The Falke Farm Teaching Note

Part of the Minnesota River Decision Cases (other cases available)
View Decision Case for this case.

Case Objectives

Through deliberation of this case, participants will:

• Gain understanding of rural issues surrounding large finishing and feedlot operations.
• Gain understanding of how agricultural policy affects rural development.
• Gain awareness of the impact that agriculture and specific agricultural systems in watersheds can have on rivers.
• Gain understanding of how to manage or reconcile differences among viewpoints.
• Learn to seek cooperative and constructive solutions to complex problems.

Use of the Case:

This case was developed for use by extension educators, university and high school teachers, state agency personnel, policy makers, and others interested in enhancing understanding of Minnesota River water quality and in discussing strategies to overcome the problem. It can also be used in discussions surrounding agricultural policy and rural development.

Materials Needed:

• Copies of the case and exhibits
• Blackboard, flip chart, overhead projector or other means of displaying participants’ comments
• A "U" or horseshoe-shaped seating arrangement for maximum participation among participants and the facilitator

Dealing with Controversy:

Often in the discussion of a decision case, participants will disagree about certain issues. While this is a mark of an effective case, the facilitator should keep the discussion from becoming argumentative and unproductive. Participants should be reminded that there are many points of view and that you would like the atmosphere to be constructive and nonthreatening. If desired, techniques such as role-playing or role reversal can help participants discuss the issues in a less personal way.

Following are strategies to keep in mind to facilitate a productive, healthy discussion where controversy may be involved:

• Establish ground rules. These may include: allowing only one person at a time to speak; no one should speak twice before everyone has had a chance to speak once; no criticizing of others’ comments, etc.
• Encourage participants to use "I" messages when stating their viewpoint. Avoid using "you" or blaming statements.
• Ask clarifying questions such as, "Why do you think that?" A major communication problem is misunderstanding what was said.
• Ask participants to try to imagine the situation from the other person’s point of view. (Role-playing can also help with this.)
• Encourage participants to focus on what they want to have happen in the future or where they would like to go rather than where they have come from or what has happened in the past.

Lesson Outline:

Discussion of this case can last from 30 to 90 minutes, depending on the degree of preparation by the participants and the desired depth of the discussion. In general, a decision case discussion is a forum where students talk to each other in addition to the facilitator. The format described here is useful when advanced preparation of the participants is not possible. If desired, the facilitator can include additional information on local water quality as well as the Minnesota River to enhance discussion and create a broader understanding of those topics. Minnesota River information is available in Exhibit C of The Wilder Farm or in the Minnesota River Assessment Project report. The outline below is one example of the way a facilitator might structure the discussion.

1. Introduction
   1. Facilitator introduces the decision case and describes its goals and approaches to be used.
      • Focuses on a real situation.
      • Practices problem solving.
      • No single right answer-each person and situation is unique.
2. The Case Activity
   1. Participants read or reread the narrative of the decision case.
   2. Facilitator divides the participants into small groups of 2-4 people and asks them to discuss question #1.
   3. Participants return to large group and share key points of their discussion.
   4. Facilitator guides a group discussion on the remaining questions.
3. Conclusion
   1. Group members may select a preferred option, or facilitator may have participants individually write a response describing their decision and rationale.
   2. Closing comments.

Discussion Questions:

Below are examples of the kinds of questions the case facilitator can use to stimulate discussion of the issues in this case. Participants may discuss some of these questions in groups of two or three and others as a large group. The questions used can vary depending on your time limit and the issues you wish to discuss. Other questions may be added.

1. What is Kari and Kurt’s dilemma?

   Kari is struggling against peer and public pressure to build the hog finishing facility she and Kurt want. Her dilemma is whether she is willing to pay emotional and social costs to gain approval (¶30). Kari and Kurt feel as though they have gone 'above and beyond' the letter of the law in planning their facility and accommodating their neighbors’ concerns, yet they still face opposition. The Falkes may have to fight a long battle with the Township Board to get their facility built. Even after the facility is completed, they may still face opposition or resentment in their community. Is it worth it?

   On a larger scale, the dilemma stated by Kurt in ¶28 is not the Falke’s but the public’s. Participants may discuss whether animal feedlots 'belong' in rural Minnesota.

2. Why are the neighbors opposed to the Falke’s proposed operation?

   Following are just some of the issues participants may discuss.

   • Negative public perception of large farming operations - large vs. small farms
   • Potential odor problems
   • Increased wear on a public road
   • Concern over the large amount of manure to be spread and the stability of the manure-spreading contracts
   • Their opinion that the Falkes do not practice good stewardship
   • Environmental concerns
   • A negative opinion of the business arrangement Falkes will have with an integrator
3. What are the Falke’s reasons for wanting to build the finishing facility?
   • Kari’s desire to work full-time on the farm
   • Kari and Kurt’s desire for more income to pay their children’s college expenses
   • Their desire to generate income for retirement
   • Their desire to expand and improve an already successful business

   Questions 4 through 13 can help initiate discussion of the issues in the case and help participants discover assumptions underlying their opinions about these issues. The questions the facilitator actually asks depends on which issues the facilitator wishes to cover and the amount of time available for discussion of the case.

4. How do you respond to the opening statement, "The Falkes are predators when it comes to livestock"? (¶1)
5. In ¶10 a local hog farmer states that the Falke’s operation will double the hog production of the township. In ¶5, the Falke’s proposal is shown to project 12,000 hogs per year. What effects would increasing the hog population of the township have on other hog farmers?
6. What environmental impacts might an expanded hog operation such as that planned by the Falkes have?
7. Why are feedlots such a volatile issue?
8. Why are the people concerned about the manure the site will produce? Are these concerns valid? Why or why not?
9. Should the Falkes, the neighbors, or the county be concerned about the effect of the proposed operation on the water quality of the nearby rivers and lakes? Why or why not?

   This question can be used when the facilitator wants issues of water quality to be part of the discussion. While water quality is not the central issue presented, this case can be used to discuss water quality issues.

   Over 90% of the farmland in the area of the Falke’s proposed site is drained by subsurface tiles. The site and the manure-spreading lands shown in Exhibit A are located in the watersheds of two rivers in the Minnesota River Basin. The Minnesota River is one of the state’s most polluted rivers.

   The MPCA and DNR both looked at the site and deemed that an EAW was not necessary. Participants may discuss whether the acreage under contract to receive manure should be looked at, too. Also, this question can lead to discussion about producers’ and the general public’s attitudes and understanding of watershed systems and issues.

10. What value will the proposed facility add to the community?
11. How would you have responded to the neighbor’s comment that the township residents "have the right to determine the use of the land" (¶23)? What about Kari’s comment that prime ag land is the "place where food is raised" (¶25)?
12. Do you agree with the decision of the County Commissioner’s Board to grant the Falke’s permit? Why or why not?
13. Was the Township Board correct to place a moratorium on expansion of large hog feedlots in the township? Why or why not?
    
    
14. What are Kari and Kurt’s options in this situation?

    This question allows participants to discuss the need for communication and information exchange between farmers, non-farmers, and policy makers. It also allows for discussion of how participants view Kari and Kurt’s options. Some options include, but are not limited to:

    • Respond to public opinion by discontinuing their plans to expand on the site. This option may go against Kari’s sense of personal fairness.
    • Find another location. Kari and Kurt might seek a third site option, perhaps in another township. This option would pacify the current neighbors, but the Falkes might face new opposition elsewhere. Also they would lose the time and money they have spent planning and litigating for the current site.
    • Implement a strategy to swing public opinion in the township to favor their cause. Kari could work to influence public opinion through the local media and personal contact with key people in her community. This option would require a lot of effort on Kari’s part. Also, she might not see this as necessary because the Falkes have already complied with all the requirements needed for approval.
    • Ignore public opinion and forge ahead. This may not be possible if the township moratorium is upheld in mediation.
    
    
15. What should Kari and Kurt do?

    You may or may not wish to try to reach consensus regarding a preferred decision.

Developed by: