Facilitators’ Resource Pack

Welcome to the Facilitators' Resource Pack. Here you will find suggestions, advice and information on facilitating a Monitor Farm project. You can move through the sections by clicking on the links to go to the relevant area.

Background - Monitor Farm Strategy

Getting started -Key facilitator skills -Key facilitator tasks -Community Group - Purpose and Structure -Risk Assessment -Recruiting Monitor Farm consultants

Data and information -Collecting and sharing Monitor Farm information -Whole Farm Review -Collecting useful data

Providing information -Report Writing -Annual report -Final report -Feedback from Monitor Farm Meetings

Background

Monitor Farms Strategy

The current strategy as laid out below will be updated in 2014 following confirmation of the new SRDP and publication of the Monitor Farm Review currently underway.

A forward strategy for the Monitor Farm Programme, 2009 - 2013.

Executive Summary Monitor Farms are cost effective tools for demonstrating best practice on Scottish farms. This strategy outlines the need for a co-ordinated approach to future Monitor Farms and states the benefits that will result from central support, better communication and closer collaboration within the agricultural industry.

All current Monitor Farms will finish by the end of 2010 and in future will be funded individually through the Skills Development Scheme, part of the Scotland Rural Development Programme. This is a move away from current block funding, mainly by levy bodies. This change in funding, with the need for individual application forms for each farm and approval by a funding committee means that there is a need to clarify and state clearly the reason for Monitor Farms, building on the lessons learned from the initial projects and responding to the recommendations for a future Programme made by ADAS in their report to the Scottish Government in 2008.

This strategy highlights the key objectives of the Monitor Farms Programme over the period of the SRDP, i.e. from the present to March 2013. It argues the need for improved collaboration and co-operation between funders, a more co-ordinated approach within the Monitor Farm Programme, greater use of baseline information, improved facilitator and farmer support and closer links with industry and research. The strategy also highlights that Knowledge Transfer, the sharing of key information, to the Scottish agricultural industry lies at the heart of the Monitor Farms Programme and recommends improvements to reach a wider audience.

Key points -Monitor Farms will continue to be farmer-led projects, aided by a facilitator, supported by a community group, with the emphasis on improving the performance and profitability of a locally representative, commercial farm

-Some new Monitor Farms will have a broader theme for a national audience, such as Pig, Dairy, Organic or Low-input, rather than just be locally relevant (e.g. Borders Monitor Farm).

-Future Monitor Farms will be funded under the new Skills Development Scheme with, at least, a 25% contribution from other, non-government sources.

-Future Monitor Farms will be funded individually, guaranteeing their support for a three-year period.

-The Monitor Farms Development Group should be re-organised into a more pro-active, collaborative body, providing better central support to individual Monitor Farms.

-The key members of the Development Group should formally state their support and level of commitment to a Monitor Farm Programme, by agreeing the strategy, structure and key objectives for the Programme.

-The new Programme structure will set out to address farmer and facilitator requests for better central support, improved liaison and sharing between Monitor Farmers, facilitators and funders.

-A Programme will ensure better delivery of coherent central support for baseline monitoring, Monitor Farm meetings, reporting of results, funding and R&D

-Monitor Farmers and facilitators will receive consistent and better support at start-up and exit from the Programme.

-Central support will ensure that there are improvements in knowledge transfer, beginning with the development of a new Monitor Farms website.

-The Programme will allow external groups, including researchers and industry representatives, potential access to a large number of farms and farmers, bringing opportunities to the Monitor Farms of access to cutting edge advice and technology. This will be supported where it does not compromise the integrity of the Programme.

-The Development Group will consider how to capture information and data on continued performance after a farm has finished as a Monitor Farm.

-There will be a need for regular monitoring of the outcomes from Monitor Farms in a way that allows an appraisal of their value to the Scottish Economy.

-Many of the changes tried out by the Monitor Farmer will affect the business in the future, after the project has ended. There would be benefits in capturing information in a systematic way over a number of years.

Current situation Introduction The Monitor Farms operating in Scotland include one Organic Monitor Farm in Aberdeenshire. In addition there are two dairy (co-ordinated by DairyCo) and two arable (co-ordinated by HGCA) Monitor Farms.

Scotland’s Monitor Farms were the subject of a report to the Scottish Government which highlighted the benefits of Monitor Farms to the Scottish Economy (a £6.50 benefit for every £1 of funding), their use as a vehicle for Knowledge Transfer and the widespread awareness (c.80%) of their purpose by the farming community. Nearly 10% of 500 farmers surveyed had been influenced by the programme to make business changes (ADAS 2008).

They are a platform for one farm in an area, supported by a community group, to look at the productivity and profitability of the whole farm business over a three year period. The Monitor Farmer seeks to improve farm profitability through a process of peer review and advice, specialist input and support from the Monitor Farm facilitator. Information on the livestock farms is publically available through regular newsletters, posted on the QMS website. Topics covered include profitability of individual farm enterprises, the aspirations of the farmer and community group, crop management, cattle handling, organic farming and many others.

Facilitation Each livestock Monitor Farms is supported by a facilitator, under contract to QMS. The facilitator is responsible for advertising and co-ordinating 6 meetings and one open day annually. They produce meeting reports, annual reports for QMS and press articles. Facilitators are responsible for organising speakers for each meeting, arranging sampling (e.g. soils, silage, bloods) and for the smooth running of the community group and topical sub-groups between meetings.

Funding Livestock Monitor Farms were funded between 2006 and 2009 by a block grant from the Scottish Government and by contributions from QMS, Scottish Enterprise, Cairngorms National Park Authority, SOPA and HIE (Totalling £165k/annum). The block grant ended in March 2009 and QMS have picked up the majority of the funding (£65k of a total £125k) for the current batch of livestock farms. An additional £35k of funding was made available by SNH in 08/09 and was used to stimulate discussion on environmental issues and for environmental audits of 5 Monitor Farms.

Co-ordination Co-ordination of Monitor Farms is carried out through a Monitor Farms Development Group, chaired by the Scottish Government that meets approximately every 4 months. The Group currently does not have an agreed strategy for Monitor Farm development or criteria for admission to the group. However, the Group offers an opportunity to share developments amongst the group members comprising funders, Scottish Government staff and a facilitators’ representative.

An Investigation into the Role and Effectiveness of Scottish Monitor Farms (ADAS 2008) – Key messages

The ADAS report included several key messages:

1) General

• The programme has been effective in bringing about physical and financial improvements on the farms involved in the Community groups and through the promotion of the programme activity to farms that are not actively engaged in the programme.

• The farming press is a key mechanism for communicating the programme. Improvements could be achieved through a coordinated presence on the internet coupled with a strategic approach to planning publicly funded advisory programmes through a regional forum of agencies.

2) Target setting

• There is a need to set clearer specific, measurable, achievable, result focused and time bound objectives for the whole farm as well as targets for specific enterprises. This would help monitor the impact of the programme through comparison with the industry and taking account of deadweight.

• Improved objective setting for the programme could be translated into better criteria for monitoring improvements on group members’ farms; this will require additional inputs that might in part be supplied from farm secretarial type services.

3) Structure

• There is a clear need for a structured management process for each farm based on a farmer chairman, small committee of members as well as the Monitor Farmer and Facilitator.

• The current approach to facilitation could be enhanced through developing a structured framework for a facilitator’s network to stimulate the sharing of experience and provide a platform for skill development.

• The approach could be used to deliver public policy objectives in relation to the environment if handled sensitively. The benefits to farm businesses will need to be clearly articulated to both farmers and facilitators.

• Social benefits of the programme have resulted and there is some evidence of cooperative activity. This could be built upon for the future.

4) Selection

• There is evidence that farms selected as Monitor Farms could be drawn from wider range of performance criteria and achieve as good or greater performance improvement provided the selected farms were respected in their peer groups.

• Selection of facilitators should include evidence of knowledge and practice of communication and group facilitation skills.

The Strategy This section highlights the key objectives of the Monitor Farms Programme over the period of the SRDP, i.e. from the present to March 2013.

The Context Monitor Farms have the support of the Scottish Government. The Rural Development Programme for Scotland 2007-2013 - The Strategic Plan states, under the theme, Underpinning performance and quality in the agriculture, food processing and forestry sectors:

The Scottish Government priorities, aided by SRDP funding, include enhancing the competitive performance of producers by supporting farmer groups, co-operation and knowledge sharing, including the use of monitor farms’. (Scottish Government, 2007)

Overall objectives -A rolling programme of 12 livestock, dairy and arable and 2 pig Monitor Farms maintained across Scotland.

-Monitor Farms should continue to work to highlight potential farm business improvements within a local area (e.g. Buchan) or within a sector (e.g. Dairy). There should be a strong focus on Knowledge Transfer, aimed at a range of audiences – local, via Monitor Farm meetings, area wide through Meeting Reports and nationally via press, a dedicated website, meetings and conferences.

-There should be clear statements on the purpose of the Monitor Farm Programme.

-The Programme should be developed to provide co-ordinated support to the 14 individual Monitor Farms.

-The Development Group will evolve to develop support for individual Monitor Farms, through the production of a starter pack, development of a Monitor Farm website, co-ordination of meetings between Facilitator and Monitor Farmers and funders

-The Programme will provide opportunities to the scientific community, specialists and businesses to offer services to Monitor Farmers and Facilitators, where this could improve farm productivity or profitability

-The development of the means to evaluate the effectiveness of the Monitor Farm Programme to Scotland’s agricultural industry.

Monitor Farm Development Group -The Monitor Farm Development Group should play a central role in supporting the development of a Monitor Farm Programme, building on the current loose connections between differently funded individual Monitor Farms. This can be achieved through:

-Agreeing the key shared objectives for the Monitor Farm Programme and developing a Monitor Farm Strategy signed by Development Group members.

-An agreement of the level of contribution by members (i.e. organisations) to the Monitor Farm Programme, possibly through a Memorandum of Agreement.

-Clarity on who is responsible for maintaining and developing the Programme.

-The development of a Monitor Farms website, containing information relevant across all Monitor Farms.

-The production of a generic starter pack for farmers and facilitators, containing a recommended programme for new Monitor Farms. The starter pack should contain clear guidance on baseline monitoring, the setting up of the Monitor Farm structure and contract requirements for facilitators.

-The production of advice for farmers and facilitators for years 2 & 3, up to and including the end of a Monitor Farm project

-Support for regular Facilitators’ meetings and for an annual Facilitators’, funders’ and Monitor Farmers’ workshop.

-A collaborative approach to SDS applications for new Monitor Farms, sharing lessons learned in the design of successful applications and securing additional funding.

Outcomes -A co-ordinated approach to the development of new Monitor Farms.

-Improved support for new Monitor Farms at start-up, through the programme and at the conclusion of the project.

-A consistent methodology for baseline monitoring to allow comparisons between farms

-Better sharing of information via the website

-Clarity on the criteria for Group membership

-Clarity on the minimum level of commitment to the programme by group members.

-A proven methodology for putting together SDS applications for new Monitor Farms, to help with the preparation of applications.

Selection Monitor Farm -The selection process for Monitor Farms will be fair and transparent. It will differ slightly depending upon whether the farm is chosen as a local representative of a farming area (e.g. the Borders Monitor Farm) or as a thematic Monitor Farm (e.g. Perthshire Organic Monitor Farm). In both scenarios, the Monitor Farm will require:

-Broad support for the Monitor Farm, either by local farmers or national organisations (for a thematic farm).

-Monitor Farmers to go through a screening to assess both their abilities as communicators and their farm’s capabilities to host large numbers of visitors (e.g. on open days).

-At least 25% of funding from non-SDS sources (c£5k - £6k)

Facilitator The facilitator will be chosen on evidence of their ability to communicate and organise groups well. Faciltators will not necessarily be the experts on a Monitor Farm topic but will know how to find experts and help them share their knowledge to the widest possible audience.

Outcomes The right farmer and the right facilitator in the right location, with evidence that there is business support (or other support) for the Monitor Farm concept.

Structure The project on each Monitor Farm is for a period of only three years, therefore both the Monitor Farmer and the Facilitator need to be able to complete baseline monitoring, attract an interest and host purposeful meetings early on in the first year. This can be helped by:

-Establishing quickly a structure of Chairman, Community Group, Facilitator and Monitor Farmer

-Offering central support to Facilitators and Monitor Farmers at the early stages, in the form of a Start-up pack and advice from a Programme Co-ordinator

-Creating links between experienced and new facilitators and new and ex-Monitor Farmers, possibly in the form of mentoring.

Monitor Farms funding The principal route for funding future Monitor Farms will be through the Skills Development Scheme, part of the SRDP, with additional support of at least 25% secured from industry or other non-government sources, including levy board funds if available. A successful application will provide funding for:

-Baseline Monitoring

-Environmental audit

-Annual recording of progress

-Sampling for bloods, soils, silage etc.

-Up to 35 days facilitation

-6 meetings annually

-Promotion

-Central support

Each Monitor Farm will cost between £20k and £25k per year for three years, depending on the size of the farm and the audits and analyses required.

Outcomes -Consistent, familiar, easy to read applications

-Secure funding for three years for new Monitor Farms

-Increased contributions and improved links with non-government funders

-Similar objectives, progress and outcomes from all new Monitor Farms

-Knowledge Transfer - internal

-Knowledge Transfer will lie at the heart of the Monitor Farm Programme. The current format of meeting report, annual report and press release will be developed to improve the key messages, both local and national, that come from the Programme. This will be achieved by:

-Improved, more concise reporting of Monitor Farm meetings

-A new website with a facility to search Monitor Farm reports by topic (e.g. handling, grazing).

-Sharing of information between different Monitor Farm types (e.g. Arable and Livestock) on the reasonable assumption that many livestock farmers also have significant cereal enterprises.

-Holding two workshops annually, one for facilitators and the second for Monitor Farmers, facilitators and funders to provide an opportunity to share lessons learned and contribute to the future development of the programme.

Outcomes Better, faster, sharing of information by farm and by theme.

Easier access to broad information by farmers, industry, researchers, and policy makers.

Knowledge Transfer - external

Many others view the current Monitor Farms as part of a coherent Programme. New farms offer opportunities for others such as researchers, industry and Non-Government

Organisations (NGOs) to contribute to the Programme for up to three years. There is mutual gain; Monitor Farmers will have opportunities to trial new machinery, ideas and techniques on their farm; providers of the service will be able to access a wide audience of keen to learn farmers and possibly see promotion of their product. This can be achieved by:

Creating opportunities for a wide range of groups and individuals to contribute across the programme rather than just approach or be invited to one farm. The Monitor Farmers and facilitators will receive information via email or the website of offers made by external bodies to the Development Group

Developing improved links with the press to promote lessons learned more widely, through local papers, via the internet and other e-formats. This could be achieved by employing a part-time press officer for the Programme.

Outcomes -Better local awareness of the issues of a region’s Monitor Farm

-Better national awareness of the key issues affecting Scottish Farms

-A platform for national research on agricultural issues

-The establishment of closer links between research and industry

Beyond the Monitor Farm Monitor Farms tend to develop in similar ways over the three years. There is the initial year when baseline figures are being collected, the farm is being scrutinised by the Community Group and the Monitor Farmer is defining his/her aims and objectives. The second year can be a period of experimentation, based on lessons learned earlier. The third and final year can have an element of consolidation, particularly later on when the project draws to an end. Many of the changes tried out by the Monitor Farmer will affect the business in the future, after the project has ended. Therefore there could be value in considering how to continue to capture that information in a systematic way over a number of years. There is a need to:

-Offer consistent advice to Monitor Farmers and Community Groups about life after a Monitor Farm

-Ensure that the final meetings collect useful data on performance, particularly identifying the changes that have resulted in participation as a Monitor Farmer.

-Provide opportunities for Ex-Monitor Farmers to meet those who are coming to an end to share experiences.

-Collect key information, possibly for several years, after the project has ended.

-Help support collaborative work that has evolved from the Monitor Farm process.

-Consider and advise other/follow-on programmes which might be relevant to ex-Monitor Farmers or MF Community Members.

Outcomes -Continued feedback on the impacts on profitability from work started during the Monitor Farm project

-Broadening support for the Monitor Farm Programme from previous Monitor Farmers

-An experienced group of ex-Monitor Farmers who will help establish new replacement Monitor Farms

-An understanding of how collaborative groups develop and are maintained

Bibliography:

An Investigation into the Role and Effectiveness of Scottish Monitor Farms, ADAS 2008, for the Scottish Government

The Rural Development Programme for Scotland 2007-2013 - The Strategic Plan (Scottish Government, 2007)

Getting started

Key facilitator skills

Facilitators need a certain range of skills, knowledge and experience to manage their Monitor Farm project well. The key requirements for a facilitator are listed below. Some Monitor Farm projects have variations to these so look at your own contract for the specific details you've agreed with your funder.

Monitor Farm Facilitators – Key requirements

The Monitor Farm facilitator(s) should possess technical knowledge, project management experience and personal skills, including:

Previous facilitation experience and training

-Evidence of helping groups to learn and/or come to decisions through appropriate intervention, steering and support.

-Evidence of relevant vocational training courses (e.g. on group facilitation, project management, business management or technical training)

-Relevant further education

Good interpersonal skills

-Demonstration of the ability to listen effectively and question appropriately

-The giving and receiving of constructive feedback, particularly between the facilitator and the Monitor Farmer

-An ability to steer discussions when required, both assertively and tactfully

-The ability to handle conflict of opinions effectively

-An impartial and non-judgemental approach to managing change

Planning and organising

-Maintaining effective contact lists

-Good timekeeping

-Meeting contract deadlines

-Efficient administration of the project for funders

A good understanding of Scottish agriculture

-Technical Knowledge of the main types of farming in the Monitor Farm area (e.g. livestock or arable)

-A working knowledge of the main support mechanisms and legislation relating to Scottish agriculture

-Comprehension of the main trends in Scottish agriculture over the past 5 years

-Understanding of the main issues facing Scottish agriculture

Data and information gathering, analysis and evaluation

-Knowledge of the key performance indicators for farm businesses.

-A sound understanding of farm accounts

-An ability to identify and isolate key data and information

-Skills in presentation of data to a farming audience

-The ability to get solutions to key issues from a farming audience

-Competence in reporting both qualitative and quantitative information*

Knowledge transfer

-An ability to disseminate knowledge widely and appropriately

-Report writing skills for both farmer and scientific audiences

-Excellent verbal communication skills

*Quantitative information refers to numbers, figures and frequencies. Qualitative information refers to attitudes, opinions and feelings. A mixture of both types of information can allow statistically reliable information obtained from analyses to be backed up by and enriched by information from farmers and others.

Key facilitator tasks

Facilitators carry out a wide range of tasks over the three years of their Monitor Farm project well. The key tasks for a facilitator are listed below. Some Monitor Farm projects have variations to these so look at your own contract for the specific details you've agreed with your funder.

The Monitor Farm project from the initial Monitor Farmer selection process to the final Monitor Farm meeting should take just over three years.

It is expected that facilitation will take around 30-35 days per year, with extra time required in the first year to help select the farmer and record baseline data.

Key tasks for the Monitor Farm Facilitator will include:

Monitor Farmer selection

-Form a selection panel from respected, impartial farmers and trade people with good local knowledge.

-Stimulate applications and nominations for the role of Monitor Farmer through an open meeting, where appropriate, and discussions with farmers, trade and advisers.

-Assess and help the selection panel shortlist Monitor Farmer applications.

-Arrange Monitor Farmer interviews, including farm visits to selected applicants.

-Co-ordinate, with the funder, the press releases for the successful Monitor Farmer.

Initial introductions

-Visit to the Monitor Farmer to discuss the future programme.

-Carry out, with the farmer, a risk assessment for Monitor Farm meetings.

Benchmarking

Before the 1st Monitor Farm meeting:

-Carry out a Whole Farm Review (using a qualified advisor)

-Record the health status of the livestock on the Monitor Farm.

-Record the key production data for the farm, where available.

Optional

-Arrange an environmental audit, energy audit, other surveys, sampling and analyses as required.

Annual recording

-Complete an annual review of key business data

-Continue surveys, sampling and analyses as required (e.g. worm counts)

-Encourage community group members to keep records to allow comparisons in performance with the Monitor Farmer and the national averages.

-Collect data and information from the Community Group that can indicate where business change has occurred as a result of the Monitor Farm programme

Arranging community support – within 6 months

-Recruit and retain a Community Group (CG) of c50 members, maintaining the average attendance at Monitor Farm meetings of 25 attendees or greater as stipulated by the individual facilitation contract.

-Set up a management committee for the project which will direct the facilitator on expenditure of the analysis and specialist input sections of the budget.

-Appoint a community group committee chairman to give participating farmers an independent point of contact.

-Facilitate sub-groups as required to address specific issues on the Monitor Farm project.

Monitor Farm meetings

-Organise and facilitate up to six Monitor Farm meetings per year.

-Organise two Open Days within the three year period of the project (this could be incorporated into a Monitor Farm meeting).

-Co-ordination of specialist speakers as required.

-Confirm the next meeting date within 14 days of a Monitor Farm meeting.

Report writing

-Compile a meeting report for each Monitor Farm meeting, detailing the technical and business issues relevant to that farm.

-Compile 1 Annual Report at the end of each 12 month period

-working with QMS appointed freelance officer to compile at least two press articles annually for the general release to the farming press based on the Monitor Farm meetings

-Compile 1 report annually for the QMS R&D publication.

-Organise distribution of each farm meeting report to all community group members, by email or hard copy.

Equipment and venue

-Provide all stationery, IT equipment, projectors and materials necessary to facilitate group meetings.

-Organise venues for events which allow the widest range of participants, ensuring warm, comfortable locations with good acoustics for indoor presentations and discussions.

-Arrange catering for farm meetings and open days as required.

-Take responsibility to ensure the health and safety of visitors to the farm and other venues by following best practice in risk assessment.

Succession

-In the final year, explore with the community group, management group and Monitor Farmer, ways to continue the benefits of 3 years’ investment.

Monitor Farm outcomes

The Facilitator should ensure that the project motivates participating farmers to:

a. Improve the physical and financial performance of farm businesses, using the whole farm business planning approach.

b. Consider their attitudes to change and adopt a more rapid uptake of best practice ideas.

c. Record data, benchmark their performance against others, and identify ways to achieve better performance.

d. Set specific goals, objectives and budgetary targets.

e. Develop systems that reduce production costs, improve physical and financial performance and free up more management time.

f. Become more aware of the range of markets available for primary produce, and take advantage of these to improve market returns and add value. Also, seek ways to build relationships and understanding with customers.

g. Learn from each other and specialist advisors how to implement environmentally friendly practices/activities.

h. Increase the confidence and numbers of young people who influence business decisions within the agricultural sector.

i. Give participating farmers the skills and confidence to take the Monitor Farm approach to a wider audience.

Community Group - purpose and structure

What is a Community Group? The Community Group is generally made up of Monitor Farmer’s neighbours or similar farmers from the local area. Membership varies but is generally between 25 and 50 active members. The group help support the Monitor Farmer by offering advice, bringing the breadth of experience, reflecting local attitudes, discussing the broader picture and participating in the running of meetings.

Commitment Membership of the Community Group is a verbal commitment (rather than a contract). Group members will see more in-depth business figures for the Monitor Farm so they should be interested in what makes a farm perform well while recognising what is sensitive information. Good Community Group members make a commitment to be regular attenders and participants at Monitor Farm meetings, they want to see the Monitor Farm perform well so join in discussions and contribute their benchmark figures when requested.

Casual attendees are also welcome to MF meetings and can join the Community Group at any time by giving their details to the facilitator. However, they may be excluded from some sessions where confidential information needs to be discussed by Community Group members only.

Recruitment Recruitment for the Community Group should start from the first MF meeting but please make it clear at future meetings that new members are welcome to join at any time. We recommend that you should actively recruit Community Group members throughout the life of the Monitor Farm highlighting the benefit to members’ own business from active involvement in the project.

Structure

Chair Ideally, the Community Group should have a Chair who will represent the group at meetings with the farmer and facilitator as part of the Monitor Farm’s Management Team.

There’s no one best way to select the Chair. Some Chairs have volunteered, others have been nominated. Terms last from one year (as part of a rotating Chair) and up to the three years of the project.

The Chair’s role brings a great opportunity for personal development. Some Community Groups have chosen young farmers to give them their first chance at leadership.

A Chair's responsibilities – They have a role in working with the Farmer, Facilitator and a couple of other Community Group members (the Management Group). The main aim is to represent the Community Group members (the views of local farmers etc) .

Community Group members They have the chance to get more involved in understanding what makes the Monitor Farm tick.

Members will be encouraged to bring in their key information (e.g. cattle fertility, arable tonnage, milk yield) to become part of local benchmarking of their farm against the local and national averages as well as against the Monitor Farm’s figures.

They should be committed to attend a number of meetings per year, while recognising that pressures that can make commitment difficult. The facilitator may be able to find other ways of helping members contribute, e.g. by submitting information electronically or by sharing data from a benchmarking programme (e.g. Fertbench, Milkbench, Cropbench).

The facilitator has a challenging role to keep the Community Group involved, to highlight the benefits of membership and to show the improvements to the area from participation in the project. The facilitator’s relationship with the Community Group Chair is an important one in maintaining a vibrant, participative group.

There will be a requirement for confidentiality where real financial figures are discussed.

Community Group members can form sub-groups to look at particular issues where they have an expertise (e.g. managing animal health, building design, purchase of large capital items)

Community Group members can be the army that the facilitator and Monitor Farmer needs when organising an open day or laying out a meeting room.

Monitor Farm Management Group The Monitor Farm management group should consist of the Facilitator, Monitor Farmer, Community Group Chairperson and at least two other Community Group members.

The Management Group should be appointed by the second Monitor Farm meeting.

The Management Groups responsibilities include: -Planning future meetings and reviewing the last meeting -The Management Group should represent the views of the Community Group members

Risk Assessment

'It's critical that a Monitor Farm is a safe and secure place to visit and with up to six meetings a year on each farm, this can be challenging.

You can use either your own Risk Assessment forms or adapt either of the two attached here:

• Risk Assessment form (Livestock) • Risk Assessment form (Arable)

Recruiting Monitor Farm Consultants

Monitor Farmers and facilitators are likely to want to bring in specialists, consultants, experts or people with alternative views and practices in order to stimulate discussion, demonstrate alternative ways of approaching issues and often, to advise on a important topic.

This guidance aims to:

1. Help improve the impact of consultants’ advice on the Monitor Farm and amongst Community Group members

2. Suggest a template for hiring consultants for Monitor Farm meetings 3. Measure the effectiveness of the consultant

1. Improving the impact of the consultant

It’s fair, before agreeing to hire the consultant, to ask them why they think their advice can make a difference to a Monitor Farm’s baseline profitability or productivity.

a) Why is felt that a consultant is needed?

The Management group and facilitator should be clear on what the objectives of bringing in a specialist speaker are before investigating who would be suitable for the role.

b) Hiring the consultant:

Prior to hiring them you and the Monitor Farmer may wish to ask:

i) Does the visiting speaker understand the purpose of the Monitor Farm?

Suggestion: You may wish to send the speaker, prior to recruiting them, a summary of the aims of the project and the Key Performance Indicators of the Monitor Farm.

ii) Can the speaker provide references or evidence of their skills?

Is the speaker willing to give you credible references of their skills, knowledge and expertise? Have they made an impact at another Monitor Farm?

b) Matching the consultant to your farm:

i) Are the skills, experience and knowledge relevant to your Monitor Farm audience?

Good or bad?: The specialist (a farmer) demonstrates the benefits of an electric fence for strip grazing cattle but the Monitor Farmer does not think he can afford to electrify his fences.

ii) How does the speaker get their message across i.e. can you work out their style and whether it suits your Monitor Farm audience?

Good or bad?: A speaker, world famous for his knowledge of animal disease talks from the front to a group of seated farmers, giving a long detailed account of the past and present situation and on the need to control the illness. He takes questions at the end.

iii) Have they met the Monitor Farmer and does the farmer warm to them and their ideas?

Good or bad? The consultant is the local vet and has known the animal health challenges that the Monitor Farmer has faced over several years. The vet with the farmer is attempting to move the cost for his services from to emergency intervention to preventative care.

c) What are you paying for?

i) When will the specialist need to appear? Are you paying for a whole day rate when they are only needed in the afternoon?

Good or bad? The consultant decides he should attend the whole meeting although he is only required to talk in the afternoon on mutton marketing. He therefore bills the facilitator for a full day with expenses.

2. A template for hiring a consultant

It’s critical that you know what it is that you expect the consultant to deliver and how that contribution from them fits into what you are trying to deliver for the Monitor Farm, namely improved profitability and productivity.

a) Who’s in control?

• Consultant led - the consultant tells the facilitator his daily rate, what day he’s available and what he’ll deliver.

or

• Farmer and facilitator led – you want a package for a negotiated fee; a discussion with the farmer beforehand, the content of discussions tailored to that Monitor Farm, the use of real farm figures, a cost benefit analysis of any recommendations and relevant material left behind for the Community Group members. You might also request some written material from the consultant e.g. a write up of their contribution to the meeting, tailored to the needs of the Community Group.

b) Materials

Are the Farmer and Community Group receiving a presentation and handouts tailored to that Monitor Farm?

Good or bad?: The consultant has a standard talk on slurry management but the facilitator insists that they meet with the farmer beforehand to discuss the use of slurry on the farm. The consultant then includes these facts and figures into the presentation and the handouts. He then summarises this information and the action points to be carried out by the farmer in a short report for inclusion in the Monitor Farm report.

3. Measuring effectiveness

a) What are the key outcomes from their presentations? Increased profitability? Improved knowledge (what benefit is this)? Better animal welfare? How do these fit with the Key Performance Indicators of your Monitor Farm?

Example: The farm accounts specialist states clearly at the beginning that the aim of the meeting is to look at cutting variable costs, a challenge identified as a priority by the farmer and facilitator.

b) Is there evidence that the speaker will help drive greater efficiency on that Monitor Farm or on the farms of the Community Group members?

Example: An expert on time and motion management seeks to engage the group by setting them a challenge to cut the Monitor Farmer’s fuel bills, the greatest variable cost on the farm.

c) What is the measure of a successful presentation/talk/demonstration?

Example: The consultant might set, with the facilitator, a set of criteria that will show whether the consultant has had an impact. This might include a short questionnaire, tailored to the audience along with farmer and facilitator feedback. The consultant's views are important too. Did they feel the made an impact? Where and how?

Real life situation: The consultant identified with the farmer at the meeting a number of action points that could improve one or more of the key performance indicators for that Monitor Farm. The facilitator has promised to review them with the farmer later in the project to see whether they were carried out and if they improved the performance of the business.

4. Costs

It is important to use the budget set aside for external specialists effectively. Makes sure you use it and don’t assume that if a specialists time is free it is good value.

You may wish to estimate the cost of a visit by a consultant to a Monitor Farm meeting and consider this value as the minimum benefit that the farm and community group members should gain.

Assume that the farmers have on average given up 6 hours to visit the farm at a cost each of £15/hour (from QMS figures).

Example:

Facilitator’s cost (1 day) £ 500 Farmers’ cost (40 farmers for 6 hours @ £15/hour) £3600 Consultant’s cost £ 500

Total £4600/meeting

Can the consultant show how the visit to the farm and the knowledge exchanged with the visiting farmers can bring a £4600 benefit back to the Monitor Farm and Community Group? Over what timescale? Is it measurable?

Examples

Please consider the following two scenarios, which would you think would be the most value to your Monitor Farm and community group.

Scenario 1

The livestock specialist is invited to speak on a topic of his choice (summer feeding of cattle). They drive up on the day of the meeting from over 100 miles away arriving on time for the start of the meeting where they are introduced to the farmer and the Community Group.

The specialist then delivers a talk to the standing audience using his standard PowerPoint presentation that describes what he does on his farm. He invites questions from the floor after his 30minute talk before getting on to a trailer that takes him to a field of malting barley that has been sown earlier and is suffering from something.

The trailer then heads to a well-grazed field. The specialist has just seen this for the first time but it allows him an opportunity to talk about their favourite subject of performance off grass.

The specialist uses a slightly different system of management to the farmer who is hearing criticism of his grassland practices for the first time. The farmer can demonstrate that the livestock side of his business is profitable at a net profit level. The specialist has already shown that his gross profits are very good. The meeting ends after one more field visit where an under sow is looking good but the farmer is uncertain about the precise weights of each type of grass variety or clover that has gone into the sward. There is a half hour question and answer session in the field between the specialist and the facilitator.

The facilitator thanks the specialist for travelling far to share his knowledge with the Community Group. The specialist leaves his business cards and thanks everyone, then departs.

A week later, the facilitator receives a bill for £750+Vat and T&S at 40p a mile from the specialist.

Scenario 2

The specialist has already read some previous Monitor Farm reports, highlighted to him by the facilitator. He knows he has a task of improving productivity of the suckler herd off grass as they are only performing at 0.66kg DLWG when his, at a similar altitude are reaching 1.55kg DLWG. He contacts the Monitor Farmer beforehand to ask what the farmer feels is the problem and indentifies that grassland management may be part of it. This has been identified as a potential problem by the Community Group, hence the invitation to the consultant.

The specialist arrives several hours before the meeting, meets the farmer and visits several fields with him. The specialist discusses his figures with the farmer and the net margins on the beef enterprise. He agrees the itinerary with the farmer and then contacts the facilitator to confirm the schedule for the day.

At the meeting, the specialist quickly understands the level of knowledge that the group has, inviting others to consider whether grassland management is likely to be one of the challenges on this Monitor Farm. He invites the Monitor Farmer to contribute and highlights what the group should be looking for on the farm tour. He suggests a target figure for future animal production, close to his own and shows that, at a net profit level, he is making more per acre than the Monitor Farmer. He invites others to share their figures if known.

Each stop on the farm is planned to demonstrate some key point about grassland management and is supported by relevant written information that the specialist states will be available to Community Group members shortly. The attendees get involved by trying out sward sticks, painting marks on their wellies and by using plate meters. At the last field the

specialist holds a competition to find the farmer who can most accurately work out how long a herd of 50 cattle could graze the field.

Towards the end of the meeting the specialist summarises suggestions from the Monitor Farmer and the Community Group on how to improve the performance off grass at this farm. The farmer looks at several suggested options and states which of these he aims to carry out in the months ahead. These are written down as action points to be revisited by the facilitator and/or the specialist.

The specialist then puts an approximate cost against each option and the likely financial benefits that could result. He informs the audience that he will summarise this information in a short article that will be included in the next report. He leaves his card with an invitation to Community Group members to call him and offers to visit the farm again in a year’s time to view progress.

A week later, the facilitator receives the report and the agreed bill for £750+Vat and T&S at 40p a mile from the specialist.

Data and Information

Collecting and sharing Monitor Farm data and information

Facilitators will find that there is a lot of data and information to collect from the Monitor Farm, particularly in the first year. It will include hard data on performance and financial figures as well as the aspirations, opinions and feelings of the farmer. Then there will be good stories of farm practice and new data revealed at the regular meetings. Collectively, it will be highly revealing to both the facilitator and the farmer. Some of the information will be of interest and benefit to the Community Group, some to funders including QMS and Scottish Government and a lot of it of interest to farmers across Scotland.

This section has been compiled from suggestions by facilitators and reflects what they believe are the appropriate levels of disclosure to different audiences; between the farmer and facilitator, to the Community Group, the funders and the general public.

There are no hard and fast rules to what to disclose; the decisions you make will be largely subjective, with different farmers wishing to reveal different levels of information.

What should a facilitator collect with the farmer?

a) Whole Farm Review

The Facilitator should aim to carry out a Whole Farm Review or similar which includes full financial statements. This is a critical document and an important process for the Monitor Farmer. It sets a baseline that can be revisited annually and then at the end of the Monitor Farm Project and will give a measure of farm progress over the three years.

Caution: It is highly revealing so the farmer should be fully in control of what goes out to a wider audience. It will almost certainly form the basis of early discussions and sections of it may be used with the Community Group, almost unaltered. E.g. the SWOT analysis.

Note: The WFR is a process carried out between the farmer and a FBAAS accredited consultant (who may be the facilitator) through separate Scottish Government funding so the information isn’t part of the Monitor Farm data, although the WFR may have been initiated by becoming a Monitor Farmer. A WFR may have been carried out relatively recently, before the Monitor Farm was selected, therefore you can’t assume you will gain full access to it.

If it hasn’t been written by you and you think you could have done it better, please don’t criticise it!

b) Baseline data:

It is a fundamental principle of the new Monitor Farms that the decisions the farmer makes and the measure of success of the farmer’s actions are based on good quality data and information that is relevant also to the Community Group of farmers who will have a particular interest in the business. It’s therefore critical that the facilitator and farmer collect sufficient data within the first year to set a baseline from which progress can be measured. We have summarised what is important to measure, where possible. A consistent, familiar approach will mean that the facilitator should be able to draw more information from the Community Group and also be able to benchmark or compare the Monitor Farm’s

information with local and national averages. The consistency will also allow comparisons between Monitor Farms.

c) Key Performance Indicators for the Monitor Farm.

The baseline data that is collected, when benchmarked against local and national figures, will help point to areas where the farm performance is both above and below averages. The data will help facilitators focus on areas where the farmer wishes to maintain high performance or address poorer performing parts of the business. The facilitator should, at an early stage, identify the Key Performance Indicators for the Monitor Farm. There is no prescription for this – the farmer may wish to highlight to the Community Group aspects of physical performance (cattle fertility), financial performance (profitability of the arable enterprise) or personal (more time with family). The KPIs are the window of the Monitor Farm to the farming community. They will state what the Monitor Farmer wants to look at, help set the agenda for the project for its duration and indicate to attendees the relevance of this Monitor Farm to their own business.

KPIs are critical measurements of farm progress and almost everything that is carried out subsequently on the Monitor Farm should be done with the intention of improving on these key indicators. These should be agreed with the farmer at the beginning of the project, before the first Monitor Farm meeting.

Caution: Get the KPIs at or soon after the WFR has been carried out. These KPIs will be the farmer’s largely unbiased opinions of what really matters to the business and his/her personal life. As soon as the farmer comes in contact with neighbours at a Monitor Farm meeting, peer pressure and other ideas will influence them and the indicators may change.

Note: It is almost certain that the KPIs or the priorities given to individual indicators will change over the course of the programme, through influence from meetings, demonstrations, research, peer comments and facilitator input. The changes and why the farmer alters or reprioritises them over the course of the project may give important insights into the way farmers are influenced to make better business decisions.

d) Animal Health

Animal health status. There is currently no standard measure of livestock health status for Monitor Farm recording although there would be merit in obtaining this for livestock units.

Caution: The Facilitator and Farmer should discuss in some detail what goes into the public domain (i.e. to the Community Group and beyond). There should be an assumption that all information regarding cattle health should be available although it is likely that the data will be released gradually, as analyses of health status and vets advice filters into the farm.

e) Financial

Sharing of financial data to the Community Group

This is likely to be a well-discussed area between the facilitator and farmer. i.e. what level of information should be revealed. The disclosure of financial data in some form or another is vital to understand the business decisions that the Monitor Farmer makes or should

consider. Some farmers are reasonably content to open all or most of their books to scrutiny, to have the Community Group analyse their profitability (or otherwise) in detail.

Caution: Many farmers will have sound commercial reasons for not revealing everything or may have always had a cautious approach to revealing financial data. Some may simply be embarrassed with what they think is a poor balance sheet. The bullet points below list some of the areas where sensitivity in revealing data is required.

• Monitor Farmers are unlikely, at the beginning of the project to know if they’re doing well compared to their peer group and may be concerned about what people will say regarding the state of their finances.

• Tenant farmers are likely to be sensitive about their rents. • Most will be sensitive about their bank status, both overdrafts and savings. • Some are likely to be sensitive about their drawings from the business. • There could be concerns about listing staff pay or bonuses, which may make good

staff vulnerable to offers of better paid work elsewhere. • There may be concerns that others could use the data to increase input prices or put

pressure on market values (e.g. a finisher may be overly interested in the store producer’s margins on his stock)

Note: Farmers will likely increase both the amount and detail of what they put out to the Community Group over time. The facilitator should work with the farmer to ask what benefit there could be showing every piece of financial data. If you wish to inform the Community Group, then agree what you want the group to consider. Do you wish to discuss the farmer’s tenancy, if the group has no ability to influence change on rents? However, the farmer may seek advice on seasonal rents and their value for money.

The rule of thumb should be to reveal accurate information where the Community Group advice is sought and where the suggestions may have an impact on the finances of the business.

Some Monitor Farmers have been content to show their breakdown as percentages, rather than actual costs with Gross Profit figures available in some cases.

f) Benchmarking against the Community Group

There will be immense benefits in benchmarking the Monitor Farm figures against those of the Community Group, to give an indication where the business lies in comparison to both national and local averages. Local averages can differ markedly from national ones and will often reflect regional advantages or disadvantages in production costs, land capability, access to markets and so on. One of the key aims of the Monitor Farm project is to raise the level of profitability of the Community Group through the interchange of ideas and by challenging group members to look at their own farm business in detail. The success of a Monitor Farm may in part be measured by a rise over the three years in performance of the group members against national benchmarks.

Facilitators should encourage Community Group members to bring to the project the same data as used to measure the Monitor Farm’s progress.

Caution: Many in the Community Group will never have made their farm records public and will be reluctant to do so. Some will not have recorded data in a meaningful way (and

could be embarrassed about this), so comparisons with the Monitor Farm data could be difficult.

Note: Some suggestions on how and why to record data and what to record may be a good starting point, even if this seems to a facilitator too simplistic a starting point. You may find more community group members are prepared to share their information if it is anonymously recorded. Several experienced facilitators recommend that Community Group data is pooled and presented as a group average and range. Each individual farmer can then compare their data to these figures without publically revealing their own position.

Start slowly and gently with the Community Group, seeking at first evidence that is non-threatening. Scanning figures for example, then move on to broader and more detailed information.

Group data can be very useful, and a standard format will allow comparisons between years over the course of the project and comparison between Community Groups of similar Monitor Farms.

g) What information should be made public?

Meeting reports

The Meeting Reports that the facilitator sends out to the Community Group become public as soon as you email them. The reports should also be made available at the same time, in pdf format for the Monitor Farms website. Perhaps surprisingly, recent reports associated with the new Monitor Farms have been getting attention. The four new farms have had an average of 10 downloads per report. It’s likely that this will increase as publicity about the Monitor Farms increases.

Caution: Some things are best not recorded in reports:

• Don’t include discussions on bust-ups. • Don’t promote products (you might list sponsors’ contributions, e.g. that they led a

discussion). • Direct quotes attributable to anyone other than the farmer, facilitators or invited

speakers are not recommended.

Note: Report writing is a skill and the effectiveness of Monitor Farm reports has continually, justifiably been commented upon. Often, the reports focus on quite local issues but also comment on issues that have a relevance to a wider farming audience. The reports do have a value for those who are not on the mailing list and, of course, if they simply labelled and easily accessible are the best way for anyone to access every one. Typically, reading one article in isolation is of limited value but a good internet search engine does allow the pulling together of several reports on a similar topic (e.g. cattle handling) from different areas of the country. The key topic or topics discussed at a meeting should be highlighted.

There is currently no area on the Monitor Farms website for Community Group members alone to access.

f) Press articles

QMS commissions a press officer to write articles for local and national press, including the P&J, Scottish Farmer and Farmers Guardian. Typically, they will visit the new Monitor Farm, interview the farmer and the facilitator and attend the first Monitor Farm meeting. They will write the articles in discussion with both farmer and facilitator, usually on a theme of wide interest to the rural industry.

These press articles will be put on the website.

Information for funders and project managers

The funders and project managers (e.g. QMS) should be able to access and be supplied with the same information as the Community Group.

Beyond that, it’s between the farmers and facilitators to decide what else is made available.

Baseline Monitoring – list of data and information to be collected

Dairies

• Introduce Milkbench + at the beginning of the project. This records all the costs associated with the dairy.

• DairyCo mastitis control plan. This involves asking over 300 questions – and covers herd health and management for a range of diseases including Johnes’, BVD and lepto.

• Dry cow management – looking at it. • Lameness in the dairy herd • recording calf deaths, soil, forage management, dry matter energy

Livestock

Fertbench

The Monitor Farm programme supports the use of SAC Consultings Fertbench for the recording of cattle fertility records. It will allow the comparison (or benchmarking) of the Monitor Farm’s data with national and local averages. It costs £50/annum and should be repeated for the three years of the project and at the project end.

Over the course of the first year the facilitator should also collect data, where relevant, on sheep, to a similar format to Fertbench.

Sales

• Cattle and lamb sale weight • Days to sale • Dates of sale • Price at sale • Cost of purchase of replacement stock or finishing stock

Feed

• Silage analysis

• Feed analysis, both farm produced and bought-in • Soils and land use • Soils status

All the information above should be available to the Community Group.

Financial

Enterprise gross margin and possibly net margin. This will be critical to revealing the success or otherwise of the Monitor Farms project.

Caution: Revealing the gross and net margins for the whole business or the individual enterprises should be discussed between the facilitator and farmer in detail before release.

Whole Farm Review

We recommend that the facilitator carries out a Whole Farm Review with the new Monitor Farmer.

The FarmBASS Whole Farm Review Scheme offers the Monitor Farmer an opportunity to take a fresh look at their business, with the help of a professional accredited adviser. The adviser is selected by the farmer and therefore it may not be the Facilitator who carries out the Review.

The adviser will provide a detailed breakdown of where your business currently stands, what are its main strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats and develop an action plan to improve your business performance. The adviser will look at your whole business and help you to make the most of all your assets – business, environmental and skills.

Aims

The overall aim of the Scheme is to help farmers and crofters to develop financially viable and environmentally sustainable businesses. Although the farmer is not obliged to act on the recommendations contained within the Whole Farm Review, it is hoped that the Review and its accompanying Action Plan,

will highlight the opportunities for improving performance that are available to the Monitor Farm business and that it will provide a firm basis for the farmer and facilitator to consider the future development of the business.

Collecting useful data

COLLECTING USEFUL DATA FROM MONITOR FARMS

Top Tip: turn DATA into INFORMATION that leads to DECISIONS

Data collection on farms is easy. There’s usually something that can be monitored and measured; lambing percentages; scanning results; daily live weight gain; crop yields and so on. Figures from the weighbridge, from the abattoir or from the bank manager are external reference points to the performance of farm enterprises. It’s likely that the Monitor Famer will make business decisions on the basis of some of these figures so their accuracy and the clarity of the data are vital.

The facilitator brings an extra pair of eyes and possibly a new keenness to look at the information collected by the farm over recent years. It’s easy for the facilitator to be overwhelmed by the data and it takes time to analyse what they’ve got and how to use it. This brief guidance will help you ask some basic questions about data collection and information use. Hopefully it will aid you when you choose what you present to the farmer and the Community Group.

It’s split into four sections: Data quality, Metadata (extra information about data), turning data into information and decision making.

Please note that this guidance covers quantitative data – hard facts and figures that are relatively easy to collect by the Monitor Farmer and the Community Group. The aims of the facilitator should be fairly consistent – collect hard data, display it in a way that informs people and use the information to help make profitable change on the Monitor Farm.

1) Data quality Screening data: You’ve not got a lot of time when you’re a facilitator to manage data, so have a quick look at what you’ve got and be prepared to be firm about what you’ve got to use.

a) Is it hand written and plentiful?

Then it’s pretty useless unless you’re a slave to copying it accurately onto a spreadsheet. It has to be pretty valuable stuff to make it worthwhile. Otherwise, ignore it and if it’s valuable, think about how to collect it some other simple way.

b) Is it a printout from some data programme?

Find out quickly whether the data are available in a form that ‘s manageable in Excel or some other useful (and common) software that you’re familiar with and can be sent to you for analysis. If not, consider that the data may be unusable without a lot of work on your part.

c) Are the data accurate and can be viewed in a programme that’s easy to access and that you’re familiar with AND has the farmer confidence in it?

E.g. The weigh scales were working properly and accurate ( have they been calibrated lately?), the person operating the scanner is highly reliable and nothing broke down. Then focus on these data and ditch the rest until you have lots of time.

2) Metadata Metadata is information about the raw data you’ve got in front of you. It’s really important to collect but often isn’t because it requires thought at precisely the time when data are about to spew out of a computer or is being collected in a pen or across a field. It’s in your interest as a facilitator to set a high standard for data collection so here are some tips on metadata collection.

It’s highly useful to record (with mock answers from a livestock trial in italics):

Q. Why are the data being collected? A. To test the impact on growth rates of two different winter rations; to calculate gross margins from different rations; to allow future decisions about store rations.

What is the assumption you’re testing? That ad-lib feeding of barley to store cattle gives better growth rates than the farm’s usual restricted barley ration.

What’s being measured? The amount of barley being consumed by the two groups; the growth of the animals that results; the gross margins from both types of feeding

What is the sample size of the test? Two adjacent pens, each of 20-25 animals, heifers and steers together and of the same age and breed type.

How will you select the samples? The animals will be selected by age and weight – they must be over 7months old but less than 9 months old and weighing between 275kg and 325kg

How representative is the test? Good – 50 animals tested from a herd of 176 stores (>25% of animals)

Where are the measurements being made? At Mid-Westland steading

What is being used to make the measurements? A Duo Livestock Handling Electronic Weighing system

When is it being measured? Before noon, prior to feeding

When does the trial start? With first weighing at housing

How often are the measurements? Weighing monthly (every 25-35 days)

When does the trial end? With weighing at turnout

Who is responsible for the testing and recording? Principle cattleman Hector Stott

How much extra time will be taken to set up and run this trial? 5 hours for set up and an extra two hours each weighing.

How much does it cost to replicate this test on another farm? Weigh scales cost £650; Electronics cost £1400.

What will the responsibilities be? To ensure ad-lib hopper is always filled with barley; to ration restricted ration accurately

The important thing is to have consistent collection of data. So spend time with the key people in the trial asking them what they think might put the results at risk. Then discuss solutions and write them down for the farmer, you and the other key people.

Risks Possible risks as seen by the cattleman, farmer and facilitator 1) Weighing beasts on a full stomach; 2) disease in one pen; 3) difficult to measure the weight of feed being given; 4) missing a weighing due to time & workload pressures; 5) accuracy of monitoring equipment; 6) ensuring ad-lib hopper is always filled; 7)Trial is not seen as important compared to other tasks; 8) Ad-lib cattle get acidosis

How to minimise risks 1) weigh before feeding; 2) treat both sets of animals as one herd; 3) farmer will supply weigh scales and will work with cattleman to standardise weights; 4) Cattleman to report quickly if weighing is missed within 25-35 day window 5)Facilitator to arrange calibration with supplier; 6)Cattleman to work out system to ensure hopper is always filled. 7) Purpose of trial is explained to farm staff, reward is given for fulfilling tasks, feedback from staff on issues is encouraged.8) Report back immediately to farmer and facilitator

3) Using data for information At some stage the facilitator will have a pile of data, usually a series of numbers, in rows and columns. If you’ve had any input into the collation of data, you’ll hopefully have useful headings, accurate data, a reminder of the reasons you’ve asked for this stuff and a purpose in mind for it. This last bit is critical – data are often presented in raw form to an audience who haven’t had your benefit of a long stare at it. So, it’s critical that you give a context for the data to the audience, whether it’s for the farmer, the farm staff or the Community Group.

Suggestions:

• Remind the audience what is the purpose of this data collection. • Explain which of the Monitor Farm’s KPIs the collection of data is seeking to address. • Describe how the data were collected and any challenges. • State how long this extra work takes • State the cost if a farmer wants to install some similar monitoring equipment from

scratch

Change the data into information

• Present the data in some form that’s easy to visualise – use graphs or charts and by selecting the most important information, keep the display of figures to a minimum.

• Make sure the units of measurement such as kg, £, sheep numbers etc and, the dates on which the data were collected are included.

• Explain the figures or displays – give your opinion or let the farmer give their opinion of what info’s most important to the KPIs set by the Community Group for the farm.

• Ask the audience if the information makes sense

• Ask the audience to explain to you what the information means to them

4) Decision making Make that information work for the farmer

• Ask the farmer to explain if they will make any changes, based on the information displayed?

• Is more trial work required or does more information need to be presented? • Would the audience make the same decisions? • What other information might be needed to give more confidence to make a change? • Is there anything that would halt or stop the farmer making the ‘right’ decisions?

Conclusions Setting up a trial takes a lot of thought at the beginning to produce information that has real meaning to the farmer and which allows them to make informed decisions based on the data that have been collected and analysed.

If you’re not familiar or comfortable with the collecting, analysis or use of data on your monitor farm then use some of the money you have in your monitoring and analyses budget to pay someone to help set up a trial, analyse the data and present them as results. Or alternatively contact QMS for advice.

Providing information

Report writing

Seamus Donnelly, the Facilitator for the Wigtownshire Monitor Farm looked at the variation in Monitor Farm reports from several farms. His conclusions and recommendations are noted below.

A number of key issues need to be addressed, with particular emphasis on smart working to ensure articles are written for more than one use.

Observations:

• There’s a clear need for improvement in getting reports quicker onto the QMS website following a meeting (and faster circulation to Community Group members) if the reports are to serve as an efficient method of Knowledge Transfer.

• The length of reports may be to be too long (average 9 pages) if the purpose is to reinforce/clarify messages from the meetings, assuming the main target group is Community Group members.

Suggestions

• Write the report for the benefit of the Monitor Farmer and the Community Group, not for a wider audience

• Include action points that either the farmer, facilitator or group members are going to carry out in the near future.

• Gauge your own Community Group’s thoughts on content and style by showing them the “new style” Wigtownshire report as a reference.

• Ask your Community Group their views on when the reports should be sent to them. • Send reports promptly to QMS for inclusion on the Monitor Farms website. The

reports are viewed surprisingly often.

Recommendations

Send out the report within two weeks of the meeting.

It could be written on three sheets of paper (six pages):

• Page 1 (Front Cover) Funders + Picture + Contacts • Page 2 Contents + Topical Tip • Pages 3 & 4 Summary of Discussion (including Action Points) • Pages 5 & 6 Half page articles from main speakers and Diary Dates

Annual report

The annual report should provide a valuable document for your Monitor Farmer. It will summarise their efforts, their decisions, successes and failures over the past year. It will recall their original aims from the beginning of the year, show how they have matched up to these original targets and it will make recommendations for maintaining the momentum they are likely to have built up as a business. The report will contain your, your Monitor Farmer’s and the Community Group’s opinions of the project over the past twelve months. Over the course of the project, the annual reports will build into a unique record for your farmer of his participation in a once-in-a-lifetime project.

Each annual report should provide something for you as the facilitator; a record of a significant project that you are closely involved in. Hence it should include your thoughts on the impact of your contribution over the past year and what you’ve learned from it.

The style and content are similar to that of the final report to make it easy to carry over info from each annual report into the final document.

Annual report contents

The annual report should contain:

Summary

· Introduction

· Objectives of the project

· Outputs (what happened over the last year)

· Outcomes (measurable achievements)

Farm dynamics

a. Baseline Monitoring and Benchmarking

· A summary of the farm enterprises at the beginning of the year

· Baseline data and information from the first year

· Other baseline figures (e.g. animal health, environmental audit)

· Maps

· Benchmarking against Community Group (if available)

· Key performance indicators of success

b. Project activity over the last year

· A summary of main changes in the business enterprises over the last year of the project, preferably shown in a timeline or similar

· Range of topics covered at meetings (list a single topic from each meeting)

· Changes in the configuration (e.g. cropping area, cattle numbers, staffing etc)

c. Year-end impacts or outcomes

· Improvements to the main livestock business resulting from the Monitor Farm process

· A summary of the farm enterprises at the end of the year

· Comparison of KPI targets against actual achievements

· Reasons for success, obstacles encountered

Financial details

· Baseline financial figures

· Any changes to net and gross profit as a consequence of the Monitor Farm project

· Projections of net and gross profit for the next year

Community group

· Profile

· Community Group dynamics (total numbers, numbers attending meetings, most popular events)

· Any sub-groups

· Key decisions from the group (e.g. design of a building)

· Any measureable benefits to community group members

Farmer attitudes and collaboration

· Notable changes in farmer (or farmer family) attitude attributable to the Monitor Farm process

· Initial opinions vs year-end perspectives and the reasons for change

· Key areas of learning – what made an impression and why? Examples

· Changes in business networks, new businesses and projects (e.g. part of a machinery ring, establishment of a contractor’s business, established a wind turbine)

· Successes and challenges from the farmer’s perspective (set against KPIs)

· Farmer comments on the last year

Facilitators

· Facilitator profile(s)

· Examples of good practice in KT and KE. Why did this work?

· Key areas of learning – what made an impression and why? Examples

· How facilitators contributed to achieving Monitor Farm targets

· Successes and challenges from the facilitators’ perspective(s)

· Facilitator comments on the last year

Recommendations

· Proposals or suggestions for the year to come

· Why are these necessary?

· Where?

· Timescales

Conclusions

Others:

List major funders, thank significant contributors (Community Group chairs, suppliers of equipment etc) and of course, the Monitor Farmers and their families.

Size:

16 pages maximum (excluding title page), less than 2Mb file size, using maps, images, charts and figures where appropriate.

Layout:

Title page, including: project name; name of farmers & facilitators; image of farm meeting or farmer that is clearly the Monitor Farm; main sponsors’ logos

Numbered index page

One, two or three key messages from the project,

2 page summary,

Main text under 6 headings (see above),

½ page conclusions.

Text: A4, Tahoma 11, single spacing.

Please let your farmer know that the annual report will be a public document, placed on the Monitor Farms' website. Therefore, as it's likely that you'll be including information that hasn't been released in the meeting reports (e.g. the farmers' thoughts), then it's important that you have your Monitor Farmer's approval for the content before it is released.

Final report writing

The final report should provide a valuable document for the Monitor Farmer. It will summarise their efforts, their decisions, successes and failures. It will recall their original aims from three years ago, show how they have matched up to that initial optimism and it will make recommendations for maintaining the momentum they are likely to have built up as a business. The report will contain your, the Monitor Farmer's and the Community Group’s opinions of the project. It will be a unique record for the farmer of their participation in a once-in-a-lifetime project and potentially a vital tool for the farmer in taking the business forward.

It’s key too that it provides something for you as the facilitator; a record of a significant project that you were greatly involved in. Hence it should include your thoughts on the impact of your contribution and what you’ve learned from it.

The format has evolved through recommendations from facilitators. Your farm's annual reports, written to a similar format should contain much of the information you need to complete this final report.

Please let your Monitor Farmer know that the final report will be a public document, placed on the Monitor Farms' website. Therefore, as it's likely that you'll be including information that hasn't been released in the meeting or annual reports (e.g. the farmers' thoughts), then it's important that you have your Monitor Farmer's approval for the content before it is released.

Report contents

The final report should contain:

Summary

• Introduction • Objectives of the project • Outputs (what happened) • Outcomes (measurable achievements)

1. Farm dynamics

a. Baseline Monitoring and Benchmarking

• A summary of the farm enterprises at the beginning of the project • Baseline data and information from the first year • Other baseline figures (e.g. animal health, environmental audit) • Maps • Benchmarking against Community Group (if available) • Key performance indicators of success

b. Project activity over the three years

• A summary of main changes in the business enterprises over the three years of the project, preferably shown in a timeline or similar

• Range of topics covered at meetings (list a single topic from each meeting) • Changes in the configuration (e.g. cropping area, cattle numbers, staffing etc)

c. Final impacts or outcomes

• Improvements to the main livestock business resulting from the Monitor Farm process

• A summary of the farm enterprises at the end of the project • Comparison of KPI targets against actual achievements • Reasons for success, obstacles encountered

2. Financial details

• Baseline financial figures • Any changes to net and gross profit as a consequence of the Monitor Farm project • Future projections of net and gross profit

3. Community group

• Profile • Community Group dynamics (total numbers, numbers attending meetings, most

popular events) • Any sub-groups • Key decisions from the group (e.g. design of a building) • Any measureable benefits to community group members • Community Group chairman comments on the project

4. Farmer attitudes and collaboration

• Notable changes in farmer (or farmer family) attitude attributable to the Monitor Farm process – from different perspectives

o Initial opinions vs final perspectives and the reasons for change • Key areas of learning – what made an impression and why? Examples • Changes in business networks, new businesses and projects (e.g. part of a

machinery ring, establishment of a contractor’s business, established a wind turbine) • Successes and challenges from the farmer’s perspective (set against KPIs) • Farmer comments on the project

5. Facilitators

• Facilitator profile(s) • Examples of good practice in KT and KE. Why did this work? • Key areas of learning – what made an impression and why? Examples • How facilitators contributed to achieving Monitor Farm targets • Successes and challenges from the facilitators’ perspective(s) • Facilitator comments on the project

6. Recommendations

• Proposals or suggestions for follow on from the Monitor Farm • Why are these necessary? • Where? • Timescales

Conclusions

Others List major funders, thank significant contributors (Community Group chairs, suppliers of equipment etc) and of course, the Monitor Farmers and their families.

Size 16 pages maximum (excluding title page), less than 2Mb file size, using maps, images, charts and figures where appropriate.

Layout:

• Title page, including: project name; name of farmers & facilitators; image of farm meeting or farmer that is clearly the Monitor Farm; main sponsors’ logos

• Numbered index page • One, two or three key messages from the project, • 2 page summary, • Main text under 6 headings (see above), • ½ page conclusions.

Text: A4, Tahoma 11, single spacing.

Feedback from Monitor Farm Meetings

Feedback Feedback can be one of the most helpful ways to improve performance. It lies at the heart of the concept of Monitor Farms and plenty of it is received during the Monitor Farmer’s three year stint. Good facilitators help the farmer deal with this feedback, sifting valid criticism from poor and appraising good suggestions from the totally impractical.

Feedback should be sought from your monitor farmer, your community group and your management team. If you work with a colleague ask your fellow facilitator for comments, perhaps on specific areas of your performance e.g. group work or speaking to an audience.

Venue and invitees It could be useful to gain feedback on the venue, facilities and any specialist speakers, i.e. the non-facilitator stuff. Can attendees hear the speakers, is the venue comfortable, are there loos needed, could people find the location easily, is the catering good, did they feel safe around stock? It's likely to be an overload to visitors to put them out for every meeting - so ask at alternate meetings instead.

Annual reviews One of the principal aims of the Monitor Farm project is to improve the knowledge and awareness of the Community Group so that they make changes which improve their profitability. Often this happens without the facilitator or Monitor Farmer understanding fully what they have done to help this. It's important to know the benefits of the project to a community for the farmer's and facilitators' sakes but also for funders who would like to know how effective the project is.

New feedback forms are being introduced to the Monitor Farm programme to help faciliators evaluate what has worked and why over the past year. It gives facilitators an opportunity to understand the audience more fully, understand how they learn the key messages from the project and get a picture of the changes that have occurred on other farms.