesium - needed to add gypsum to aerate the soil to make free draining - this was implemented. (Monitor Farmer)

Vets gave advice on bookwork - how to do general paperwork - recording cows with mastitis, condition of cows, difficult calvings etc. (Monitor Farmer)

I can see a 10 year improvement in 3 years - the particular benefit was that I got a chance to look at figures in a different way. With the breeding herd, we brought in a different breeding policy - from 4 charolais bulls 1 Angus, all charolais cows to at end of year 3 - was fattening Hereford Angus steers. Focus more on profit rather than production. (Monitor Farmer)

First the first 6 months we were trying to fix problems when we couldn't define what the problem was- thought we had copper deficiency - turned out it was fluke. (Monitor Farmer)

I understand my costs more - cost of heating, fertilisers, tractors. (Monitor Farmer)

I've changed the feeding pattern - now not twice a day. (Monitor Farmer)

The key change is a closed herd, no bought in replacements. (Monitor Farmer)

We discussed building a new shed, split into groups and everyone came up with 3 different designs. (Monitor Farmer)

On personal development, I applied for a Nuffield scholarship on maximising profit and visited Argentina and Uruguay. (Monitor Farmer)

We've made changes - lots of little things. Bought faecal egg counting unit, for counting eggs in dung, also a sheep handler for £10k - the bank manager advised about a grant. We're much more vigorous in grassland management - grazing harder and less and more attention to detail. I joined a group on grain and get better advice on costs per hectare. (Monitor Farmer)

We reduced dosing for worms/fluke. They had a vet talking about this. Also we changed the breeding selection. (Monitor Farmer)

"They were trying some stubble turnips and other low risk changes have actually been done. Some also cut down their numbers, selling cattle earlier which is something associated with higher risk. I've had a few discuss it further with me before implementing big changes". (Facilitator)

"I think there's been more interest in people getting their own silage tested, condition scoring sheep and winter diets". Also they changed tupping of sheep, getting silage tested, getting concentrates to make up the difference in feed, worm testing - doing egg counts in dung, giving medicines in a more targeted way. (Facilitator)

Group members showed a willingness to look at financials - couldn't say what the differences were on a 2 year project. There have been increments day to day - small, but some progress. We're in the business of changing attitudes. If we can encourage group members to examine business more critically, have a better idea of what their own costs are, it's useful. (Facilitator)

One member did not have a clue of split of feed costs between beef and sheep - MF process helped to clarify this. (Facilitator)

Evidence that MF has done trials on yeast in feed rations (to increase return, £5 investment gives £9 return), ran trial on behalf of the CG.

Some of the key effects of the programme on Community Group members included:

• Learned about benefits of buying in machinery vs using a contractor - this helped in making a decision
• Trialled new practice on yeast which was an idea from the CG, then trialled on MF- this showed that for £5 investment there was a return of, £9 - community group likely to put ideas into action if shown to work
• Could use MF to investigate problems such as heifers dying - all cases now recorded to try and establish the cause
• Information from general discussion about analysing silage more to understand what was actually feeding the cattle - one farmer started this practice as a result
• Grazing system discussed at one meeting involving rotating round the farm - liked by farmer and may be adopted
• Grassland management 3 leaf system was thought valuable and a number of farmers adopted this
• One now monitoring cattle health performance as a result of learning via MF
• Advice from vet at one talk helped reduce fluke in CG over the 3 years
• A talk by a vet at a meeting helped some farmers to decide to vaccinate against BVD and benefits should be seen this winter (fewer deaths)
• Gained information to help reduce fertility problem
• Visit to slaughter house helped a farmer to decide how and where to have livestock slaughtered
• Learned about rubber mats for dairy, electric fences, paddock grazing
• Monitor Farm trialled rubber ring for castration of cattle - a number now follow this practice.

Attitudes to Facilitation

From the monitor farmers' viewpoint, the facilitation was generally considered to be very good, although one Monitor Farmer was disappointed with the standard of facilitation of his project. Most knew the facilitator prior to the programme, and the fact that they were local was considered important in terms of them having relevant experience. All agree that the initial meetings at the start of the programme were useful in setting out the way forward, and providing the facilitator with a good understanding of the Monitor Farmer's business. Most Monitor Farmers meet at least once with the facilitator prior to a Community Group meeting, which again is felt to be important.

The role of the facilitator in drawing conclusions and recommendations from each meeting for members to take home meant that everyone had the opportunity to apply learnings to their own business.

The relationship with the facilitator is absolutely critical. We met up a lot at the beginning. If anything needed to be checked out, they came out. (Monitor Farmer)

One facilitator said that the project was very time consuming and that he had spent around 160 hours on it in the first year. He did however feel that this effort was worthwhile.

Some criticism was levelled at cost considerations - sometimes costs prevented the development of an idea and also some improvements were sought in terms of attention to detail with regard to using the correct addresses, etc.

"I don't know what kind of budget we're working to but resources soak up the funds. We're controlled by costs and they ( CG's) won't always be allowed to do what they want when they need to consider cost". (Monitor Farmer)

The importance of the facilitator's role was highlighted further by the Community Groups. They felt a good facilitator is key to the whole process. In describing their role, the Community Groups feel a facilitator should be pro-active and encourage attendance, as well as put work in to prepare for the meetings and they feel more value stems from meetings where this happens. They should also encourage farmers to ask questions, challenge ideas, and ask about what they would like to gain from the meeting.

Attitudes to Specific Events and Meetings

The majority of external experts are SAC staff, although a number of respondents said that they would prefer a mix of speakers so as not to have it dominated by one provider. There is a mixed response to their involvement - some facilitators do not like an expert to attend every discussion as they believe emphasis should come from within the group. Others see experts as integral to the project as they enable the group to be provided with focused, up to date information so that they can provide the group with a discussion point to focus on the Monitor Farm. One facilitator pointed out that the best forum is for a discussion rather a lecture style approach.

"They (the external speakers) help farmers as they like to hear up to date information. They can link it back to research and have the opportunity to ask questions and link into back into practical farming systems". (Facilitator)

The involvement of specialist speakers is generally greeted positively by those with monitor farms and would appear to be influential upon subsequent practices. (Though the extent to which this was carried out was not revealed)

One negative comment from the MF's regarding the external speakers was that sometimes advisors were brought in from other parts of the country e.g. a grassland management speaker from Devon, who didn't realise that he was in an area which could grow grass and hence was unable to apply specialist knowledge to the locality. Another MF felt an expert who gave advice about beef was a bit 'iffy'. There is a feeling that local speakers are best and that they would be more aware of any improvements carried out on farms and are able to 'make the subject relevant. If speakers are not local, they must ensure that their advice reflects the farming aspects of the locality. For example, the downside of a particular talk given on grassland on seed selection/reseeding/ploughing was that it was not all relevant for crofting and needed to be customised.

Regarding the meetings themselves, most focused upon technical information than business decision making as this is what those involved are most interested in. The group meetings are considered to be crucial to the programme, as these allow the information to be disseminated to others.

"They (the CG) enjoyed going to other people's farms and having a look at the facilities, the cattle and then discussing amongst themselves". (Facilitator)

The community group farmers also feel that holding the meetings on farm is very valuable, although there was limited interest in visiting other community groups. This very much dependent upon the format and topics discussed.

It was noted that some group members have made major changes within their businesses as result of discussions that have happened in the meetings.

"In one meeting which discussed liver fluke one farmer went home and checked his cattle - this made him aware of it ". (Facilitator)

Some CG members picked up on advice on feeding of cows - moved to feeding twice a day. (Facilitator)

"30 - 40 attend the community group. Some are using lessons in their own business, i.e. - with very thin sheep - now keep thin ones from carrying a lamb over winter, then they have a better lamb - lower number but better". (Facilitator)

"We had Douglas Bell, SAC - he did an analysis of accounts, with info on a % basis, not actual figures. We had a discussion on this and all community group members were interested". (Monitor Farmer)

Similarly, the meetings provide a forum whereby the community group farmers have formed closer relationships and hence, going forward they will provide more advice to each other/share knowledge. Others pointed to the influence of specialists who informed members of alternative practices and their benefits.

"The meetings taught them to think outside the box". (Facilitator)

All MF's and Community Groups agree that the meeting environment is beneficial to all concerned, primarily due to the ability to hear of new ideas, solutions to problems and exchange views upon them. They are generally felt to be as important as the expert speakers.

"Being able to discuss information and see it in practice is more valuable than just reading about it in the press, hearing it at a college". (Community Group)

"It provides free advice from some of the very best experts in their fields. It definitely has benefits to people's businesses". (Monitor Farmer)

"They also get access to some brilliant expert advice which they wouldn't otherwise get access to". (Monitor Farmer)

"I thought that the meetings have been really useful - the benefit of having a meeting is that other people are also thinking of lots of questions so you can get more information-thought provoking". (Monitor Farmer)

The community group got a lot of benefits -it's a fantastic platform to meet farmers and get them to listen. (Monitor Farmer)

In the wider group, all data gathered was presented. Some are taking and relating to their own enterprises, looking at their practices, with a view to changing some things. (Monitor Farmer)

The financial data discussed i.e. MF and benchmark data has helped some farmers to consider on farm decisions and practices as they could see how it can improve efficiency and influence their bottom line. Having access to the financial data from the Monitor farm and discussing it can increase understanding of the need to monitor costs more carefully and break data down in order to identify areas for saving, etc. Many farmers did not look at their data in this much detail, and are now more likely to do so. However, as a number of farms had not got their data in a comparable format i.e. broken down, it was difficult to directly compare their situation with the Monitor Farm.

Changes Facilitators would make in the Future

Some key changes facilitators suggested are listed below.

• Involve the group more and have them take full ownership of the group.
• Consider choice of farm carefully. In one case an Estate farm was selected, and this was affected by factors that are irrelevant on an average farms.
• May make more use of the chairman, but would not use sub groups due to the distance some of the members travel to get to the Monitor Farm
• Make those involved more aware of financial position of business before starting the community group member meetings - this means more data analysis before the programme.
• Would now do more on-farm work (e.g. financial aspects) before meetings started.
• In future, choose another Monitor Farmer and hold the meetings there so as to widen the issues involved.
• Try and identify issues within different parts of the businesses more quickly. It was 3-4 meetings into the programme that this happened after collecting the data - would now collect all the data and analyse prior to first meeting.
• Move the programme it to a new location (on an island rather than mainland which only comprises a small proportion of the region's land). This would improve accessibility.
• Would consider having more specific objectives if driven by funding but this does depend on the Monitor Farmer.
• From a social viewpoint, consider taking farmers away for a trip.

One facilitator has tried a different approach to sub groups in the second Monitor Farm compared to the first because they were not as successful as they had hoped. The aim of the group was to just focus on a specific problem for one issue only. They were asked to put their heads together and come up with more solutions for just one additional meeting.

Another would set objectives/targets on an enterprise or fixed cost basis. This is considered to be easier to measure, and more up to date than waiting for accounts. This could also be done with the CG members to measure their performance.

Social Benefits of the Programme

By its nature, the programme has enabled those participating to get to know each other better, and as result sharing knowledge is likely to be more commonplace as a result. This is a view held by all involved. That said, there is no evidence to back this up although several of the facilitators have described how the groups have become more engaged with each other over time.

"There has been a definite change. They group have got to know each other better, they socialise more, some have started to work for each other (on each others farms and selling stock/grain)". (Facilitator)

"Yes, we have a strong network of farmers with good prospering businesses. The links are good within the region - other regions are not so strong". (Monitor Farmer)

"It's already a close community but keeps everyone in communicating so does have its benefits", (Monitor Farmer)

"Yes the meetings have been good for community spirit. It's not my Monitor farm it is the community's Monitor farm - I hope that's how they all see it". (Monitor Farmer)

Within the community groups, closer relationships have been established, which has helped the morale of local community.

"Often people have the same problems and you don't know it". (Monitor Farmer)

"They have great personal benefits. We are now having meetings before any crisis. Feel quite privileged getting all this input and a range of options". (Monitor Farmer)

"Community has been brought closer together - more detail on in bye ground. Looking at how everyone can collaborate". (Monitor Farmer)

There is little evidence of sharing machinery or meeting up outside the MF programme but the MF approach appears very valuable as it provides farmers with an opportunity to meet up with local farmers, some of which hadn't met before.

Use of Monitor Farms Programme for Promoting Environmental and Other Messages

The impact of the MF programme upon environmental management was considered to be restrictive by most of the facilitators. Environmental practices are either already carried out by farmers or would need financial incentives before they would consider undertaking them. Elsewhere, the focus of the programme is felt to be more beneficial if placed upon farming rather than the environment.

"Regarding environment management, the farms are already doing it. The environment is only part of the bigger package. Farmers need to think of environment in terms of livestock. You can't isolate a farm and concentrate only on environmental aspects. What is an issue on one farm won't be an issue on other. Only hardcore environmental farmers would be attending specific meetings". (Facilitator)

"The topics should be on farming but if community group request these things, happy to deliver them. When comes to environment unless get paid to do it farmers not interested. Environment specific meetings would get less people attending and this would dilute the impact". (Facilitator)

Three facilitators saw benefits to environmental management through the use of Monitor Farms.

"Yes they are all applicable. It is a whole process of learning, helping the environment and learning about diversification". (Facilitator)

"It has helped people to understand the environment and conservation better", (Facilitator).

"We're always talking about environmental issues. Farm is in a CSF area - we looked at manure tankers, injecting, pulling out hedgerows. I got FWAG to do an audit - cost £1200 - they looked at water courses, hedgerows, wetland areas. We used some of the results in soil management plans" - (Facilitator)

We look at the environment as a means of sourcing funds - if that means that the land is managed more sympathetically, that's good. (Facilitator)

Most of those with monitor farms think that the Monitor Farm approach provides an opportunity to improve environmental management. One disagrees, stating the emphasis should be on food production.

"We are here to produce food so I think we should be focusing on the production of beef and sheep. A little bit on other subjects but mainly on beef and sheep". (Monitor Farmer)

Those that feel there is an opportunity, link agricultural and environmental practices closely together.

"Yes, it highlights good agricultural and environmental techniques and how they can work hand in hand. This Monitor Farm has been in environmental schemes since 1997 and has seen the wider benefits on both the farm, and the wildlife that is now there. The Monitor Farm is a good opportunity to get farmer participation by showing the wider benefits to them". (Monitor Farmer)

"It is something that is touched on during the meetings. Demonstrating best practice is the best way of highlighting the benefits. Also need to discuss how to tap into environmental schemes. The MF programme needs to raise awareness of what is available to farmers be it agricultural or environmental but the way to make it work is by linking the two. It can show how environmental practices can benefit the farmer as well as vice versa". (Monitor Farmer)

He had FWAG in - most farmers are in an environmental scheme anyway. This is not really a monitor farm specific. If you're looking at 300 cattle - no time to do anything else. (Monitor Farmer)

Looked at SEPA, pollution, carbon trading, discussed subsidies applied for in occasional meetings. He cut one third of each hedgerow - wasn't practical. (Facilitator)

Not a lot of interest in this in the Monitor Farm approach. Farmers tend to join schemes but don't understand why they're doing it. We had a sub group looking at diversification. But if you sit at a desk it doesn't work. Monitor Farm approach could help, but do not pigeon hole it to be about environment/diversification - it's an evolutionary thing. (Facilitator)

Environment is key to what they're doing. He's in environment schemes; Monitor Farm has to fit in with managing wildlife, birds. Also grassland selection needs to reflect that it shouldn't need reploughing every 3 years, to suit birds also. (Facilitator)

A few Community Group members feel that environment issues should be built into the Monitor Farm programme, but others feel improving farm profits should come first. Thus there is potential perceived conflict between improving farm profitability and improving the environment. There was some awareness of an initiative run by SEPA/ SAC with an environment focus and a belief that there should be more "joined up thinking" concerning liking the environmental management and farm practices and profitability

Diversification is a contentious issue and only of interest in more tourist areas. In some community groups, it is considered that there simply isn't enough population and/or tourists to make new businesses sustainable. (Though one farmer did comment that if an idea was right, it could be successful). In non tourist areas, there is little likelihood of income from holiday lets, etc.

There was little interest or enthusiasm for including this or diversifying in general and a feeling that diversification is unlikely to be successful and needs investment which farmers may not have. Also there is the feeling that it is already difficult to fit all relevant issues regarding animal health (i.e. to do with beef and sheep) into the programme - it would stretch resources to cover other areas such as diversification as well. Also if farmers are farming profitably - the aim of the Monitor Farm programme - many felt that they shouldn't need to diversify.

I'm a framer - I think the Monitor Farm programme should be about farming. Let's do one job well than two badly. (Community Group)

We are a farming industry. (Community Group)

Sources of Information on Farming

Monitor farms are considered to be more effective way to learn about farming issues than alternative sources of information, such as weekly publications and newsletters. This is largely because of the practical aspect of being able to see/discuss how something is applied.

"Farming is very practical. Need to look at it, feel it and see it to know/believe it works. Farmers are more likely to take home the attitude "if he can do it, so can I". (Monitor Farmer)

"The meetings are full of experts. It's very hands on and practical which is the best way to learn. It is also in a relaxed environment". (Monitor Farmer)

"It's better because you get the information and the feedback all in one go", (Monitor Farmer)

"They get bombarded with info through the post. If you can discuss things with a facilitator, other farmers and specialists see it and see the results they will remember it rather than reading literature. The information is also available to them simply and in ways they will be able to remember it unlike some of the literature they receive". (Facilitator)

"Monitor Farms are better. This is because it encompasses all different types of knowledge transfer methods". (Facilitator)

Another felt Monitor Farms were useful, but not necessarily value for money.

"It is another useful and powerful extension tool. But it is expensive and doesn't work for everyone. I don't think that they should just rely on Monitor Farms for development on farms". (Facilitator)

Community groups generally felt the Monitor Farm approach was a better way to receive information and advice than the more passive ways (such as info through newsletters etc).

Future for Monitor Farms

The Community Groups saw a need to establish a baseline position - many felt that they did not understand where they were at the start and were not sure what they were comparing with what. They felt that a lot more collection and analysis of data was needed at the beginning of any programme and in one case, a year's pre work was suggested.

The most common suggestion for taking the programme forward was to keep the format the same but to change the monitor farm so that new issues could be discovered and resolved. The three year time span is considered to be sufficient for the changes to a farm to be implemented and hence better understood. Another common response was to revisit the monitor farm after a set time after the programme has finished, again, to determine what impacts the changes made have had.

Other suggestions given by facilitators include:

• Move more towards focusing on the environment and looking at the whole business, not just on specific enterprises.
• Get the community to contribute more to the cost of the MF concept and programme. This will help with commitment, ownership and development of managing and sustaining he group after the 3 year funded programme has ended.
• After three years, provide administration support rather than facilitation support to the group
• Visit other farms around the region to see different farms.
• Moving to 2 years instead of 3 to keep it fresh

Those with monitor farms generally agree that the format does not require changing, but again going forward, the group, rather than the facilitator should take on the responsibility and feel that a different farm should be selected.

"I would like to continue cost sharing with QMS and maybe local sponsors members could pay £50 each and get QMS to match (£50 X 50 members £2,500 plus the match of £2,500= £5,000) you could do a lot with this, good speakers, a little bit of analysis. SAC to facilitate it and I don't think that they should charge so much as they get a lot of information from monitor farms they use that information. (Monitor Farmer)

As with the facilitators, it was felt that the duration of the programme could change, depending upon the types of issues concerned.

"You can have a shorter time for arable enterprises, as it takes a less time to see benefits and outcomes". (Monitor Farmer)

Regarding current levels of funding, facilitators generally feel the current amount is about right. One made the point clearer objectives in the use of the funding would be useful in setting the programme objectives.

Going forward, views are divided between continuing with the current funding system in place, and placing more emphasis upon those involved to fund developments. For the latter, given the success of the existing programmes, it is felt that monitor farmers may be willing to pay for such a service, potentially through a levy payable to QMS.

Those in the Community Groups felt they were already paying via Dairy Co/ QMS levies etc - few felt farmers should fund it any more directly (although 2 farmers who run a beef group in Wigtownshire will have to fund their set up once funding runs out - so it may be that if farmers feel it is important enough they may carry on a small scale themselves, if no other funding is available.

One Community Group did suggest that they could pay £100/year or other subscription to fund it - but obviously don't understand the total costs involved!

« Previous | Contents | Next »