Scottish Government

3. The Degree to Which Monitor Farms have been Effective in Delivering Changes in Farm Practice

3.1 The Programme as a Whole

The programme has been effective in bringing about business improvements on the Monitor Farms themselves, amongst Community Group members and in the wider farming community who are not directly involved in the programme.

For the 5 farms studied in detail, a total of over 200 members were involved in some way; the majority of these were farmers. Others who were part of the groups and attended included: vets, RSPB, funders, banks, machinery ring, supply trade. NFU Scotland etc. Regular attendance on these farms ranged from 20 to 45 giving an average of 33.

The programme has also achieved a high degree of penetration in the farming community in Scotland. Of those who had had no direct involvement in the programme (other than perhaps a single open day) 78% had heard of the programme with the farming press being particularly influential in disseminating knowledge about the programme with 91% citing this as their source. Word of mouth at 19%, industry news letters 19% e.g. SAC, NFU Scotland and Scottish Farmer and farm advisors/consultant (15%) of which 67% cited SAC (particularly so in Grampian and Moray (80%) ).

Awareness was generally high across all the regions although with a range between 62% in the Northern Isles and 92% in the Borders. The spread of response rates is depicted in figure 1 in Appendix 7. A series of maps showing the distribution of respondents and their awareness for each of the 16 farms (completed and current) are included in Appendix 7. The circles around each farm are set at 50km or approximately 30 miles. Whilst awareness is correlated quite closely to location in the case of some of the farms, for others, awareness is distributed across the country. This will be related to the farm type, location and length of time the farm has been a Monitor Farm.

A significant proportion (9%) of this constituency of programme non-members have noted that some topics had led them to implement changes to their business and a further 7% intended to do so. The changes particularly focused on livestock performance, animal health and welfare, and grassland management and performance.

The whole concept of the Monitor Farm programme is founded on demonstrating the effects of changes to farm systems and enterprises on the Monitor Farms themselves. The majority of these changes have centred on increasing efficiency and/or output with the purpose of improving margins. However some of the Monitor Farmers interviewed identified more profound changes in behaviour related to changes in mindset, including paying more attention to detail and improved understanding of business strengths and weaknesses. This was also crystallised in some of the information provided by facilitators:

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

It was very successful and gave you a lot more confidence. (Monitor Famer)

"As a result of the programme, Monitor Farms are now better at decision making, have more awareness of alternative practices, and have a better understanding of accounts." (Facilitator)

The Community Group Farmers have made many small changes and some have made significant or structural changes as a result of the programme. Examples include:

• Looking at ways to reduce the calving period to increase number of calves produced each year
• Able to learn about benefits of buying in machinery vs using a contractor and helped make the decision
• Use of Monitor Farm to trial new practices. For example a use of yeast in diets trial. The idea came from the Community Group then trialled on Monitor Farm and showed that for £5 investment, £9 return.
• Use of the Monitor Farm to investigate problems e.g. heifers dying - all cases 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
• The 3 leaf system of grassland management explained by an expert at a meeting adopted by a number of farmers and relevant to most.
• One now monitoring cattle health performance as a result of learning via Monitor Farm
• Advice from vet at one talk helped reduce fluke in Community Group over the 3 yeas
• Discussion led by vet helped some farmers to decide to vaccinate against BVD the benefits should be seen this winter - i.e. fewer deaths.
• Gained information to help reduce fertility problem
• Visit to slaughter house help 1 farmer decide how /where he would have livestock slaughtered
• Learned about rubber mats for dairy, electric fences, paddock grazing
• Rubber ring castration for cattle trialled on the Monitor Farm - now a number of the group follow this practice.

Facilitators consider Monitor Farmers are more effective than alternative sources of information. This is largely because of the practical aspect of being able to see/discuss how something is applied. This perspective on practical 'demonstration' is supported in many other studies (including ADAS 2000, Bailey et al 2005, Rogers 2003).

"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", (Facilitator)

"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", (Facilitator).

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

"They get bombarded with info through the post. If they can discuss 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 Farm's are better. This is because it encompasses all different types of knowledge transfer methods", (Facilitator).

However despite the effectiveness concern was expressed about the value for money, and how the benefits of the programme could continue without external funds.

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

Some funders also recognised that farmers may not be willing to fund this type of activity directly. A key reason for this, expressed by both funders and facilitators, was that the levy money being used was farmer money in any event, implying that this was a good use for it. Some stakeholders did consider other forms of industry sponsorship might be considered - for example from banks - although the impartial nature of the programme might be compromised.

3.2 Financial Impact of the Programme

The financial impact was calculated from data collected from the monitor farms studied in detail and from the data collected from the sample of community group members attending the workshops. This process has estimated benefits of £6.5 for every £1 of programme spend. If all the other consequent changes which the community group members told us about could have been fully estimated, the benefits would be significantly greater.

Farm Business Income ⁶ is a measure of performance increasingly being used in the industry. Never the less we chose Net Farm Income ( NFI) as the measure of performance because this currently enables ready comparison with figures for similar farm types in Scotland. This is important in monitoring the change in NFI of the general population of farms against which the specific farms can be assessed. In this way general changes can be taken out of the calculation of the changes on farms associated with the project as deadweight, and thus an estimation of the impact of the programme achieved.

For each of the Monitor Farms studied in detail, the NFI was calculated from the data available from farm accounts, with further information from the farmer and a calculation of imputed rent for tenants and a calculation of the value of unpaid labour outside the principal partners. The position at the individual project start and a 2007 position was established on all but one farm, which with a December 2007 year end did not have the relevant latest accounts available. In this one case we were able to establish a starting point but not a year end 2007 position. For this one farm no estimation of financial progress was possible.

3.2.1 Financial Impacts on the Monitor Farms

Having adjusted the NFI changes for deadweight, the calculated changes on these 4 farms ranged from -£24,000 to +£36,000 over the life of the project on those farms to date. The impact of poor weather conditions was cited as a major contributor to the negative result found on one farm

The average improvement (including the negative value) based on the four farms produced an annual improvement of £6,729 per monitor host farm for each year in the programme.

Our investigations discovered that whilst most of the farms had at some time prepared physical and gross margin data, this was not in a form that provided a robust baseline for the year prior to becoming a Monitor Farm. Therefore it was not possible for us to establish a rigorous change trend as we had envisaged.

3.2.2 Impacts on Community Group Members

A total of 37 people attended the five workshops. These were mostly farmers although a small number (4), ancillary businesses were also present including 2 vets, 1 consultant and 1 feed/mineral representative.

Using the methodology described In Section 2.5, the financial changes that were quantifiable were assessed.

The proforma responses for each farmer present at the Community Group meeting were then used to calculate the estimated benefit from the programme as follows:

For each focus group the average estimated benefit was then multiplied by the number of farmers involved with each of the five groups.

In this way the total annual improvement net of deadweight for the 5 community groups was estimated to be £558,392. In addition a benefit of £26,916 occurred on 4 of the host farms, creating a grand total of £585,308

It must be noted that the annual improvements were strongly positive in four groups but negative in one group at minus £66,000. The group with the greatest improvement achieved an annual improvement of £220,000. It is our judgement that the anomaly of the one negative group performance was heavily influenced by the low turn out at the Community Group workshop relative to the overall size of the Community Group, and as such may not have been truly representative.

A large number of other cost savings and technical changes were recorded on the forms during the workshop but were not costed in the above values e.g. "I saved £20 a tonne on feed, used less fertiliser, used better seed". The financial benefit is likely therefore to be significantly greater than that indicated above. The full list of comments can be seen at Appendix 4

Based on these figures and a total programme cost of approximately £90,000 per annum for the 5 farms Value for Money is clearly demonstrated with a benefit of at least 6.5:1.

This benefit will be even greater if the full benefits from the changes made by community group members could be investigated and the changes identified by non-programme members could be estimated.

3.3 Impact on Wider Farming Community Not Directly Involved

There were some 514 valid responses to the postal survey of farmers who are not in a Monitor Farm group, a very good response rate of 17% of the 3000 sample. The aim was to test how the programme, through the dissemination of its results had impacted on those farmers not directly involved. Some of the key positive messages are noted below with a more detailed summary including regional analysis in Appendix 7.

There is a wide distribution of those who responded to the survey, and considerable recognition of the programme brand with 78% being aware of the programme, although their level of understanding was much less with 40% saying their knowledge was good or very good, but significant numbers felt their knowledge could be much better. There is a bias to younger age groups in their level of knowledge with 45% of those below 45 years rating their knowledge as very good or good, compared to only 34% of those aged 55+. This is similar to the Pilot Scottish Monitor Farms (Mc Roberts 2007).

Figure 1: Understanding of the programme

(Base 405)

Again there is some regional variation (care in interpretation is needed owing to small cell sizes) in this Fig 2 below. There is some relationship with the length of time the programme has run in a particular region for example Borders, and with regions where there is no farm or it is relatively new.

Figure 2: Regional variation in understanding of the programme.

The promotion of the programme has clearly been good, and a range of media use, leading to different levels of awareness. The most significant of these by far is the farming press.

There are some regional differences: in Forth, Highlands and Dumfries and Galloway farmers were slightly more likely to hear of Monitor Farms through another farmer (23%, 22% and 22% respectively), while those in Clyde Valley were less likely (6%) . Industry newsletters would seem to be slightly less important in Forth and Clyde Valley (11% and 12% respectively). Farm Advisor/Consultant was a more important source in the Borders (29%) while less important in Clyde Valley (6%), Highlands (6%) and Ayrshire (8%). Farmer discussion groups seem to be more important in Borders (15%) and Dumfries and Galloway (11%).

Figure 3: How farmers became aware of Monitor Farms

(Base 405)

Significant numbers could identify topics that had been covered, although it is unsurprising in the light of the focus of most of the programme that these mostly relate to livestock performance, animal health and welfare and grassland management. However it is also encouraging that 38% identified Business Management. Regional differences are slight although those in the Borders and Argyll are slightly more likely to have heard about buildings and infrastructure improvements.

Figure 4: Topics read or heard about through Monitor Farms

(Base 405)

For substantial numbers this new knowledge has lead to changes in the business that they have identified and almost 1 in 7 (15%) identified an increase in profit or financial performance. This must be taken with some caution as we have seen from the detailed analysis carried out that the general changes in the industry will be influencing farmers' perception of this. It is not possible to make a meaningful estimate of this impact but suffice to say it adds a significant dimension to the more detailed analysis described in Section 3.2.

Figure 5: What were the consequences for you and your business from learning from the MF results?

(Base 405)

Despite the current reliance on the farming press there are some indications that other channels could add to the level of knowledge gained from the programme.

There is still a strong bias to traditional written media in the form of hard copy delivered by post. However one quarter would like such information by email and nearly a fifth on a website.

Figure 6: How farmers would like to receive information about the programme?

(Base 256)

Almost a quarter (24%) of respondents would like information on particular topics, and two thirds specified specific topics areas. Most of these related to Monitor Farms in general (what they are about, location and access, the benefits to them, results of main issues monitored, financial results etc.). However around a quarter identified information relating to livestock performance. There were some regional differences that are identified in Appendix 7. For example more farmers in Forth and Tayside wanted information on other sources of income and in Argyll and Tayside more wanted information on improving relations with the wider community.

Figure 7: Further information farmers would like to receive?

(Base: 168)

The Facilitators have indicated that the programme was open to all. In the survey we asked respondents to identify why they had not been to events at the Monitor Farms. As well as not being a member, or not being invited, time and distance are clearly key issues. Some also would prefer to read about it than attend and others are not sure what they would gain from it. It is interesting that availability of time seems more important than distance although for some the two issues will be closely related.

Figure 8: Reasons for not visiting a Monitor Farm

(Base 359)

3.4 Management - Set Up, Facilitation, Community Group, Progress Monitoring

3.4.1 Overall

Those funding the programme recognise that demand is there, and the benefits of the innovative approach, bottom-up nature, which the farm based focus provided.

"The principle is very good…..it allows farmers decide the agenda, this brings ownership of the programme."

The Monitor Farm programme has been good successful and of value.

"Impressed with farmers enthusiasm"

"The farm is the focus - members see and believe it"

The consensus among all the key participants - the Monitor Farmers, Facilitators and Community group members is again almost wholly positive.

"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'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." (Facilitator)

In summary the main overall benefits noted are:

• The on farm practical approach
• The involvement of specialists
• Networking with trade, professionals and other farmers and the opportunity to share ideas and problems in a social setting
• The ability for group members to take part in decision making and ownership of the group
• And the role of the Facilitator drawing conclusions from each meeting leaving clear messages for members to take home

Some concerns were expressed in relation to the overt technical focus, the extent to which it is achieving impact, the potential for competition with other initiatives (in the case of one farm an environmental demonstration farm was next door), and the need for clear evidence of financial impact.

This absence of an overview of financial impact was also of concern to Facilitators who felt there is little hard evidence of the extent to which the information shared during the group meetings is adopted on Community Groups member farms. We found limited evidence of setting or monitoring of objectives on Community Group member farms despite the considerable efforts employed by some of the facilitators to get this going.

"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)

Availability of time was the main reason given for members not doing more analysis and monitoring in their own businesses.

However Facilitators were able to provide examples of how members take on board information and use it - such as checking calves for liver fluke, herd health and creep feeding following a discussion on this subject at the monitor farm. Where some of the farmers are also clients, the Facilitator is actually in a position to see some of the changes made at first hand. The Community Group farmers themselves also provided many examples of how they had changed practices due to information gleaned at the meetings.

Some Facilitators and Monitor Farmers commented that it was difficult sometimes to get some group members to offer their opinions, particularly at the initial meetings, but this did get better as time went along and group members felt more comfortable with each other. Although one Monitor Farmer did identify there was a need for more quantifiable feedback on performance from group members.

Some Facilitators commented on poor attendance at meetings - this was partly attributed to there being too many farmers' meetings (particularly in one of the areas) and also to do with distance involved in travelling. The proximity of a differently funded demonstration farm next to one of the Monitor Farms was noted as an issue in one case and meetings put on by a milk buyer in another. The comment by one farmer that he could go to meetings every week is quite telling. This aspect of supply was also an issue identified in the study into the English pilot demonstration farms (Angell et al 2004, ADAS Consulting Ltd 2005).

The choice of farm is a crucial issue which has generally operated well through the open meeting and selection processes used, although the farm concentrating on dairy did have some difficulty attracting members as those who were not dairy farmers did not see it would be relevant to them.

Facilitators and funders have emphasised the need to have farmers who are respected, and all stakeholders believe that it is important for the monitor farm to reflect the farming activities of the locality. However some members of the Community Groups feel that it is those poorer performing farms who would particularly benefit from membership of a Monitor Farm programme and that more should be done to encourage their participation and the choice of Monitor Farm should reflect that dimension. It is recognised however that gaining the co-operation of this particular group may be hard to achieve.

"The whole idea of the thing was to try and lift the profile and profitability and the whole concept of farming. If you start with a farm that's quite high up in the pecking order, it's very difficult to put it up there, but if you start with a farm that's a shambles, there's a lot more to work on and you can see improvements. It would be easier to make a big change from a lower level, than simply tweak a farm which is performing well." (Community Group).

"Progressive farmers are more likely to take part in the programme - less successful farms would gain even more." (Community Group)

Facilitators also recognise the need for the acceptability and relevance of the chosen farm to their target group. In one case an Estate farm was selected for this programme and decision making here was affected by factors that are irrelevant on an average farm.

"I didn't think either farm was ideal - it was part of a much larger estate. It wasn't typical of an owner occupied farm" (Community Group)

3.4.2 The Set Up Process

Generally Monitor Farmers felt that the selection process worked as well as possible 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 a visit to farms by funders.

There are varying views on the set up process. Some stakeholders considered it took too long to get things off the ground. For one levy body this seems to have centred on getting a sufficient funding package to run the three year programme. The effort to pull in a range of funders is clearly significant.

Some stakeholders believe that once the farm is agreed the set up time has been too lengthy, with a better and faster decision making process required for each group.

Even so at least one Community Group recognised the need to do a lot more ground work in the early stages establishing the baseline position, so that greater clarity could be given to objective setting and monitoring comparison with the base line. In their view this might take up to a year (i.e. one full seasonal cycle) to establish.

There were also concerns expressed by at least one funder that the community group had not been involved sufficiently in the setting up process, although there is evidence that this aspect is being addressed over time with more rigorous board or committee processes being put in place in most cases. This was not a particular issue for monitor farmers, facilitators or community groups.

The Facilitators also recognise the requirement for more detailed preparation of the financial and physical data and baseline before the individual programme started and specifically there was:

• A need to collect all the data and analyse prior to first meeting.
• A need to try and identify issues within different enterprises of the businesses quicker.
• A need to make those involved more aware of financial aspects of the farm business before starting the community group member meetings.
• A need to do more on-farm work (e.g. financial aspects) before meetings started.

3.4.3 Objectives

Objective setting for the individual Monitor Farm has been a bottom up process with varying degrees of influence by the facilitator. For each Monitor Farm the objectives were agreed mainly through discussions with the Monitor Farmer and Facilitator at first and then in consultation with the Community Groups. The objectives were then reviewed with the Facilitator and changes made as necessary. For two of the projects, the group determined the objectives, with the Facilitator having limited involvement.

This process has meant some Facilitators have found it difficult to cover in detail everything the group may want in. This issue was also identified by the Monitor Farmers. In some cases this has lead to the objectives for the programme being rather loose or vague.

"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)

However the consensus amongst the Facilitators is that this bottom up approach has worked very well and farmers are happy to be involved in decision making and setting up the objectives. Similarly, the Monitor Farmer's involvement in deciding the programme objectives helps to shape the future practices undertaken on the farm.

It appears that in response to changing conditions the objectives are continually evolving throughout the programme. This is necessary in relation to changing market and regulatory drivers, but will make monitoring performance difficult if basic business performance objectives are not set. Facilitators would consider having more specific objectives if driven by funding but this does depend on the nature of the farm and the willingness of the Monitor Farmer.

From the focus group evidence it is clear that Community Group members did not set objectives for their own farms as a result of the programme.

With objectives largely centring on physical performance improvement and effectiveness, the content of the programme meetings has been largely technical in nature, as this is what the farmers involved are most interested in.

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

This focus has resulted in significant changes within Community Group members businesses as a result of discussions which took place 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 Community Group members picked up on advice on feeding of cows - move to feeding twice/day. (Facilitator)

"30 - 40 attend 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)

Whilst at this level the objectives are being achieved, there was uncertainty among some funders as to the effect on farm profits or business performance and whether the objectives set on the farm were the appropriate ones in the light of the evolving policy and market conditions.

3.4.4 Facilitation

A good Facilitator is the key to the whole process, and facilitation was generally considered to be excellent by the monitor farmers. 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. It should be noted that the time taken can be considerable and although seen as worthwhile, one facilitator considered it had taken 160 hours in the first year.

"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)

Funders, although largely not close to the detail of the delivery, provided some useful insights including the positive benefit of the range of experts and contacts that Facilitators, particularly SAC have access to. However another funder commented in the context of the opportunity to introduce a wide range of traditional and non-traditional ideas that "there is need for a wider range of specialists and trying to use more non- SAC advisers".

There was also a view that Facilitators need guidance to ensure they progress step by step through the plan and do not deviate to their own approach or specialism. This was backed up by another funder who commented that there was a need for a Facilitator who is not too well aligned to the group thinking.

Although generally favourable there was a variable picture in terms of the perceived quality of facilitation. Most comments were minor relating to administrative issues, or the choice and briefing of speakers, although one Monitor Farmer did raise issues regarding the choice of Facilitator and organisation for his farm. A funder also noted that there was a need to avoid discussions drifting away to general issues and not focussing on the purpose of the Monitor Farm.

Never the less, group members noted that they got more value from meetings where the Facilitator was pro-active, actively encouraging attendance as well as preparing well for the meetings. They also identified that Facilitators should encourage farmers to ask questions, challenge ideas and ask what the farmers want to get out of the meeting. It is worth noting that this reflects not only the skill of the facilitator but also the make up of 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)

The majority of external experts on the farms investigated, have been SAC staff, although at least two Monitor Farmers actively prefer a mix so as the programme is not dominated by one provider and a range of ideas from different areas are considered.

There were also mixed views on the role of experts. Some Facilitators do not like an expert there for every session believing that the emphasis should be from within the group. Others see them as integral to the approach as they provide the focus for a discussion point on the Monitor Farm.

"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)

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

The Monitor Farmers themselves generally appreciated the input from expert's which proven to have been influential on subsequent farm practices.

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

Having an expert there is top of the list for each meeting. They are absolutely vital. (Monitor Farmer)

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

There are some indications that local speakers are preferred as they are more able to recognise improvements to date and to make their advice relevant to the individual farm. Having said that, local does not necessary always equal best - there were examples provided where local speakers spoke on particular subjects (such as grassland management) but covered too much information in a short period of time. If experts are not local themselves, they need to adapt their advice to local circumstances, which does not always seem to happen. One beef adviser was considered a bit "iffy" by one monitor farmer and another expert from a southern English county clearly had been poorly briefed or was unable to apply his specialist knowledge to the particular local agro-climatic conditions.

Bringing in paid advisors form other parts of the country didn't work for us. We had a grassland expert from Devon. He didn't realise he was going to an area where we could grow grass! (Monitor Farmer)

There were varying views on the use of sub-groups. One facilitator would not use sub groups due to the distance some of the members travel to get to the Monitor Farm. But another has tried a different approach to sub groups based on experience of one of the early projects, where the aim was to focus on one specific issue and come up with more detail for just one additional meeting.

There were some comments that the budget did not allow some ideas to develop as a consequence of cost, whether this is additional data collection, analyses, speakers etc. Also the Facilitators themselves see room for developing their role including, for some involving the group more and have them take full ownership of the group and making more use of the chairman.

3.4.5 Group Involvement

All Monitor Farmer's and Community Groups agree that the meeting environment is beneficial to all concerned, primarily due to the ability to hear new ideas, solutions to problems and exchange views upon them. They are generally felt to be as or more important as the expert speakers. Similarly, the meetings provide a forum whereby the community group farmers have formed closer relationships and hence, going forward they will provide more advice and share knowledge with each other.

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

"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)

3.4.6 Monitoring

The level of monitoring amongst Facilitators beyond that for individual enterprises and changes is mixed. The reasons for why some have not monitored the overall impacts of their changes are different. For one, the objectives are too vague to allow for such monitoring; another has reviews during the year, but the outcomes are not systematically measured against the objectives and this was identified as a weakness. 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.

Facilitators also expressed concern about the availability of physical and particularly financial information, which was often limited. This made comparisons and an assessment of the overall impacts difficult. A further concern is the amount of time taken to get full monitoring processes in place, one facilitator suggesting a period of 8-12 months.

There is also variation in whether impacts are being monitored in terms of financial performance or outcomes such as simplifying the suckler cow enterprise system.

Those that have carried out monitoring, use a variety of measures including enterprise costing and benchmarking and net margin analysis conducted throughout the year. All Facilitators analyse the Monitor Farm accounts at the end of the year for production of an annual report.

Three Monitor Farmer's monitor objectives and the changes noted have been related to the farms financial performance, i.e. before and after involvement in the Monitor Farm 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)

Where monitoring was taking place this was undertaken for the Monitor Farms only. As a consequence, measurable changes to community group farms are unreported. With general changes to market conditions members felt it was difficult to tell what financial impact any changes made as a result of the Monitor Farm activity on the Community Group.

Even so the financial data that was discussed (Monitor Farm and benchmark data) has helped some farmers to consider the changes promoted as they could see how it could improve financial performance and efficiency. Community Group members indicated that access to the financial data from the Monitor Farm and its use in discussion can increase understanding of the need to monitor costs more carefully and break data down in order to identify areas for improving their own businesses.

"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)

However it seems that many farmers that we spoke to from the Community Groups do not look at their data in this much detail, although now they may be more likely to do so. The availability of time for such analysis was given as a reason for not monitoring their businesses in as much detail. As a number of farms had not got their data in a comparable detailed format, it was difficult to directly compare their situation with the Monitor Farm.

However, for the future at least, one Facilitator noted that they would set objectives/targets on an enterprise or fixed cost basis, as this is easier to measure, and more up to date than waiting for aged accounts. Community group members have benefited from the discussions focussing on costing and financial performance, especially being encouraged to look at the figures in ways different from their normal practice, for example unit costs of production, the fertiliser value of muck and the relationship between feed costs and deadweight prices.

Two of the Monitor Farmer's interviewed are aware of changes made to the community group farms as a result of the programme. For each, a benchmarking exercise is undertaken.

One Monitor Farm programme is running in parallel with arable business groups in the area and there is some cross over in what they do. Determining the influence of each initiative is unlikely to be possible, although the overall impact of the combined approach will be useful to understand.

" 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 Monitor Farmer's activities in relation to the objectives, described evidence of changes made within the group, including;

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

For those for which no objectives were set, no changes have been recorded by the facilitators and it is evident it is a challenging process.

"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)

"It's difficult to estimate the impacts really". (Facilitator)

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)

3.4.7 Wider Benefits

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 limited evidence to reinforce this although several of the Facilitators have described how the groups have become more engaged over time and evidence from the Community Groups demonstrate closer relationships have been established, which has helped the morale of local community.

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

"They have great personal benefits. We're 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)

One of the main characteristics of the Monitor Farm approach is that it provides farmers with an opportunity to meet up with local farmers, some of whom hadn't met one another before. In the context of declining numbers of commercial farmers, changes in marketing and with the nature of the Scottish geography this in itself is a significant benefit to each other and to the community.

Promotion to the wider community has been largely through press and the internet. Although one Facilitator saw the need to inform and involve a wider audience, he found this knowledge transfer to farmers who are not within the community group to be ,difficult. This may be the result of a lack of clarity in the way the objectives for the programme and who is the intended target audience (e.g. progressive farmers or average farmers).