The Hugel 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 awareness of the degraded quality of the Minnesota River and the impact that agriculture and specific agricultural systems have on the river.
• Gain understanding of the strengths and limitations of agricultural practices advocated to enhance river quality.
• Gain understanding of the options available to farmers with regard to enhancing water quality.
• Gain understanding of how to manage or reconcile differences among viewpoints.
• Learn to seek cooperation 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 pollution and its causes and in discussing strategies to overcome the problem.

Materials Needed:

• Copies of the case and accompanying slides
• A slide projector and screen (optional)
• 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 20 to 60 minutes, depending on the degree of preparation by the participants and the desired depth of the discussion. The outline below is one example of the way a facilitator might structure 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.

1. Introduction
   1. Facilitator introduces the activity and describes goals and approach to be used.
      • Focus on a real situation
      • Practice problem solving
      • No single right answer - each person and situation is unique
2. The Case Activity
   1. Facilitator introduces the activity and shows the slides of the Hugel farm. (See slide attachment for narrative.)
   2. Participants read or reread the narrative of the decision case.
   3. Facilitator divides the participants into small groups of 2-4 people and asks them to discuss question #1.
   4. Participants return to large group and share key points of their discussion.
   5. Facilitator guides a group discussion on the remaining questions.
3. Conclusion
   1. Group members may select a preferred option, or facilitator may have participants write individually and describe their decision in response to the dilemma and the rationale for the response.
   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 Bill Hugel’s dilemma?

   Bill has many related decisions to make. The question of whether or not to continue using a no-till planting system on his HEL is the immediate decision. This decision could affect whether he enrolls in the government’s Feed Grain Program in the next year. There is also the deeper dilemma of Bill’s growing dissatisfaction with government-mandated conservation programs that take options away from the local manager.
   
   

2. Is Bill Hugel a conservation farmer? Why or why not?

   Bill was chosen as the "Conservation Farmer of the Year" for his county because of the many conservation methods he implemented on his farm over time. However, Bill was willing to apply "a lot" of herbicides or fertilizers to his HEL to maintain yield. Participants may discuss whether applying extra herbicides was necessary. Participants may also discuss Bill’s attitudes toward soil conservation, river quality versus lake quality, and the environment.
   
   

3. What are the community and peer issues Bill faces as he considers continuing no-till?

   Bill is not aware of any support group that may exist in his area to help him overcome constraints and answer questions about no-till. Because most farmers in his area are using other methods of reduced tillage rather than no-till, Bill may also face a lack of acceptance from his neighbors. Bill feels the soils in his area are not suited for no-till. However, if he were able to successfully integrate no-till into his operation, Bill might be seen as an innovator in his area. He would also capture other benefits, such as saving time in the field.
   
   

4. What other issues do you think are important in affecting Bill’s decision?

   Issues introduced in the case include:

   • Bill’s sense of pride as a farmer
   • The uniqueness of his soils and landscape
   • His distrust of a “formula” approach determining what constitutes conservation farming
   • His history of enrolling in the Feed Grain Program for economic reasons
   • Uncertainty about specific features next year’s Feed Grain Program will have
   • His desire to maintain or increase yield and profitability on his HEL
   • His farm’s proximity to the Minnesota River
   • Bill’s perception of the need for increased herbicide use on his no-till fields
   • Field operation time savings when using no-till
   • The classification methods used to define HEL
   
   
5. What are Bill’s options for managing his HEL?

   Below are just some of the possible options participants may discuss:

   • Continue using no-till. Infiltration may improve on his soil after a few years without tillage. He can maintain the required residue coverage and save time on tillage operations.
   • Consider other reduced tillage methods to attain the 30-35% residue requirement.
   • Return to his previous method of chisel plowing. This option will likely prohibit Bill from enrolling in the Feed Grain Program.
   • Utilize his anhydrous knife applicators in the fall to help incorporate soybean residue slightly, yet leave more surface residue than either the chisel plow or field cultivator.
   • Try to attain 30-35% residue cover by means other than no-till. Bill could change to a soybean-soybean-corn or soybean-corn-small grain rotation.
   
   
6. Are the conservation compliance regulations Bill faces "fair"? Why or why not?

   This question gives participants the opportunity to discuss difficulties defining agricultural policies for large numbers of farmers with greatly differing conditions. It can also lead to discussion about the ability of farmers to "regulate" themselves and their farms responsibly without government interaction.

   Only surface vegetative residue is considered in the conservation requirements that Bill satisfies for the Feed Grain Program. His terraces and sediment basins are not considered. The nature of soils specific to his farm is not considered. Bill also feels that the measures used to determine HEL classification are not fair.
   
   

7. To what extent do Bill’s farming methods affect the Minnesota River?

   Water from the Hugel farm drains directly to the river through a ditch and a creek. Bill feels his farm has little negative impact on the river because of the conservation methods he has in place. The facilitator may choose to probe the soundness of this conclusion with the participants.
   
   

8. What responsibility do farmers have toward water quality of the river? What role do communities play in reducing river pollution?

   The Minnesota River is polluted. This question provides an opportunity to discuss the roles of producers and community members in the improvement of river water quality.
   
   

9. What should Bill do?

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

Developed by: