The Wilder Farm Teaching Note

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

Overview:

Most Minnesotans are aware that the Minnesota River is polluted. Fewer are familiar with the nature of that pollution: where it comes from, how it affects the animals and plants in the river, and how it affects people in the state. This case provides a basis for an informed discussion among people who are involved at all levels with the Minnesota River and the issues surrounding river quality and how it can be improved.

This case explains the dilemma of Jay Wilder, a sugar beet farmer on a tributary of the Minnesota River. Should Jay install vegetated filter strips between his cropland and the river? This question is important in the arena of water quality improvement. It also provides a bridge for discussing other issues of importance to improving river quality. These include the effectiveness and practicality of approaches to soil conservation, the equity of the economic costs of carrying out conservation measures, and the relationship of agro-ecosystem features for river quality.

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.

Notes to the Facilitator:

Debate between producers and environmental advocates in the Minnesota River basin has frequently been divisive. Antagonism between different interest groups makes it difficult for people to work jointly toward shared objectives such as soil conservation and clean, safe water. Exercises like this case can foster cooperation and mutual understanding between traditionally antagonistic groups. Here, discussion of practices that would reduce environmental impact should be tempered with economic realities. Comments that place all farmers in a group should be challenged. The discussion should focus on the specific qualities of the decision maker portrayed in the case. All of us depend on farmers like Jay Wilder for our food. If there are cookies or donuts at the meeting, you might point out that about 40% of the sugar consumed in this country is refined from sugar beets.

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. The outline below is one example of the way a facilitator could structure the discussion. In general, a decision case discussion is a forum where students talk to each other in addition to the facilitator.

1. Introduction
   1. Facilitator introduces the decision case and describes goals and approaches 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 slides of the Wilder farm. (See slide attachment for narrative.)
   2. Participants read or reread Part I of the decision case narrative and study exhibits.
   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 poses question #2 for participants to discuss as a whole group.
   6. Facilitator poses question #3 for participants to discuss as a whole group and any additional issues raised in the small groups.
   7. Participants read Part II of the decision case and study exhibit.
   8. Repeat step C and ask them to discuss question #4.
   9. Facilitator divides large group into small groups and poses one or more additional questions using question #5 or #6. Participants share ideas of small group with whole group.
3. Conclusion
   1. Facilitator poses question:
      What should Jay Wilder do?
      Participants volunteer answers specific to the filter strip dilemma and discuss as a whole group.
   2. 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 purpose.
   3. Closing comments.

Notes on Selected Questions:

1. What is Jay Wilder’s dilemma?

   The obvious question is whether Jay Wilder should install approximately 15 acres of vegetated filter strips between some of his fields and the river. However, participants may see other related dilemmas and issues such as defining who is responsible for the problem and its solution, the agro-ecological nature of the corn-sugar beet cropping system and its inherent effect on river quality, and the single-focus profit incentive.
   
   

2. Why is Jay considering filter strips? What are the factors that might cause Jay to discount the practice?

   Jay is interested in helping his daughter get credit for her FFA chapter. This could mean scholarship dollars for Jennifer in the future. In addition, Jay is interested in developing a positive image as an environmentally concerned farmer. Also, Jay has legitimate concerns about runoff from his clean-tilled fields. Filter strips could slow surface runoff.

   There are several reasons for Jay’s hesitation to install the filter strips. The alfalfa strips he favors may not be as effective as grass strips in preventing pollutants from entering the river. They also may not comply with the restrictions of the FFA Green Stripe Program. Runoff from the open-intake drains will bypass the filter strips. The 15 acres of filter strips will be more spread out and therefore more complicated to plant and harvest.
   
   

3. What features of the Wilder’s sugar beet-corn cropping system have the potential to contribute to lowered quality of the Minnesota River and its tributaries?

   Because he must have weed-free fields, Wilder must use chemical herbicides. He applies these frequently, but at low rates. His operation’s biggest potential threat to the river is not from chemicals, but from soil. Bare fields are more susceptible to wind or water erosion than fields with plant or residue cover. As mentioned in Exhibit C, excess sediment can damage the river in many ways and is the primary concern of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) river initiative.
   
   

4. What are Jay Wilder’s other options for enhancing quality of the Chippewa and Minnesota Rivers?

   Jay’s options include the installation of various combinations of filter strips such as alfalfa/hay or mixed grass. Vegetated filters can remove significant amounts of sediment and nutrients from runoff water. The MPCA notes that vegetated filter strips can play a strong supporting role in reducing soil loss.

   Another option is to discard the idea of installing the filter strips. The benefits to Jay’s operation are not clear, especially since his fields include open intake drains and tiles that would bypass the filter strip system. Also, the filtering effects of Jay’s preferred choice of tap-rooted alfalfa are not as effective as the fibrous root system of a mixed grass strip.

   Some additional options to reduce soil loss and improve water quality that Wilder could consider include:

   • Adopt conservation tillage, such as ridge till planting, which is practiced by some beet producers. Crop residue in planted fields would protect the soil from wind and water erosion. The surface residue helps protect seedlings from wind damage. This form of ridge till does not place beet plants on the tops of ridges. However, after the harvest, bare beet fields are still susceptible to wind erosion.
   • Install wind breaks. These are highly effective but expensive. Also, they remove land from production and can complicate field operations.
   • Replace open intake drains with patterned subsurface tiles. This is also an expensive alternative. It is not practical to treat water that flows from tile outlets with vegetated filters due to the concentrated nature of its flow. Some scientists believe that open intake tiles contribute much sediment to the river.
   • Plant vegetative cover around the surface intakes to help reduce sediment loss through these drains. This would require that more land be taken out of production, and machinery operation and tillage could also become more complicated. This could be the option that would most reduce sediment movement from Jay’s fields into the river.
   • Install sediment basins at the tile outlet to help reduce sediment loss through these drains. Again, Wilder would need to consider the costs and acreage used in this alternative.
   • Practice conservation tillage and residue management, the number one recommendation by the MPCA to prevent water erosion. However, high surface residue can delay soil warming in the spring, ultimately reducing beet yields. Following the beet harvest, surface residues are inevitably low but can be maximized with a field cultivator.
   
   
   
5. What governmental measures might be implemented that would make it easier for the Wilders to adopt conservation measures such as filter strips?

   Certain practices are known to reduce wind and water erosion. Wind erosion accounts for more than twice as much soil loss as water erosion. Crops that have low residue such as beets, dry beans, and potatoes are more susceptible to wind erosion than crops that leave more residue.

   Conservation practices including the installation of wind breaks and filter strips, reduced tillage, and other methods that reduce the amount of sediment moving into the river could be legislated by the government. This approach would not likely be supported by farmers. As an alternative, economic incentives would encourage the installation and maintenance of practices such as filter strips and conservation tillage. Participants may discuss whether the sugar beet industry should provide such incentives rather than the government.
   
   

6. What additional information would be helpful to Jay Wilder in making his decision?

   Jay needs more information on filter strips and how effective they would be on his farm.

   In addition, Jay needs information about the effectiveness of implementing conservation methods on his farm besides filter strips that might benefit river quality. The participants might also discuss Jay’s attitudes toward the DNR proposal of installing dams along the Chippewa to enhance wildlife habitat and its potential effects on river quality.

   Also, Jay did not believe his drainage systems, open intake or subsurface, contributed much sediment to the river. No monitoring had been done on the Chippewa River above Benson to suggest otherwise. Jay believed that urban areas were largely responsible for pollution of the Minnesota. The Minnesota River Assessment Project (MRAP) report suggests otherwise. However, the discussion leader might remind participants of the evidence for sediment in the Minnesota River even in its pristine, pre-agriculture state. Participants may discuss how information regarding environmental issues might be distributed without exacerbating the rift between farmers and clean river activists.

Developed by: