#103, In Practice, Sept/Oct 2005

N I

RACTICE P a publication of the savory center

September/October 2005 * Number 103

www.holisticmanagement.org

Managing a Non-Profit Holistically

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

By Phil Metzger

C

entral New York Resource Conservation & Development Project, Inc. (CNY RC&D) is a non-profit formed in 1968 that covers 12 counties in Central New York State. The mission of the CNY RC&D is “to improve the regions’ economic vitality through the wiser use of available human and natural resources.” All projects that CNY RC&D undertakes must have a natural resource conservation and economic development aspect to them.

CNY RC&D’s closest partnership is with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), which has two staff professionals working out of the Norwich, New York office.

The NRCS staff’s responsibilities include assisting the governing Council with the creation of a long range plan and the implementation of this plan. It was here that the exploration of Holistic Management began.

Time is of the Essence I am the USDA NRCS RC&D Coordinator, and I introduced Holistic Management as part of the requirements for The Savory Center’s Certified Educator Training Program. I wanted to explore the application of managing holistically for not-for-profits in the region. Subsequently, the CNY RC&D Board of Directors, known also as the Council, expressed an interest in learning more about how to improve their decision making and effectiveness as a progressive not-for-profit.

The first training was conducted in November 2001, and the Board and staff learned what Holistic Management is (and is not), along with how organizations could manage holistically. During this first training, the Council was able to easily define their whole under management.

However, the Board and staff grappled briefly with who made decisions for the organization and ended up including non-CNY RC&D staff since they worked so closely with their own staff and out of the same office.

Others who were offsite were included in the resource base as it was determined they were affecting decisions but not making them. In fact, I believe one of the most beneficial aspects of going through this process was allowing the Council to see that there were many individuals representing their organization, and the level to which they as Board Members were aware of this and involved as leaders was important.

The experience of developing a holistic goal was also valuable and enjoyable for the Council.

Due to the large group at the initial session it was determined that the “raw input” would need to be synthesized into a cogent and readable format. This process took some time, and it was finally accepted as ‘official’ at the Council’s 2004 Annual Meeting.

While the atmosphere at the end of the first session had been overwhelmingly positive, the passage of time from start to “finished product” was a challenge. Perhaps if the group had finished more quickly, the value of the holistic goal would have held more of the power and excitement that the raw words did when it was articulated at the first retreat. Despite this lag, we did use this work in progress (the holistic goal) to examine its practical value while awaiting its final approval.

With a new U.S. Agency for International Development grant, The Africa Centre for Holistic Management will be able to help even more Hwange villagers in Zimbabwe.

To read more about this effort, turn to page 4.

FEATURE STORIES Managing a Non-Profit Holistically Phil Metzger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Restoring Land and Livelihood in Zimbabwe Jody Butterfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Participatory Rural Appraisal Jody Butterfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

A New Understanding of Root Cause Karl North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

LAND & LIVESTOCK Frasier Farms—Beyond the Learning Curve Ann Adams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Integrated Agroforestry and Aquaculture Fred Hays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

NEWS & NETWORK

Use It or Lose It Prior to the first retreat an issue arose about a disgruntled former employee who had leveled seemingly unfair charges at the Council for recent actions taken. The Council members had continued on page 2

Savory Center Grapevine . . . . . . . . . . .16 Certified Educators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Network Affiliates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Marketplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Savory

The

Managing a Non-Profit Holistically

continued from page 1

CENTER

AD DEFINITUM FINEM

THE SAVORY CENTER is a 501(c) (3) nonprofit organization. The Savory Center works to restore the vitality of communities and the natural resources on which they depend by advancing the practice of Holistic Management and coordinating its development worldwide.

FOUNDERS Allan Savory

* Jody Butterfield STAFF

Shannon Horst, Interim Executive Director Bob Borgeson, Director of Finance, Accounting and Administration Kelly (Pasztor) White, Director of Educational Services Constance Neely, International Training Programs Director Ann Adams, Managing Editor, IN PRACTICE and Director of Publications and Outreach Maryann West, Executive Assistant Donna Torrez, Administrative Assistant

BOARD OF DIRECTORS Ron Chapman, Chair Terry Word, Vice-Chair Jody Butterfield, Secretary Sue Probart, Treasurer Ben Bartlett Clint Josey Jim Parker Judy Richardson Bruce Ward Jose Ramon Villar

ADVISORY COUNCIL Jim Shelton, Chair, Vinita, OK Robert Anderson, Corrales, NM Michael Bowman,Wray, CO Sam Brown, Austin, TX Lee Dueringer, Scottsdale, AZ Gretel Ehrlich, Gaviota, CA Cynthia & Leo Harris, Albuquerque, NM Clint Josey, Dallas, TX Doug McDaniel, Lostine, OR Guillermo Osuna, Coahuila, Mexico Jim Parker, Montrose, CO York Schueller, El Segundo, CA Africa Centre for Holistic Management Private Bag 5950, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe Tel: (263) (11) 404 979; email: hmatanga@mweb.co.zw Huggins Matanga, Director HOLISTIC MANAGEMENT IN PRACTICE (ISSN: 1098-8157) is published six times a year by The Savory Center, 1010 Tijeras NW, Albuquerque, NM 87102, 505/842-5252, fax: 505/843-7900; email: savorycenter@holisticmanagement.org.; website: www.holisticmanagement.org Copyright © 2005.

2

IN PRACTICE

*

tried to deal with this person, but had to date Weak Link: been unsuccessful, and it appeared a different Social—The Council felt that purchasing the approach was justified. During the discussion vehicle and using the truck didn’t raise any red regarding this issue at our retreat, the office flags. Interestingly, staff did not resist the option manager suggested that whatever new approach of driving the large livestock truck as the was pursued, “it needs to be consistent with who Council had anticipated. However, reimbursing we are as an organization.” He specifically staff for mileage did raise red flags on this test as referred to the nascent holistic goal still under they discovered it would create hard feelings development. The particular phrase that was with staff. They indicated this was not a good germane was “have mutual respect for all.” In option for them (staff) and expressed that the end the Council pursued a respectful it showed a lack of understanding and course of action, which appreciation of their defused the conflict situations’ by the Council. and brought resolution to Biological—Not the situation. Simply by applicable. reminding themselves Financial—This had not ‘who they were’ and ‘how been determined. they wanted to act,’ the Marginal Reaction: It was Council ensured that the determined that having the chosen action would employees use the truck be consistent with the provided the best return for values and desires of time and money spent as their organization. the employees were okay Likewise, we tested with this option if a vehicle three other decisions that wasn’t affordable due to lack faced the Council, of grant funds.

Phil Metzger found that putting the including: purchasing a Gross Profit Analysis: RC&D’s holistic goal to the test helped vehicle for project staff, Not applicable. the Board of Directors see the value of hiring an Executive Energy/Money, Source & Holistic Management.

Director, and continuing Use: It was determined that agricultural equipment rental service. Here’s how purchasing a fuel-efficient vehicle was better those decisions tested out. than the truck on the Energy Use test and had that edge if grant moneys were plentiful. But, Wheel Deals if grant monies were not available then it The Council was under pressure to provide would most likely fail the Money Source test. a means of transportation for an expanding The Council thought paying the employees for project staff needing to make field visits. There mileage would pass the energy tests, but not was discussion that if all the proposed grants the Money Source test because that policy may came in they could purchase a used, fuelburden the employees. I thought in all cases efficient vehicle. Additionally, they had the energy source and use failed. Money use failed option of offering the staff access to their large, due to consumptive use of fuel or mileage fuel-inefficient livestock truck, although they separate from the original investment in anticipated resistance to this due to its size and the vehicle which may actually not be a more challenging drivability. Lastly, they could good investment. require employees to use their own vehicles and Sustainability: It was decided that purchasing reimburse them for mileage. The decision they a vehicle and utilizing the livestock truck both tested was “Should the Council purchase an passed this test despite concerns about the appropriate vehicle for staff?” truck’s lack of fuel efficiency. Requiring staff to Cause & Effect: The problem was identified as use their own vehicles failed due to employees a lack of transportation for staff. Purchasing the feeling this option was unacceptable. new vehicle, using the truck and reimbursing for Society & Culture: It was decided that using mileage all passed this test. the livestock truck passed this test, and if grant

September / O c t o b e r 2 0 0 5

money was plentiful purchasing a fuel efficient vehicle would also pass. Paying staff for mileage failed this test.

After testing the decision, the Council decided to have the staff use the livestock truck since the anticipated resistance was not there.

From this testing it became clear that gathering information from those involved can positively impact decision making, such as learning the staff’s preference for vehicle use versus being paid for mileage.

future resource base.

Society & Culture: The decision passed as long as sufficient funds could be secured.

The Council agreed to move forward on hiring an executive director if adequate grants were in place. As the funding situation was examined closer, it was determined than inadequate moneys existed at the current time so a part-time office manager position was created.

Rental Services Addressing Capacity With the expansion of CNY RC&D programming, the capacity of the organization was becoming strained, and a great deal of responsibility was falling on non-RC&D staff who were not legally responsible to CNY RC&D. Additionally, this staff was dealing with ethics rules that prevented them from being involved with financial matters and the supervision of CNY RC&D employees. Several incidents due to Board and staff oversights made it clear that a more engaged Board and the hiring of an administrator was needed to provide adequate capacity for the organization. So the Council tested the decision “Should we hire an executive director?”

Cause & Effect: The problem was determined to be organizational strain and a lack of organizational capacity for management leadership was the root cause. The hiring of an administrator passed this test.

Weak Link: Social—The proposed action raised no red flags on this test as all decision makers supported the idea, and it was felt that partners and funders would benefit as well.

Biological—Not applicable.

Financial—This had not been determined.

Marginal Reaction: It was determined that this test was not applicable since only one action was being considered.

Gross Profit Analysis: Not applicable.

Energy/Money, Source & Use: It was decided that hiring an administrator would pass Money Source & Use if adequate funds were available, especially because an administrator could help effective management which would become income generating rather than consumptive use of money to maintain current status. It was decided the energy question was not applicable.

Sustainability: The decision clearly passed this test as an administrator would bring increased credibility and respect to the organization as articulated in the organization’s

For over 20 years CNY RC&D had provided low cost agricultural equipment for rent to small and limited resource farmers. In recent years the cost of maintaining and upkeep of the equipment had provided a steady drain on CNY RC&Ds financial resources. With inadequate grant funding available, only the minimum in maintenance had been performed, and this had resulted in a sharp decline in the quality and dependability of the equipment.

The Council had reached a crossroads at which they must decide if they would pursue new funding for increased maintenance or sell all equipment that required regular maintenance and retain only those pieces that were low maintenance.

Cause & Effect: The problem was poorly maintained rental equipment. The root cause of the problem was determined to be inadequate enthusiasm on the part of the Council for maintaining existing agricultural equipment.

Keeping the equipment and raising new funds to help maintain it failed this test, and selling most of it off passed.

Weak Link: Social—It was discussed that selling the equipment would indeed create disappointment with many clients and some partners, so we needed to pay attention to those red flags. On the other hand, poorly maintained equipment was already starting to create a poor reflection on CNY RC&D by dissatisfied customers.

Certainly, maintaining quality, low-maintenance equipment (or increasing the funding to provide better maintenance on more equipment) would address those concerns.

Biological—Not applicable.

Financial—Was not determined.

Marginal Reaction: Maintaining fewer pieces of higher quality seemed to provide a better return without additional funds to maintain more equipment adequately, so selling equipment passed. Identifying additional funding did not move us as close as selling did because

of the time spent for the return.

Gross Profit Analysis: Not applicable.

Energy/Money, Source & Use: It was determined that selling equipment reduced CNY RC&D’s petroleum use so it passed both the Energy Source and Use test. Keeping equipment without additional funding failed Money Source & Use due to use of money not readily available that would affect other programs.

Sustainability: As the equipment was benefiting small farm enterprises, selling the equipment would move the Council away from the future resource base described in their holistic goal, so it failed. Without additional funding, maintaining the equipment ineffectively did not move them in the right direction either, so it failed as well.

Society & Culture: It was decided that without additional funding selling the equipment passed this test while keeping it failed. This raised the issue of programming for CNY RC&D and how their equipment program fit into their objectives and ultimately their holistic goal.

Interestingly, the decision being tested changed during the testing. The testing originally contained no mention of increasing funds for maintaining a wider selection of equipment, but this crept into the discussion and shows perhaps that the decision being tested could have been presented differently. Alternatively the decision to pursue additional funding could have been tested separately to see if it moved the Council toward their holistic goal.

Despite not having a completed and “approved” holistic goal, CNY RC&D found the ‘temporary rough draft holisticgoal’ helpful in determining issues put before its executive committee. The piloting experience convinced participants that the development of a holistic goal and testing of decisions held real benefits that could be realized by the entire Board of Directors attempting to improve decision making capabilities. It also raised significant questions and issues not discovered through conventional decision making and made everyone realize they had much to learn about the process.

Phil Metzger is a Holistic Management® Certified Educator and works for the NRCS. He was the principal investigator for the Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education grant to provide Holistic Management training to agricultural professionals in the Northeast U.S. He can be reached at: phil.metzger@ny.usda.gov or 607/334-3231 x4.

N u m b e r 10 3

*

IN PRACTICE

3

Restoring Land and Livelihoods in Zimbabwe

by Jody Butterfield

I

n late June, The Savory Center got word from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) that it had approved funding for a project we have dreamed of, in one form or another, for many years, but lacked the capital and capacity to launch. The grant, in the amount of $426,000, was awarded through USAID’s Office of Federal Disaster Assistance, which is generally more concerned with providing immediate relief for people caught up in natural or human-caused disasters. What they saw in our project, they said, was the opportunity to invest in an innovative approach to a longstanding crisis of food insecurity with a plan for addressing the crisis in a sustainable way.

The Beginnings and the Big Dream As many of our readers know, The Savory Center has been working in Zimbabwe since

1992 when we launched our sister organization, the Africa Centre for Holistic Management. The Africa Centre is based on 6,500 acres (2,610 ha) of land near Victoria Falls, known as Dimbangombe Ranch, which serves as a Holistic Management learning site and training center.

Since its inception, the Africa Centre has worked to introduce its nearby neighbors in the Hwange Communal Lands to Holistic Management through the training of village-based trainers and a variety of small projects. The Hwange Community is enormous, covering over a million acres of rapidly deteriorating land on which over 145,000 people attempt to subsist on livestock, marginal cropping areas, and wildlife.

From the beginning, our dream, the Big Dream, was to see the entire community amalgamating its scattered livestock into larger herds under planned grazing to begin restoring

the land to its former abundance. And although a couple of small groups did make the effort and achieved some exciting results, other factors overwhelmed them, including neighboring livestock that “poached” the forage they produced.

Back to the Drawing Board We still had a lot to learn, and we could only learn it by better understanding the community and earning the trust of many more of its people. We started by engaging the leadership.

All five traditional chiefs in the Hwange Community were invited onto the Africa Centre’s Board of Trustees, as well as local opinion formers and even a couple of politicians.

Africa Centre staff applied for and received a variety of small grants that enabled them to meet and introduce Holistic Management to people from many different sectors in the

Participatory Rural Appraisal

B

ack in the Cold War era of the 1960s and ‘70s, development agencies became famous for pouring money into projects in developing countries that had little or no relevance, or worse, actually damaged the rural communities they were meant to benefit. In the years since, a number of techniques have been devised by development workers that have enabled us to better understand what is needed in a community, the resources that already exist to meet that need, and the gaps that need filling, which development projects can address.

That was a big step forward, but what was still missing was the input of community members into the plan of action that would address those gaps. And that is what distinguishes the Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) concept from its predecessors. This distinction is important for obvious reasons: when the ideas come from the people themselves, they are empowered; when the ideas are imposed on them, they are disempowered and have little ownership in the project’s success.

Heifer International, one of the partners in The Savory Center/Africa Centre’s land and livelihoods restoration project in the Hwange Community of Zimbabwe, has used the PRA for

4

IN PRACTICE

*

many years, and their field staff is highly trained in facilitating the process. This was very evident when three of their Zimbabwe staff—Bho Mudyahoto, Pardon Jani and Thomas Ndlovu— worked with our Africa Centre staff in Zimbabwe in June to facilitate PRAs in two wards (a group of villages organized under a single “Headman”).

What we learned from the experience has enabled us to define the two pilot communities from within those two wards for our USAIDsponsored project. It also confirmed some of our assumptions about the Hwange Community as a whole, dissolved others, and made us aware of options we hadn’t considered. And we learned all of this in three days. PRA doesn’t elicit all the information there is to know. The aim is to know enough without knowing it all.

PRA employs a wide range of methods to enable people to express and share information and to stimulate discussion and analysis. Many are visually based, which is helpful when dealing in multiple languages and with some illiteracy, as we were. Here’s a sampling of the methods we used and what we learned: Community Mapping. Villagers drew maps showing where grazing areas and crop fields

September / O c t o b e r 2 0 0 5

As part of the Participatory Rural Appraisal villagers take turns creating a map of their community in which they highlight important features. were located; deep gullies that were threatening fields, roads and structures; wells (boreholes), homes and other buildings such as stores, schools and clinics; rivers (most of which were dry), crop fields, forested areas, and so on. That gave us an idea of where we could begin drawing the boundaries around our project areas and what to consider in working with the herders to develop grazing plans, among other

Four years ago, the Africa Centre invited livestock owners to bring their animals to Dimbangombe Ranch whenever they ran out of forage. Up to 500 animals have been brought to us each year since. The ranch needed the animals for its own restoration efforts—our herd is too small (about 100 cattle and another 100 goats) to provide the impact needed—and this was a way we could demonstrate to the villagers

the advantages of having their animals in a single herd while dispelling the prevailing myths that inhibited them from running cattle, goats and donkeys together.

In 1999 we launched the first five village banks in the community to make loans to women entrepreneurs. By the end of 2003 we had established 27 banks serving over 500 women who used the profits from their microenterprises to feed their families and send their children to school. But we had to curb expansion of this program, and eventually suspend it, because of the rapid rise in inflation.

Inflation had already been high at the start (32 percent), but by the beginning of 2004 it had reached 600 percent.

From early on we had considered a move to livestock as the currency to combat inflation, but could find no one in the micro-banking sector with expertise in making such a conversion. Livestock were a logical choice because they more than match inflation: not only do they maintain their value, they also produce offspring, thus outpacing

inflation. With the input of two micro-banking experts, John Hatch of FINCA, in New York, and Robert Graham of Katalysis, Inc., in California, we were able to design a livestock-as-currency banking program we believed would work. But we had one large roadblock. We could not consider introducing additional animals into communities that were already short of forage. And we wouldn’t be able to overcome that obstacle until the villagers amalgamated their scattered animals into larger herds and planned their grazing.

And that’s when USAID, in December of 2004, announced they were inviting proposals to address the issue of food insecurity in Zimbabwe. We realized this was our chance to pull together all we had learned over the years and develop a project that would put us on the path to making the Big Dream reality.

things. Once the villagers had completed their maps, they discussed the challenges associated with the various features, such as the distance of the grazing area from water, or the fact that a borehole was now situated in a gully.

Institution Mapping. Villagers were asked to name the organizations present in their community and rank them based on their importance to their day-to-day lives. Four circles were drawn on a large sheet of paper with the inner circle representing the community. The community closest to the Africa Centre placed the Africa Centre in the first circle, indicating that it was very important, but only after a lot of discussion. Those who insisted it belonged there said it was because the Africa Centre had saved their livestock by taking them in during the drought and because the village banking program had made a difference to the women and their families. Those who argued against including the Africa Centre in the first circle said it was because they didn’t know anything about the Africa Centre (good information to glean).

The second community, nearly two hours drive away from the Africa Centre, didn’t include the Africa Centre in any one of their circles because the Africa Centre has only had limited involvement there until now.

Wealth Ranking. Villagers were asked to give indicators for how they measured wealth in

their community and listed business activity, livestock ownership, and building structures. In terms of livestock ownership they provided valuable information on numbers of animals a family owns that indicate its level of wealth: Poor, 0-4 cattle or goats; Middle, 5-10 cattle or goats; Rich, 15+ cattle or goats. Interestingly, it didn’t matter if you had 5 goats or 5 head of cattle to be considered “not poor;” it was strictly numbers of animals, whatever their species, that indicated wealth.

Environmental Ranking. Villagers considered various resources and their state of health over the decades by drawing circles under a heading for each decade, starting in 1950. The circle’s size indicated the health of the resource in that decade. For instance, rivers and soils were considered to be very healthy in the ‘50s, slightly less so in the ‘60s and ‘70s, and rapidly diminishing in each decade thereafter, with most rivers ceasing to flow in the current decade.

Forests, on the other hand, remained healthy in terms of harvestable timber through the ‘90s and then started declining in the current decade.

When asked for explanations, the villagers gave several. Among them: In the earlier years they received “enough rain” and traditional cultivation methods were used. In later years, rains were “poor” and livestock were doing more harm than good.

Access to and Control of Resources (Gender Equity). This was one of the most interesting exercises for me and for the villagers. After making a list of their basic resources, women and men were separated into two groups and each group asked to list which resources they had access to and which ones they controlled. Then the groups came back together, compared their lists, and laughed loudly at the differences in perception.

After much discussion, they came to agreement on who had access and who had control. Women had access to goats, cattle, cash, and education, for instance, but men had control over each one. This distinction between access and control was not surprising to me or the facilitators, but it was a revelation to some of the villagers.

Action Plans. Based on the above, and a number of other exercises, community leaders worked with the facilitators on the third day to develop an action plan organized under six headings: challenges, possible solutions, resources, timeframe, and responsible persons. What was interesting in the plans that emerged was that although there were a number of immediate challenges—HIV/AIDS and adequate nutrition to name two—both communities saw the land degradation and loss of rivers and boreholes as the challenges to begin addressing first—their solution being education and training.

—Jody Butterfield

community—families ravaged by HIV/AIDS and/or headed by orphans, villagers attempting to garden with minimal inputs, school teachers lacking the resources to do their jobs, families whose livestock were threatened by starvation, and women attempting to develop microenterprises. The latter two cases were perhaps the most important in terms of expanding the level of trust and in cementing the Africa Centre’s relationship with the community—at least in the villages we were able to work with, which were those nearest us.

Finding the Way Forward

The Project The project has three objectives: 1. To reduce hunger while elevating continued on page 6

N u m b e r 10 3

*

IN PRACTICE

5

Restoring Land and Livelihoods in Zimbabwe continued from page 5

The Partners In developing our proposal for USAID, we quickly realized we could not accomplish all we hoped to accomplish on our own. Heifer International (based in Arkansas) has been operating in Zimbabwe for years and has experienced staff who had approached the Africa Centre previously in the interest of working together on a project. They were eager to participate in this one. They bring to the

approximately 1,200 individuals within the most vulnerable families out of poverty through the conversion of our village banking program to one based on goats as the currency.

2. To utilize the livestock (all cattle, goats, sheep and donkeys) in two pilot communities, of 5,000 to 7,000 people—including 1,200 benefiting directly from the village banking program—to begin to restore desertifying land and water resources and ensure sustainable livelihoods.

3. To effectively address the long-standing prohibition against female ownership of livestock, the issues of safe family sexual practices, and the stigma of those living with HIV, through gender empowerment training to the 200 male and female heads of household participating in the goats-as-currency banks.

A typical homestead in the Hwange Community.

Surprised by that third objective? It became necessary project team a variety of skills that complement because our new approach to village banking our own—considerable experience in community involves lending to families, rather than development and leadership, animal health solely to women, and that presented some and gender empowerment. new challenges.

Women are culturally (but not legally) ZIA International Healthcare Group, prohibited from owning livestock in Zimbabwe’s based in Albuquerque, has expertise in HIV rural communities, and women now head a prevention/stigmatization and has conducted growing number of families, a trend that is likely training of trainers programs elsewhere in Africa to continue due to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. and in Asia. They signed on to the project last Estimates of the HIV rate in Zimbabwe’s adult December, helping us determine how best to population range from a low of 25 percent to a address our challenges around the gender high of 50 percent. Because treatment is rarely empowerment and HIV issues, and equally available, the diagnosis of HIV-positive is importantly, provided the knowledge we lacked essentially a death sentence. That sentence leaves to design the monitoring methodology required. behind orphans who must then assume the roles They will train the data gatherers (Africa Centre of adults, and grandparents who must again staff and villagers), and also train them to train become parents. The stigma of the survivors others in HIV prevention and in dealing with and those who contract the disease further HIV stigmatization. The latter will be done in compounds the issue and highlights the social collaboration with a third partner, the Gender dilemma of multiple families now headed by Equality Support Project (GESP). females—many of whom will constitute the GESP has worked with the Africa Centre membership of our new village banks. Thus, to “engender” the organization as a whole— staff it was imperative we provide gender its staff, Board, and village-based trainers. Their empowerment training plus HIV prevention gender specialist, Vivian Ncube, will train the and stigmatization training, or we would run project staff how to train village bank members into trouble very quickly. That’s not The Savory in gender empowerment with an emphasis on Center’s nor the Africa Centre’s main area of giving women an equal role in decision making expertise, but we will have partners in this regarding livestock—their sale, consumption and project for whom it is.

6

IN PRACTICE

*

September / O c t o b e r 2 0 0 5

ownership—and in the disposition of other key resources. This training will be linked to the HIV prevention training because women often have no say in the use of common HIV-prevention measures, such as the use of condoms, and that needs to change.

Our fourth project partner is Dr. Peter Mundy, who teaches wildlife management, among other subjects, at the National University for Science and Technology (NUST) in Zimbabwe, and is also a co-founder of the Biodiversity Foundation for Africa. He became associated with the Africa Center in 2004 when he began sending NUST students to Dimbangombe Ranch to learn about Holistic Management while serving a nine-month internship. His interest is in the land restoration aspects of this project and in assisting to develop the criteria we monitor to detect changes on the land.

Project Launch The project will be launched officially on August 29 when the partners have their first opportunity to meet as a team and finalize details. However, it began unofficially in the first few days of June when Heifer International worked with our Africa Centre staff to facilitate a Participatory Rural Appraisal (see sidebar), which provided much of the information we needed to identify the two pilot communities— one at the north end of the Hwange Communal Lands nearby, and one at the southern end, over 100 miles (160 km) away—and to refine our plans for implementation. As we were going to press, workshops were being conducted for village leaders to familiarize them with the project and to further plan the details of implementation, while also reviewing their training in Holistic Management or providing it in depth for the first time. Members of the first four, of an eventual 10, goat-based-currency banks were also being selected.

Defining Success Although the scope of this project is large and the possibilities that open up if we succeed, even partly, are enormous, it is, after all, a pilot project. We will make plenty of mistakes, and we will find that assumptions we’ve made are clearly wrong, but we will learn. And what this grant makes possible is that despite the mistakes and faulty assumptions, and everything else that can go wrong, we will have changed the lives of the people involved for the better.

A New Understanding of Root Cause— Systems Thinking for Holistic Managers

by Karl North

T

he insight that the world functions in complex, interdependent wholes drives a growing revolution in the way people are examining, understanding, and trying to manage our affairs in the world. We can find evidence far back in human history of attempts to comprehend how these wholes function.

Early glimmers of awareness of the everpresent feedback that ultimately drives what happens in the world come down to us from biblical maxims like “As ye sow, so shall ye reap,” and reveal themselves in common sayings like “What goes around, comes around,” “chickens coming home to roost,” and in the lessons of folktales. But as the scientific revolution gathered steam in the last two centuries, its goal of accurate prediction reduced its focus to pieces of wholes, and reduced its products to explanation of events and short-term causes.

Only lately have scientists, seeing the inadequacy of methods bounded by these disciplinary traditions, seriously sought more holistic ways of doing science. These efforts, described variously as ‘systems thinking’ or ‘complex systems science,’ are still small and have encountered plenty of resistance in the scientific community. But they are creating powerful analytical tools that amount to a breakthrough in how science is done.

In the early ‘70s scientists used one of these tools, known as system dynamics (SD) to build a global model of what is causing the main threats to human civilization: unsustainable resource use, pollution, exponential population growth, and inequitable distribution of goods and services. Simulating various scenarios (superficial change, fundamental change, no change), they found none but the most difficult to carry out would prevent global overshoot of planetary carrying capacity, leading to at least some degree of collapse of present human populations and quality of life during the 21st century. Published under the title Limits to Growth, it became an international best seller and put the science of system dynamics modeling on the map.

A New Tool One of the most difficult skills in holistic decision-making is learning to visualize and plan

for both short and long term consequences. We are foiled first by our seemingly built-in desire for immediate gratification, and second by the increasing difficulty of visualizing consequences that arrive later in time and more distant in space from our problem focus.

A second major obstacle in holistic decisionmaking derives from the limitations of the cause and effect testing question. Certainly the question is good in teaching us to look beyond proximate causes to find underlying ones. But burrowing beyond symptoms of problems, we often find not a root cause but a bewildering range of causes. Could the idea of one root cause be misleading us as to how wholes really work?

Systems science has created conceptual tools that can give us the understanding of causality that we need to get beyond ‘root cause’ and even come to grips with long-term effects.

wholes we manage. We operate from mental models of how the system works, but they are often faulty. This confusion is partly because our mental models are invisible, and partly because the linear, written language that has shaped much of our thinking distorts our mental models of how real systems work. In the real world, causality does not run in straight lines, as we shall see. We need a language appropriate to the task.

Created originally at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the conceptual tools of System Dynamics include a very simple, but powerful diagrammatic language of systemic structure that: • Improves our mental models of how the parts of a system interact through cause and effect to generate problem patterns over time, and • Conveys our mental models easily to ourselves and to other stakeholders/decision makers, thus subjecting them to critical examination.

Picturing Systems

Understanding Patterns The first step is to define any problem dynamically by creating a picture of how a problem behavior arose over time. For example, if we are a chicken farmer and our populations of chickens and eggs are growing out of control, we could describe that problem dynamically this way:

Wholes are like icebergs in that for many people the greater part of the system remains beyond their perception. Everyone can see events, although not always the most important ones. When the stream of events begins to reveal patterns of behavior, we need to pay attention, for these patterns are far more instructive than events. Most people can discern some patterns in space and time, but are not very good at it. The next deeper level, systemic structure, refers to the architecture of causal relationships that shape patterns of behavior.

Perception of system structure is a skill holists (holistic managers) need to learn because causal arrangements usually generate the patterns of behavior that concern us in the

The second step is a simple way of drawing pictures that show in a glance the structures in our wholes that we think explain such problem behaviors. Known as causal loop diagrams (CLDs) in systems science, this tool is one product of the systems thinking movement that most anyone can learn. Used regularly, it can broaden holistic perspective.

When testing for cause and effect, why do we often find not a root cause but an interlocking continued on page 8

N u m b e r 10 3

*

IN PRACTICE

7

A New Understanding of continued from page Root Cause

7

range of causes? System science reveals that we are not in error.

In complex wholes, cause does not come from one place; it comes from variables linked in circles.

Because a change anywhere in the circle feeds back to impact the point of origin, these circles are called feedback loops.

Thus, in a simple system consisting of chickens and fertile eggs, it is neither component, but rather the feedback loop, chickens-and-eggs, that is causing the system behavior—that stocks of both components grow exponentially over time. The one loop in our system example is called a reinforcing loop (R in the diagrams), because more chickens makes more eggs makes more chickens in escalating fashion. The feedback loops of the system (in this case only one) are its ‘structure’ and are what generates its ‘dynamics:’ what it does to the chicken and egg populations over time.

As any farmer knows, this simple system, structured as it is for exponential growth, would eventually overshoot the carrying capacity of its resource base and collapse.

But systems science recognizes that there is typically another kind of feedback loop in most wholes, one that works to limit growth and stabilize the system. Chickens-androadcrossings is an example that might work in our simple demonstration system.

The balancing loop (B in the diagrams) in this case is: more chickens tends to cause more road crossings, which in turn causes fewer chickens. By itself, this loop eventually leads to the end of the chicken population. But joined to the reinforcing loop, the system could generate the behavior the manager desires, depending on how the two loops are managed—which loop is allowed to become dominant.

8

IN PRACTICE

*

Looking for Feedback How do these revelations help us better understand the causes of problem behavior patterns we see in the wholes we must manage?

From the System Dynamic perspective, the structure of all complex systems of every type and scale – the rumen food web of a cow, the soil ecosystem, the social network of a community or an enterprise, a local economy or a system of international relations, consist of sets of just these two types of feedback loops fitted together in many combinations.

Furthermore, it is this feedback structure that generates the long-term behavior trends in our wholes that we need to understand, and that humans have the most trouble grasping. So if we can begin to recognize and identify these two types of feedback in our wholes under management, some pulling, some pushing, we can do a better job of deciding where and when in this structure to apply leverage that will move the system in the direction we desire.

Understanding Cause & Effect CLDs are ways to visualize linkages between important variables in your system where a change in one variable causes either a decrease or increase in another. The arrows show the direction of causality. So a change in the chicken population causes a change in the egg population. The signs (+, -) on the arrows have a special meaning, different from the usual one.

A plus (+) means that a change in one variable has an effect in the same direction on the other. Thus an increase in the chicken population causes an increase in the egg population. And a decrease in the chicken population causes a decrease in the egg population. A minus (-) means that a change in one causes a change in the opposite direction in the other. So more road crossings tends to reduce the chicken population. And fewer road crossings implies a higher chicken population than there would have been had the number of road crossings stayed the same. All causal links affect change in either the same or opposite direction from the causal action.

As with causal links, feedback loops also occur in only two types, as mentioned earlier. To identify the kind of loop we must trace its

September / O c t o b e r 2 0 0 5

causality around the entire circle. Starting with any variable, imagine either an increase or decrease, and trace the effect through all the elements of the loop. If a change in the original variable in the end causes an additional change of that same variable in the same direction, we call it a reinforcing loop (R) because it reinforces the original dynamic.

More chickens means more eggs, which increases the chicken population even more.

If there are no balancing loops, a reinforcing loop will cause exponential growth (or decline) in all variables in the loop. If a change in the variable we start with leads to a change in the opposite direction, we call it a balancing loop (B) because it tends to counteract the original change.

More chickens mean more road crossings, which tends to reduce the chicken population.

Learning to see feedback structure and its consequences is not as complicated as it sounds.

Like learning a musical instrument, it gets better with practice.

Once we see that cause and effect runs in circles, we can appreciate what a hash verbal communication makes of our understanding of system behavior. Then, we can grasp the advantages of a diagrammatic language of circles and arrows that can communicate the dynamic, causal interconnections of all system components at a glance. This language is information dense, packing pages of prose into a single picture, and unlike prose, the language is unambiguous.

Anticipating System Surprises Folktales like The Tortoise and the Hare reveal insights about the holistic way the world works. This folktale demonstrates the counterintuitive behavior that systems dynamicists say is an abiding characteristic of complex systems. We expect the hare to win the race, but it is the tortoise that wins. Many of our management and design failures happen because we fail to recognize system feedback structures that generate these surprising, unexpected results. Common examples of “fixes that fail” from unperceived feedback are: • Information technology has not enabled the “paperless office”—paper consumption per capita is up • Despite widespread use of laborsaving appliances, Americans have less leisure today

than 50 years ago.

• Pesticides and herbicides have stimulated the evolution of resistant pests and weeds, killed off natural predators, and accumulated up the food chain to poison fish, birds, and possibly humans.

• A system of unrestrained free trade generates monopolies that control trade.

In each of these cases, failure stemmed from an inability to identify feedback structures and anticipate how they would play out. And in every case, because of delays characteristic of feedback in complex systems, short-term success preceded long-term failure. This contrast between short- and long-term consequences of decisions has been one of the hardest things to learn about managing wholes. It needs more attention.

Parasite Problems I said before that looking for the root cause gets us only part way to an understanding of the downstream consequences of decisions because we have been taught to perceive change in the world as unidirectional, where problems lead to actions that lead to permanent solutions.

Building visual models that show all the important causal relationships that contribute to a problem behavior can get us much further.

Let’s take the example of what decision would best control parasites in sheep.

Although we may have heard of disadvantages of medication, we are probably already doing it, so we use the “Five Whys” (using the question “why?” five times to get to the root cause of a problem) and decide that the root cause is that we are failing to medicate routinely.

So we apply routine parasiticide treatments to the sheep and sure enough, it works. We can model the causal relationship this way:

The arrow shows the direction of cause and effect, and the sign (-) tells us that a change in the first variable causes a change in the opposite direction in the second variable. So if we

decrease routine parasite medication of the flock, the parasite population in the flock will increase, all other conditions remaining unchanged. It also means that if we increase routine parasite use, the flock parasite population will decrease.

Since stepping up routine medication is expensive in materials and labor, the favorable effect of a decrease in the parasite population may lead some shepherds to eventually cut back again on the number of medications. We can model this response this way:

This shows that the original ramp up of treatment led to a response (reduced parasite population) that in turn prompted another response (reduced medication) in the same direction, thus reducing parasiticide use. This is the meaning of the plus sign (+). The final effect was to feed back and counteract the original action. For clarity we identify this feedback as a balancing loop (B), because it tends to set limits on any tendency to continually increase (or decrease) the level of treatment, as shown in the time graph.

Regardless of whether the balancing feedback behavior occurs, in every case other things are happening over time, which are important to understand. Increases in routine medication cause the parasite population to adapt with improved genetic immunity to the medication, leading to mounting flock

parasite populations, and further increases in medication, creating a reinforcing feedback loop R1 (dotted lines) with its typical accelerating behavior over time in all variables: We show that the genetic immunity occurs slowly by drawing a delay marker on the arrow (//). One might conclude that this is easy to understand without building a model, but the fact that shepherds, veterinary specialists, and the scientists who created the medication have managed to gradually destroy the efficacy of most sheep parasiticides by advocating or practicing routine use suggests otherwise.

Ramping up routine parasiticide use on the flock has another downstream effect. Because the flock is constantly medicated, the shepherd cannot tell which sheep are genetically most vulnerable to parasite infestation. Opportunities to select for genetic resistance decrease. So, the flock becomes increasingly genetically addicted to the medication. Dependency causes higher parasite populations than would be the case without the addiction, all other things being equal. The end result is endless increases of medication levels, modeled in reinforcing loop R2 (dotted lines), also a loop with delays.

Furthermore, the model makes clear that feedback loops R1 and R2 have a multiplier effect on each other as they relate to management of the problem. All these effects are counterintuitive responses to the more routine use of the medication, responses which are not even mentioned in textbooks that teach livestock parasitism in graduate courses in major agricultural schools! The end result for the sheep industry is that now genetic parasite resistance has gradually diminished in most common commercial sheep breeds, and the common parasite medications have become increasingly useless.

Seeing The Whole Learning to build the causal loop diagrams that System Dynamics scientists have created as a continued on page 10

N u m b e r 10 3

*

IN PRACTICE

9

A New Understanding of continued from page 9 Root Cause soil fertility +

delay

R Chem Welfare/Warfare

--

soil biological health --

soluble salt fertilizer use

soil fertility + + delay

R

crop health

that produce it bring two tilth loops into the picture. Finally, increasing dependence on chemical fertilizer leads farmers to neglect soil organic matter, so we add the Chemical Replacement loop.

Eventually, diminishing returns and other accumulating problems, whose interactions are visible in the diagram, could strengthen a counteracting feedback loop of the type we saw earlier in chickens-and-road crossings. As it is a balancing loop, more agrichemical use leads after delays to less agrichemical use. It appears here alone only for clarity purposes. Can you integrate it with the full diagram?

Chem Rescue --

R

Chem pesticide use soil organic material -Welfare/Warfare -soil biological Chem soluble salt R Replacement health tillage fertilizer use soil fertility + + crop health

+ tractor passes

R

Chem Rescue

R

-pesticide use + Chem -Welfare/Warfare -soil biological + soluble salt health fertilizer use + + + + -compaction

R

R Tilth Factor 1

Tilth Factor 2

Pogo’s Law --

soil tilth

learning laboratory can help us identify and understand the interdependencies in the wholes we manage. Sometimes they reveal things we want to avoid. Let’s build a diagram of problems visible in industrial agriculture to show how this works.

Suppose our problem focus is soil biological health, which we see deteriorating over time.

This diminishes soil fertility, which induces increasing soluble salt fertilizer use, causing soil biological health to deteriorate even more. Here we have a classic reinforcing loop.

It facilitates good communication to give feedback loops labels that evoke the behavior they generate. I call this one Chemical Welfare/Warfare because these fertilizers have both an initial positive effect and a long-run negative one. I show one of the delays that generate this classic long-term/ short-term effect.

Can you add others?

To compensate for the declining crop health that accompanies salt fertilizer use, farmers increase pesticide use, with negative toxic effects on soil biological health. We depict this by adding another reinforcing loop I’ve called Chemical Rescue. Compaction and the practices

10

IN PRACTICE

*

Characteristic of systems thinking is its focus on the patterned system behavior that generally arises out of the feedback loop structure of the system itself. Interactions among feedback loops, rather than specific variables, cause dynamic behavior (behavior through time). System Dynamics modeler Paul Newton calls this “feedback causality.” External inputs or shocks simply act to trigger dynamic behavior latent in the feedback loop structure.

But our world consists of nested wholes, so where do we set the boundaries? A basic tenet of System Dynamics science is that the dimensions of the problem that interests us must guide our selection of the boundaries. If we want to know why big agriculture consumes family farms, it helps little to focus on farm or even watershed ecosystems and their processes. The system feedback structure that is generating the problem behavior—a shrinking farm population—lies beyond even the agricultural economy.

Boundary flexibility is a principle of systems thinking that is especially important in our society where compartmentalized scientific knowledge has created strong habits of boundary rigidity, with its resultant pattern of

September / O c t o b e r 2 0 0 5

solutions that fail. Moreover, boundary rigidity often produces bounded rationality, where solutions that will fail actually are logical within the limited perspective of the problem solver.

In stark contrast, the motto of the System Dynamics community is “always challenge the boundaries!” Thus systems thinking teaches an endogenous focus: to either look within the whole for the relevant causal structures or expand the boundary to encompass them.

Whence the ring of the holist in Pogo’s famous challenge, “We have met the enemy and he is us!”

Causal Loop Diagrams can be a useful lens to help us view our wholes in action, and thus develop a whole new perspective on the world.

The next time you address a problem within your whole and are seeking the root cause, try drawing a feedback structure that includes all the causal variables you think might be active.

Learning to build visual models of the feedback structure that is generic to all social and biological systems can help decision makers: • Visualize the history, not just of a problem, but also of the causal relationships (the structure) of variables that might relate to the problem.

• Put into pictures your mental model of these causal relationships, pictures that can reveal the multiple effects of management policies, effects that often return (feed back) to create resistance to effectiveness of those same policies, if the system structure is left unchanged.

• Examine the possible future history of your decision and its multiple consequences, based on your picture of causal relationships.

This essay touches only the surface of the body of insights that the study of system dynamics can divulge, hopefully whetting your appetite for further exploration of the expanding science of the heretofore mysterious creatures that make up and structure our world, known in System Dynamics as complex, adaptive, selforganizing systems.

Karl North is a Certified Educator and jointly owns and manages Northsheep Dairy near Marathon, New York. He can be reached at 607/849-3328 or northsheep@juno.com. To learn more about Systems Thinking, visit The Savory Center’s website at: www.holisticmanagement.org/st.cfm for a list of additional resources or Karl’s website at: http://www.geocities.com/northsheep/. The chickens and eggs example herein, among others, originated in John Sterman’s book: Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking for a Complex World.

LIVESTOCK

&

Frasier Farms—Beyond The Learning Curve

by Ann Adams

L

earning a new skill or a new way of doing something you’re familiar with is always challenging. Even with the people who are brave enough to step out of the business as usual mode, there are many who give up when they are faced with the inevitable challenges.

Mark Frasier faced those challenges when he learned about Holistic Management and began managing his cattle differently. His clarity that this shift was necessary and right and family solidarity kept him going through the hard times. While there’s always something to learn, Mark and his family are now enjoying the rewards of increased profit and production, improved land health, and the time for other interests.

realized that as the manager I was responsible for the growth or obstruction of growth of this ranch. I also began to appreciate the dynamics of the natural world and began to understand the connections between events. I wanted to manage the ranch in a way that was mutually beneficial, and it was a relief to get this knowledge and be able to use it in that manner.”

First Steps

After that first training, Mark began trying to implement some of the principles he had learned. Those were some challenging times.

“We were primarily a yearling operation when I first took the training, and there was a steep learning curve as we began to try new things after the training, like taking a more seasonal approach to production.

Making the Shift “The first one or two years I was very enthusiastic, but then we ran into some Frasier Farms is a 29,000-acre (11,600different health and performance issues I ha) ranch in the high plains of Eastern The Frasier Farm crew (from left to right): Chris, Mark, couldn’t figure out. For a couple of years Colorado. They currently have 2,200 Joe, and Marshall Frasier. things were rough as we began to figure out yearlings in two herds and are working what was going on. We had to keep toward natural beef certification of 450 remembering that we were doing the right thing by going through this cows in another herd. Mark is the business manager for the farm, using his transition and it would get easier. We understood that we were grazing degree in Agricultural Economics from Kansas State University (KSU). His differently and it would take some adjustment time because we were older brother, Joe, manages one property in Limon and a ranch manager, using the land differently.

Louis Martin, manages the property in Woodrow. His other brother, Chris, “One of the issues that came up wasn’t really anything to do with the is a licensed outfitter and runs hunting operations on both properties. change, but because it happened at the same time as our management Besides their beef operations, they also offer event stock. Their father, changes we weren’t sure what the cause was. I’d go out to the pastures to Marshall, remains involved in the management of the ranch. find that the cattle were standing around the stock tank not wanting to Mark was the first Frasier trained in Holistic Management. Since that drink, visibly agitated, and not wanting to graze. We finally figured out first training in 1986, all the other Frasiers and their ranch manager have that there was bacteria growing in the underground pipes, and the cattle also received training. That common experience was important for the either could taste it or it was causing them stress. It took us longer to family as it helped them all begin to understand and define their core figure that out because we were in the middle of our transition to beliefs and have a common language to discuss their strategy. In particular, congregate animals.”

Mark noted that his father became much more supportive of some of the Like many other ranchers, Mark understood the value of combining new ideas that Mark wanted to initiate on the ranch once Marshall had herds, but the reality was daunting. “I came to realize that I wasn’t been through the training. “Once he had the bigger picture, he was much psychologically prepared for dealing with larger herds. Initially, owing both more supportive,” says Mark. to herd management skills and the increased number of paddocks “The Holistic Management training also helped me make the transition continued on page 12 between growing up on the ranch and learning how to manage the ranch. I

N u m b e r 10 3

*

Land & Livestock

11

Frasier Farms

continued from page 11

required, I wasn’t comfortable with more than 1,000 head.

“Over time my comfort level has grown, and we have managed herds with as many as 1400 animals. Our practical herd size is now a function of water and facility limits. It takes time for the animals and the people, and even the land, to adapt to those kinds of changes, and it becomes a matter of how much you are willing to do and what motivates you.

“As my skills improved, I could handle new change, and we could take the next step. During that time we really used our friends as resources and contacted the Center and worked with Allan Savory and Kirk Gadzia.

I suppose the biggest hurdle was that we were doing things differently than anyone else. When you’re doing things differently, mistakes or taking chances feels a lot more risky.” But through their perseverance and mutual support, the Frasiers began to see results that kept them going.

The Frasiers manage for good Focusing On The riparian area health with clean Land water and good vegetation and stream profile.

Throughout this transition the Frasiers Fence line contrast photos can focused on land health. often point out the different results “There were some that come from managed really exciting changes grazing (Frasier Farms on left) after the first few and continuous grazing years, but we’ve been (neighboring property on right) stymied by the drought conditions and it’s definitely affected our management,” says Mark. “But we’ve worked hard to prepare the ground for rain when it comes and that has helped. We’re in a short-grass prairie environment, and we have a lot of sod-bound gramma. We’ve tried using high stock density and herd effect to generate change in some of those areas and increase ground cover, but our monitoring has shown little change. We brought in Kirk Gadzia who suggested that we feed hay on those areas, which we have tried, and we’ll keep monitoring the results.

“In other areas we’ve seen a huge increase in diversity. We’ve had a 60 percent increase in plant species which means we’re increasing our growing season and getting more available nutrients from the soil. From that change we’ve been able to triple our production in some areas of the ranch.

“When we first started to divide our paddocks, I was surprised when the results kept showing us we could divide even further. On average our paddocks are 275-300 acres (110-120 ha), but some are as small as 35 acres (14 ha). We are constantly monitoring what the animals tell us about the paddocks and use that information to adjust the quality and productivity

12

Land & Livestock

*

September / October 2005

information for those paddocks in our grazing plan. On average, we allow 35-70 days for plant recovery.

“We have mostly permanent fencing and there’s little I would do differently. We added as we learned how the land was responding. We average 30-40 paddocks to a cell, and we have 45 miles of pipe that my father laid before I ever took any training so that’s been quite an asset with water available in every paddock. For that reason our biggest investment has been fencing. We have a total of 125 paddocks within three cells.”

With all this focus on the land, the Frasiers have been asked by various organizations to share their management skills with others. In fact, Frasier Farms also won the National Cattlemen’s Environmental Stewardship award for Region IV in 2003 due to their management and the positive effects on the environment.

Unlike other Colorado ranchers during the severe drought beginning in 2001, the Frasiers have only had to de-stock their ranch one year. Their “good fortune” is a result of the increased land production and better grazing management which has helped them capture rain more effectively to the point where they’ve even raised their water table.

Mark began observing two reservoirs on the ranch that were separated by a road. One was always full of water whenever it rained because the soil in it was very non-porous. The other one was always empty because the soil was very porous. After about ten years of planned grazing, the Frasiers noticed that the dry one was filling up from the bottom because the water table had risen and the porous soil was allowing the water to percolate while the non-porous remained dry during the drought.

A Strategic Approach Since the Frasiers have been able to increase land production, they’ve grown their herd by 15 percent.

Likewise, they’ve reduced their production costs. In the 1970s, their production costs had been 16-17 cents per pound and had risen to 35 cents per pound by the 1980s. But with Holistic Management, the Fraisers were able to reduce their production costs to 11-12 cents a pound.

The cattle come onto the ranch in April weighing 400 to 600 pounds (180-270 kg)and increase by about 200 to 250 pounds (90-113 kg) over the next five months when they are shipped to a feedlot at the end of the summer. Mark only sells 25 to 30 percent of the cattle as feeder cattle. The rest the Frasiers retain ownership in as they finish at a commercial finisher.

They also sell approximately 200 head of natural cattle through Coleman’s Natural Beef.

Mark is clear that a commodity approach works best for his family.

“As we’ve evolved our operation, we became clear that the commodity approach was best for us given our location and aptitude. The commodity market is based on an average product which we could produce without labor intensive management. That suited who we were as ranch managers given our other businesses.”

The Frasiers took the time to determine what kind of operation they wanted after their Holistic Management training. Unlike other families who

create their holistic goal formally, Mark decided it was better if the Frasiers took another approach. “Goal setting can be a challenging thing to do. We found it worked better when we did it informally. We’d find some common ground to work on and then when I’d present a new idea and meet resistance, I knew it was time to explore that issue in the context of what we wanted for the ranch.

“Or sometimes, if we were having a field day, and my father would say something that indicated his thoughts and feelings about a certain management practice we were doing, that gave me more information about what he felt, and I could go to him later and discuss that practice in the context of our vision for the ranch.”

Mark used this process in a fairly focused way for the first two to three years after training to develop the ranch’s holistic goal. “It’s a little like exploring a room in the dark,” Mark says. “But, I kept at it because I understood the importance of that kind of communication.” It is through this process that the Frasiers continue to explore what ranching means to them and how they want to engage with each other.

The Frasiers have always enjoyed a high level of trust, but trust can only get you so far. About two years ago, Chris and Mark moved off the ranch due to other commitments, and it was then that the family realized they needed to make more effort at communication. They realized they were not maximizing resources as they were running essentially two operations (the ranches in Woodrow and Limon) through one account with little coordination. They decided then to have monthly management meetings that all three brothers

and Marshall could attend. They rotated location and facilitation duties to keep things on task without leaving one person overburdened.

With this new commitment to communication, the Frasiers have been better able to coordinate operations even with greater geographic distance between all the players. This flexibility has allowed for greater diversity in operations, balancing revenue streams, but it also has improved quality of life as people can focus more on the tasks in which they are interested while the people most skilled at a task can be utilized for the work at hand. Mark’s duties as the business manager for Frasier Farms stem from his understanding of the core mission for the ranch. “We have a ranch to merchandise grass through product marketing. We use livestock to manage the resource, and it is the land that is the core asset. We focus on the health and productivity of that land.”

Whether Mark is talking to ranchers at a Natural Resource Conservation Service’s sponsored workshop at Frasier Farms or sharing his story in The New American Farmer for Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education, Mark has consistently shared how Holistic Management has made him a better rancher. In fact, it’s hard for him to know what aspects of his life haven’t been influenced by Holistic Management. As he said, “Anything I do, I have a more holistic, balanced, encompassing perspective than I would have had before.”

Mark Frasier lives in Woodrow, Colorado. He can be reached at: 970/867-4877 or frasier@kci.net.

Integrated Agroforestry and Aquaculture—

Holistic Management in West Virginia

by Fred Hays

H

olistic Management was formally unknown to me prior to my participation in The Savory Center’s 2001 Certified Educator Training Program. However, having grown up in rural West Virginia on a partial subsistence farm where about half of the family resources came from the woodlands, the interconnectedness of things in nature provided many lessons for living on an ongoing basis. The Holistic Management training provided the challenge of establishing a framework and implementing an orderly process of decision-making to supercede our normal intuitive decision-making.

My interest in this training was to learn this process for myself and help teach others who work with natural systems to prevent degradation and restore natural processes. From my perspective, although the Holistic Management® model has its origins in brittle grassy environments, I believe the basic concepts of the model are helpful in the Appalachian environment also. One shift in paradigm that has been helpful for me is the idea of using animals as tools for managing the land rather than just accepting their presence.

My initial concern was whether I could adapt to this left-brain, language-oriented processing over the right brain, visually-oriented processing I had acquired through art education and creative training. After embracing Holistic Management over the past two years, the answer seems to be that this is not necessary. In fact, much of the decision process is designed to force people back into right brain functioning.

Fred Hays runs field days for the Center for Sustainable Resources at his farm so people can learn how to manage their resources holistically.

Considering the Whole The whole we defined includes our resource base including forest land, aquatic business, household, animals, lease holders, personal and professional resources, jobs, fringes, non- profit activities [Fred’s work for the Center for Sustainable Resources], other organizational involvements, government, and everything else which periodically influences our lives and our environment.

After forming our holistic goal we found that referring to our quality continued on page 14

N u m b e r 10 3

*

Land & Livestock

13

Marginal Reaction—In terms of marginal reaction, this activity versus another hobby activity in my spare time, seemed to return more toward my holistic goal. While I could put in more time working on my fish enterprises, I wanted a variety of tasks and making knives gave me that variety.

Gross Profit Analysis—I realized there was little additional labor or of life statement has saved some difficult discussion. We found that some money needed for this enterprise, so it had a good gross profit. The resources in our resource base fell in gray areas in regards to how they enterprise I compared knife making with was painting. Knife-making was could be used to create the quality of life we not as profitable in that I could make more wanted. For example, my wife and I have money painting, but again that comparison some fundamental differences in the way we brought up other information about the clients value items. My spouse, having grown up in I wanted to serve (hunters, fisherman, etc.). My an urban environment, is much more attuned original figures were a little off, and I have to paper dollars and investments (maximizing since readjusted to what the local market will profit) than I. I see money as merely security pay, but I still feel it is a worthy decision. It also from being financially poor, which is an provides for using some odd or exotic materials association from my youth. In other words, I found on the property. Tree disease never will buy tools to work with so that in the looked so good. I am continuing to monitor this future I can use these to earn income. While enterprise as my skills increase while keeping it my spouse considers a house a financial at a low profile for the next year or so. investment that gains value, I see a house as Energy/Money, Source & Use—I thought this Testing the decision to start a knife-making shelter and a place to cook and sleep, and I enterprise passed because I was using otherwise enterprise helped Fred generate more income can be quite content with a Spartan-like home. unused materials, and there was very little without reducing his quality of life.

Being able to recognize and discuss our capital outlay. Since we do not use credit, it is resource base has helped us understand and predict how such resources such that if I cannot afford to buy some silver/nickel alloy for bolsters and might be of benefit or be dealt with more intentionally. guards, then I will substitute other materials until some sales are made to Our natural resource base consists of 150 acres (60 ha) of land, mostly return money to the enterprise. My first outing at a local knife and gun thickly forested, ponds for raising fish and aquatic plants, considerable show yielded nearly $1000 in one day, which covered all of my expenses for timber stock with widely varied species of trees, and a botanical wealth materials to date. unparalleled in most regions. Our water cycle is superior even to most Sustainability—I thought this decision passed the sustainability test areas around us. We harvest mushrooms, both cultivated and wild, along because it was moving me toward my future resource base of a healthy with a number of commercially valuable plants. Wildlife is plentiful and on-farm business and would help bring folks to the farm eventually. varied and provides a lot of food and other materials for our household, Society & Culture—I liked the idea of making knives because I come along with considerable help keeping things in balance. Wild foods such as from a culture of hunters where knives, guns, and bows are considered pawpaw, walnuts, and berries are also abundant. Vegetables, eggs and small about as important as shoes. livestock are additional resources produced on this farm.

So even though I was pretty sure I was going to go ahead and try knife making, the testing demonstrated that my intuition was correct. The Increasing Opportunities enterprise passed most of the tests and helped me see that it was One of the key decisions we discussed as part of our financial planning important to experiment with this income generating enterprise because it was adding an additional product line to weather the slower farm sales also addressed some other key values in my life. during the winter months. Testing decisions resulted in a custom knifeOf Voles and Ginseng making enterprise based on my personal dissatisfaction with store-bought knives, and our belief that this would be a good market for a quality The deliberate use of animals as tools is important to maintaining our product in our region. Our access to good quality materials and my whole and to relieving us of much waste and work. Stocking and installing creative background have also factored into this decision. Additionally, this my own predators such as the cats to handle my production problems of enterprise could be easily conducted during bad weather. I did not arrive voles eating some of our plants, along with goats to eat bankside at doing this enterprise by following testing questions. This was simply vegetation to relieve hand brush cutting and mowing are a couple something I enjoyed doing, so I wanted to determine if it could make examples of this use. money. This is where the formal testing came in.

Our dreaded deer herd has even been employed to function for our

Holistic Management in continued from page 13 West Virginia

After using my usual way of making decisions, I ran this decision through the testing questions. Should I start a knife-making business?

Cause and Effect — Problem= Inadequate income over the winter months. Knife making passes the test.

Weak Link—Since my financial weak link is resource based (need more capacity to have more free time), this decision doesn’t pass the weak link test; however, I also consider this work a leisure activity for me, so it does pass. Going downstairs at night to work in the shop is a stress reducer.

14

Land & Livestock

*

September / October 2005

purpose with keeping grapevines from arboring the tops of trees. We simply cut the grapevines off near ground level about four feet high and the deer keep them cropped back. This has also produced an unanticipated crop of wild grapes that can be harvested from the ground while allowing crop trees to release. In turn, it has also produced an abundance of drunken grouse standing around these areas each fall, providing for a quick shot and an easy meal. The grapes also provide easily accessible forage for the turkey population (a problem specie) that helps to keep them from scratching up our seedbeds in the woods.

How we came to use cats for vole control is another interesting story. tapered off and now includes some chipmunks, field mice and other Growing up, my relatives always had cats to eliminate rodents from homes critters. One of my concerns was that the cats would be killing a lot of and out buildings. Upon our arrival at our present farm, the home was birds, which is a commonly held belief. I believe this occurs only in unoccupied for a long period of time. We had to cut our way through environments where the ecosystem is impaired to a certain extent. My cats multiflora rose all around the house just to have never brought in a bird, and birds achieve easy access. The house was nest on our porch where the cats sleep. occupied by a large colony of mice. We No replanning has been necessary. trapped mice and trapped mice, but still Another example of how our decisions had mice. Upon introducing cats, the mice have been influenced through better activity immediately ceased. It was not that understanding of Holistic Management is these two young cats were catching all of how our deer hunting has changed. The the mice. Because there was now a predator deer abundance, which would and was on the premise, the mice had moved out. impacting our future resource base, needed Through much discussion about using to be addressed. While I enjoy hunting as a animals to impact grass lands in our Holistic leisure activity, hunting daily as a part of Management training, the idea dawned on work has been difficult to maintain, but me one day that this might translate to forest has proven results in renewed forest land in the context of using cats. This meant regeneration and healthier overall a little research and exploration. biodiversity in a very short period of time.

Using animal impact to improve forest health and reduce I had good reason to invest such time in Our consumption of wild meat is now labor has been a successful experiment for the Center for research because I already had substantial our normal practice.

Sustainable Resources.

As a result of decision testing, we investment in ginseng plantings, which the increased our hunting pressure about a woodland vole was decimating when the year ago. Our monitoring has involved simply watching the number of plant was about two years old. They eat roots and really like ginseng. deer on the property. A startling revelation came when we realized What I had realized was that we had a real population explosion of voles contrary to state estimates of twenty deer per square mile (1.6 square km) not just here, but it seemed everywhere people were growing ginseng. in our area, we had ninety deer per 100 acres (40 ha). Through hunting Being an expert at forest crops, I had numerous calls about voles in a very pressure on and off the property, I believe we are at about twenty per short period of time. I needed to find a sustainable solution so that folks would not use large amounts of zinc phosphide as a rodenticide, contrary square mile now. While I realize this is subject to change, the deer herd is to what we are trying to teach about growing sustainable crops. in check for now at least on this property. While the voles were working What I found was that prior to European settlers, and sometime prior on the ginseng roots, the deer were topping it, preventing growth past to modern tribes of Shawnee, Cherokee, and Miami, there were a number June each year. This has stopped. We can now hunt leisurely or when of small cat species native to our area, not including our bobcats. This was game is needed as a food source. all I needed to realize that as a tool our house cats might be trained to In working toward our holistic goal, time has become a primary factor behave as small wild cats. to consider because in reaching this point, we have become a bit too busy Because this was a new experiment dealing with nature, I knew I needed and harried for contentment. With our first ginseng sale scheduled in 2006, to monitor closely for the earliest indicators of things not going the way I we expect to start slowing down some of our enterprises to reduce the had planned. I wanted to control the cat’s activity as best as I could to limit pressure on personal time while doing less volunteer work as well. any possibility of unpredictable outcomes. From looking at the marginal There’s been a lot of progress since we started working toward our reaction test, this decision could pay large dividends in plants saved, labor holistic goal. However, in all honesty I cannot determine how much saved, and overall reduction in rodent impact to other resources. In influence this process has had on our progress since we had already begun particular, my focus was on the ginseng crop since thousands of these plants the process toward sustainable living. The goal setting process has improved communication as it has forced me and my wife to discuss our planning in reaching maturity amount to considerable wealth considering the roots’ a more orderly fashion. My wife points out that my tolerance of other’s average value is about $3.00 each. Having over a million young plants in the perspectives has increased since participating in this program. I have also ground with voles tunneling from root to root becomes a serious matter. become more vocal about conservation concerns in our region and have Would the decision to use animal impact in this way work? written a number of articles incorporating Holistic Management principles.

As I mentioned earlier, the predatory deterrent proved to be as important as the reduction itself. I can quantify that around ninety percent of our losses I plan on continuing with this process and monitoring as my livelihood have stopped. The only problems remaining are a few areas that for some and quality of living depend on it. I also plan to continue to educate others reason the cats will not patrol. Considering that when I was fighting these about the Holistic Management process as it incorporates the principles rodents myself I was spending about 45 minutes per day just monitoring and for decision-making that I share.

This article is an excerpt of a case study in Improving Whole Farm checking traps, the cats have already saved me about three hundred hours Planning Through Better Decision-Making. This publication can be per year in labor. If we calculate in reduction of potential total loss of the ordered by calling 505/842-5252 or downloaded for free from The Savory ginseng crops, which I can’t put a value on considering the staggering of Center website at: www.holisticmanagement.org/oll_wholefarm.cfm. Fred planting from year to year and the natural attrition that occurs no matter Hays is a Certified Educator who lives in Elkview, West Virginia. He can what, I can still say that the cats are saving me thousands of dollars. be reached at: 304/548-7117 or sustainableresources@hotmail.com.

The cats brought in voles every day for a while, and this has since

N u m b e r 10 3

*

Land & Livestock

15

T he

GRAPEVINE n ews f ro m t h e s a vo r y c e n t e r * p e o p l e , p ro g ra m s & p ro j e c t s

Savory Keynotes at Development Conference llan Savory, Certified Educator Dick Richardson, and Pat Richardson were invited presenters in a Workshop and Plenary Session at Rethinking Development, an International Conference in Nova Scotia, June 20-24. This conference was the second conference initiated by the government of Bhutan, and present were representatives of 24 nations—government officials, many NGOs, several economists, and corporate leaders.

The focus was replacing the metric of national developmental success, Gross National Product (GNP), which increasingly is recognized as an effective measure of resource depletion, environmental degradation, social disruption, global insecurity, malnutrition, and poverty. The benevolent King Jigme Singye Wangchuck of Bhutan proposed Gross National Happiness as an alternative measure of progress at the initial stage transitioning from monarchy to democracy.

Allan Savory’s presentation of Holistic Management was enthusiastically received, and, in an after-conference session with the leaders, he sketched the features of governmental structure that are necessary for a democracy to function. Much discussion is expected to take his thoughts and wisdom into the emerging Bhutanese governing process.

Pat Richardson spellbound the audience with a 12-minute video of soil organisms collected at the West Ranch and very poignantly narrated it, illustrating the concept from Wes Jackson (Becoming Native to a Place) that “Either all the earth is holy or none is, either every square foot deserves our respect or none does.”

Dick Richardson illustrated how these principles of holism and Holistic Management effectively can be incorporated into education.

The transition from the Cartesian paradigm of understanding “parts working together” is

A

accomplished by facilitating the discovery by each student that there are no parts. Changing a “part” produces a new unique whole with former “parts” interacting differently than before.

producer panel also presented on Holistic Management in Manitoba, management clubs, and intergenerational transfer. A tribute was given to Allan by some of the Canadian pioneers in Holistic Management. They all thanked him for the huge impact he and Holistic Management have had on their lives. Over $8,000 was raised for the Africa Centre for Holistic Management in Zimbabwe.

The conference was organized by the Devon Management Group who have been meeting monthly for the last 16 years. Special thanks goes to Bluesette Campbell for organizing the sale of Savory Center materials at the conference.

USAID Workshop

T

Roland Kroos speaking at the Canadian Holistic Management Gathering

Canadian Gathering

A

pproximately 400 people gathered in Lloydminster, Alberta, Canada on June 2728 to celebrate 20 years of Holistic Management in Canada. The theme of the conference was “Being the Change you Expect.” Keynote speakers included Allan Savory, Roland Kroos and David Irvine.

In addition to the keynote speakers, a

he Africa Centre for Holistic Management hosted several days of an East and Southern Africa Regional Workshop on People Center Development with a Livelihoods Perspective in May. People Centred Development (PCD) embraces a number of frameworks placing people and their priorities at the center of development efforts which aim to stimulate social change and improve rural well being.

These frameworks include examples such as the Department for International Development (UK DIFID) Sustainable Livelihoods Approach, the Farming Systems Approach, and Holistic Management, all of which have been developed in an attempt to respond to calls for pro-poor development as an alternative to the ‘blueprint’ development approach.

Supported by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Livelihoods Support Programme, 17 Assistant FAO Representatives, from as many countries in the region, met in Victoria Falls to share lessons

USAID participants with Director of International Training Programs, Constance Neely, at far right.

16 IN PRACTICE October 2005

*

September /

learned on People Centred Development approaches and strengthen community level planning and implementation. Resource persons during the workshop at the Africa Centre for Holistic Management included Allan Savory, Dick Richardson, Wiebke Volkmann, Rodger Savory, Elias Ncube, Sunny Moyo and Constance Neely who worked with the group to raise awareness on managing holistically and guide field trips to meet with villagers who are practicing Holistic Management. FAO organizers included staff from the FAO Sub-Regional Office in Harare and at FAO headquarters in Rome. Tsitsi Maradze served as overall facilitator. The workshop served as an opportunity to share information on both sides, and it is anticipated that it will provide a platform for further collaborative efforts in the region.

Savory Center Members Win Awards

T

he Beef Improvement Federation recently presented the 2005 Commercial Producer of the Year award to Prather Ranch of Fall River Mills, California. The Prather Ranch is a vertically integrated cattle business that operates in five northern California counties and is managed by Jim and Mary Rickert.

The ranch operates a “closed herd” of 1,550 English crossbred cows. About 60 percent of the cows calve in the spring near Macdoel, California for the Prather Ranch natural beef program. The remaining 40 percent calve in the fall and are certified organic. The organic herd is maintained separately, summering in the Fall River Valley and wintering in the northern Sacramento Valley.

This is the first California beef ranching operation to ever win this award. Prather Ranch was nominated by the University of California— Agriculture and Natural Resources Cooperative Extension in Siskiyou County.

Prather Ranch also has been selected as winner of the 2005 Environmental Stewardship Award for Region VI by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Prather Ranch has incorporated many conservation practices including planned grazing, creating wildlife habitat, limited access cattle watering ramps, and a hydroelectric plant. Ben Higgins of the California Cattlemen’s Association says, “Our organization is extremely proud of the impressive accomplishments of the Prather Ranch in the fields of environmental protection, holistic management, wildlife management, specialized production and marketing and animal welfare.”

The 15,000-acre Richards Ranch managed by John and Brent Hackley was awarded the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s (TPWD) 2005 Lone Star Steward Award, the 2005 Environmental Steardship Award for Region IV by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Leopold Conservation Award for Texas by the Wisconsin-based Sand County Foundation.

The Lone Star Land Steward Awards recognize private landowners for their accomplishments in habitat management and wildlife conservation.

The program is designed to recognize landowners, educate the public, and encourage participation in habitat conservation.

Livestock is still the ranch’s primary management emphasis, and planned grazing has doubled the conventional stocking rate in most years while increasing the biomass and diversity of grasses, which benefits groundwater by improving water infiltration through the soil.

Recreational uses include hunting, birding, wildlife photography, and ranch heritage tours, which provide important revenue for the ranch.

The Hackleys have freely shared their management successes and failures via field days, training seminars, and ranch tours conducted for other land managers. They have also freely provided hunts to youth and women to help promote hunting among non-traditional user groups.

The 8,000-acre Treadwell Brady Ranch managed by John and Brian Treadwell also won the TPWD 2005 Lone Star Steward Award for their conservation efforts including: habitat management, erosion control, supplemental food, water and shelter for wildlife, predator control, and wildlife population surveys. Numerous water improvements have also been made on the ranch that benefits wildlife resources, and there are low-cost hunting opportunities for many hunters, with deer, quail and turkey youth hunts offered. The ranch also provides nature tourism activities like bird watching and trail rides.

Brian Treadwell, John’s son and partner notes, “I feel my job as a land steward is to identify my habitat and monitor how my decisions and their timing impact the diversity of our useable vegetation. My Dad says you can’t expect to run a business if you can’t take inventory. Our holistic goal for the ranch ultimately focuses on the evolving vision we practice for our habitat.”

Congratulations to all these award winners!

New Director of Finance

T

he Savory Center would like to introduce our new Director of Finance, Accounting, and Administration, Bob Borgeson. Bob Bob Borgeson has been a lifelong resident of New Mexico, earning his Master of Business Administration from the University of New Mexico. He has been a licensed Certified Public Accountant since 1991, and served as a Senior Auditor for the New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee, as well as working with for-profit and publicly-held companies in a variety of capacities.

Bob brings a number of strengths to The Savory Center, but is particularly focused on developing our administrative and accounting systems and helping us use our assets in an effective way to accomplish our overall strategy and direction. He was particularly attracted to the position because he sees the potential Holistic Management has for helping people improve their lives, and he wants to use his skills to help us accomplish our mission. He looks forward to building an even stronger administrative team.

Bob is particularly interested in The Savory Center’s work in Zimbabwe at The Africa Centre for Holistic Management. He believes it is important to help people who are struggling to address their fundamental needs as is the case in Zimbabwe.

When Bob isn’t at work, he loves to hike and get out in nature. He has been a member of Toastmasters since the late ‘90s and has been active in Habitat for Humanity. Welcome, Bob!

Board Chair Wins Award

R

on Chapman, The Savory Center Board Chair, has been awarded the Accredited Speaker designation from Toastmasters International. The accredited speaker designation is the highest possible level of recognition for public speaking in Toastmasters International. He is the 54th recipient of the designation during the 23-year history of the international program.

N u m b e r 10 3

*

IN PRACTICE

17

Certified

Educators

To our knowledge, Certified Educators are the best qualified individuals to help others learn to practice Holistic Management and to provide them with technical assistance when necessary. On a yearly basis, Certified Educators renew their agreement to be affiliated with the Center. This agreement requires their commitment to practice Holistic Management in their own lives, to seek out opportunities for staying current with the latest developments in Holistic Management and to maintain a high standard of ethical conduct in their work.

For more information about or application forms for the U.S., Africa, or International Certified Educator Training Programs, contact Kelly Pasztor at the Savory Center or visit our website at www.holisticmanagement.org/wwo_certed.cfm?

* These educators provide Holistic Management instruction on behalf of the institutions they represent.

UNITED STATES ARIZONA Tim Morrison 230 1st Ave N, Phoenix, AZ 85003 602/280-8803 • tim.morrison@nacdnet.net CALIFORNIA Monte Bell 325 Meadowood Dr., Orland, CA 95963 530/865-3246 • mbell95963@yahoo.com Julie Bohannon 652 Milo Terrace, Los Angeles, CA 90042 323/257-1915 • JoeBoCom@pacbell.net Bill Burrows 12250 Colyear Springs Rd., Red Bluff, CA 96080 530/529-1535 • sunflowercrmp@msn.com Richard King 1675 Adobe Rd., Petaluma, CA 94954 707/769-1490 • 707/794-8692 (w) richard.king@ca.usda.gov Tim McGaffic 13592 Bora Bora Way #327 Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 310/741-0167 • tim@timmcgaffic.com Kelly Mulville 225 Portola State Park, Lahonda, CA 94020 650/704-5157 (c) 650/917-6120 (w) jackofallterrains@hotmail.com Christopher Peck P.O. Box 2286, Sebastopol, CA 95472 707/758-0171 • ctopherp@holistic-solutions.net Rob Rutherford CA Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 805/75-1475 • rrutherf@calpoly.edu Tom Walther 5550 Griffin St., Oakland, CA 94605 510/530-6410 • 510/482-1846 • tagjag@aol.com COLORADO Joel Benson P.O. Box 4924, Buena Vista, CO 81211 719/395-6119 • joel@joelnlaurie.com Cindy Dvergsten 17702 County Rd. 23, Dolores, CO 81323 970/882-4222 • info@wholenewconcepts.com Rio de la Vista P.O. Box 777, Monte Vista, CO 81144 719/850-2255 • riovista@rmi.net

Byron Shelton 33900 Surrey Lane, Buena Vista, CO 81211 719/395-8157 • landmark@my.amigo.net GEORGIA Constance Neely 1160 Twelve Oaks Circle, Watkinsville, GA 30677 706/310-0678 • cneely@holisticmanagement.org IDAHO Amy Driggs 1132 East E St., Moscow, ID 83843 505/288-8742 (c) • adriggs@orbusinternational.com IOWA Bill Casey 1800 Grand Ave., Keokuk, IA 52632-2944 319/524-5098 • wpccasey@interl.net LOUISIANA Tina Pilione P.O. 923, Eunice, LA 70535 phone: 337/580-0068 • tinamp@charter.net MAINE Vivianne Holmes 239 E. Buckfield Rd., Buckfield, ME 04220-4209 207/336-2484 • vholmes@umext.maine.edu MASSACHUSETTS * Christine Jost Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine 200 Westboro Rd., North Grafton, MA 01536 508/887-4763 • christine.jost@tufts.edu MICHIGAN Ben Bartlett N 4632 ET Rd., Travnik, MI 49891 906/439-5210 (h) 906/439-5880 (w) bartle18@msu.edu MINNESOTA Gretchen Blank 4625 Cottonwood Lane N, Plymouth, MN 55442-2902 763/553-9922 • egblank@earthlink.net

NEW MEXICO * Ann Adams The Savory Center 1010 Tijeras NW, Albuquerque, NM 87102 505/842-5252 • anna@holisticmanagement.org Mark Duran 58 Arroyo Salado #B, Santa Fe, NM 87508 505/422-2280 • markjodu@aol.com Kirk Gadzia P.O. Box 1100, Bernalillo, NM 87004 505/867-4685 • fax: 505/867-0262 kgadzia@earthlink.net Ken Jacobson 12101 Menaul Blvd. NE, Ste A Albuquerque, NM 87112; 505/293-7570 kbjacobson@orbusinternational.com * Kelly (Pasztor) White The Savory Center 1010 Tijeras NW, Albuquerque, NM 87102 505/842-5252 • kellyp@holisticmanagement.org Sue Probart P.O. Box 81827, Albuquerque, NM 87198 505/265-4554 • tnm@treenm.com David Trew 369 Montezuma Ave. #243, Santa Fe, NM 87501 505/751-0471 • trewearth@aol.com Vicki Turpen 03 El Nido Amado SW, Albuquerque, NM 87121 505/873-0473 • kaytelnido@aol.com NEW YORK Erica Frenay 112 W. Marshall St., Ithaca, NY 14850 607/279-7978 • efrenay22@yahoo.com Phil Metzger 99 N. Broad St., Norwich, NY 13815 607/334-3231 x4 (w); 607/334-2407 (h) phil.metzger@ny.usda.gov Karl North 3501 Hoxie Gorge Rd., Marathon, NY 13803 607/849-3328 • northsheep@juno.com

MISSISSIPPI

NORTH CAROLINA Sam Bingham 394 Vanderbilt Rd., Asheville, NC 28803 828/274-1309 • sbingham@igc.org

Preston Sullivan 610 Ed Sullivan Lane, NE, Meadville, MS 39653 601/384-5310 • prestons@nwaisp.com

Craig Leggett 2078 County Rd. 234, Durango, CO 81301 970/259-8998 • crleggett@sisna.com

Wayne Burleson RT 1, Box 2780, Absarokee, MT 59001 406/328-6808 • rutbuster@montana.net

Chadwick McKellar 16775 Southwood Dr., Colorado Springs, CO 80908 719/495-4641 • cmckellar@juno.com

Roland Kroos 4926 Itana Circle, Bozeman, MT 59715 406/522-3862 • KROOSING@msn.com

*

NEW HAMPSHIRE Seth Wilner 104 Cornish Turnpike, Newport, NH 03773 603/863-4497 (w) 603/863-9200 (h) seth.wilner@unh.edu

John Thurgood 44 West St. Ste 1, Walton, NY 13856 607/832-4617 • 607/865-7090 • jmt20@cornell.edu

MONTANA Elizabeth Bird 3009 Langohr Ave., Bozeman, MT 59715 406/586-8799 • ebird@montana.edu

IN PRACTICE

NEBRASKA Terry Gompert P.O. Box 45, Center, NE 68724-0045 402/288-5612 (w) • tgompert1@unl.edu

Terri Goodfellow-Heyer 4660 Cottonwood Lane North, Plymouth, MN 55442 763/559-0099 • tgheyer@comcast.net

Daniela and Jim Howell P.O. Box 67, Cimarron, CO 81220-0067 970/249-0353 • howelljd@montrose.net

18

* Cliff Montagne Montana State University Department of Land Resources & Environmental Science Bozeman, MT 59717 406/994-5079 • montagne@montana.edu

September / O c t o b e r 2 0 0 5

NORTH DAKOTA * Wayne Berry University of North Dakota—Williston P.O. Box 1326, Williston, ND 58802 701/774-4269 or 701/774-4200 wayne.berry@wsc.nodak.edu OKLAHOMA Kim Barker RT 2, Box 67, Waynoka, OK 73860 580/824-9011 • barker_k@hotmail.com

PENNSYLVANIA Jim Weaver 428 Copp Hollow Rd. Wellsboro, PA 16901-8976 570/724-7788 • jaweaver@epix.net TEXAS Christina Allday-Bondy 2703 Grennock Dr., Austin, TX 78745 512/441-2019 • tododia@sbcglobal.net Guy Glosson 6717 Hwy 380, Snyder, TX 79549 806/237-2554 • glosson@caprock-spur.com Jennifer Hamre 602 W. St. Johns Ave., Austin, TX 78752 512/374-0104; yosefahanah@yahoo.com Peggy Maddox P.O. Box 694, Ozona, TX 76943-0694 325/392-2292 • westgift@earthlink.net * R.H. (Dick) Richardson University of Texas at Austin Department of Integrative Biology Austin, TX 78712 512/471-4128 • d.richardson@mail.utexas.edu Peggy Sechrist 25 Thunderbird Rd. Fredericksburg, TX 78624 830/990-2529 • sechrist@ ktc.com Liz Williams 4106 Avenue B Austin, TX 78751-4220 512/323-2858 • eliz@grandecom.net WASHINGTON Craig Madsen P.O. Box 107, Edwall, WA 99008 509/236-2451 madsen2fir@centurytel.net Sandra Matheson 228 E. Smith Rd. Bellingham, WA 98226 360/398-7866 • smm1@ gte.net * Don Nelson Washington State University P.O. Box 646310, Pullman, WA 99164 509/335-2922 • nelsond@ wsu.edu Maurice Robinette S. 16102 Wolfe Rd., Cheney, WA 99004 509/299-4942 • mlr@icehouse.net Doug Warnock 151 Cedar Cove Rd., Ellensburg, WA 98926 509/925-9127 • warnockd@ elltel.net WEST VIRGINIA Fred Hayes P.O. Box 241, Elkview, WV 25071 304/548-7117 • sustainableresources@hotmail.com Steve Ritz HC 63, Box 2240, Romney, WV 26757 304/822-5818; 304/822-3020 steve.ritz@wv.usda.gov WISCONSIN Heather Flashinski 1633 Valmont Ave., Eau Claire, WI 54701-4448 715/552-7861 • heather.flashinski@rcdnet.net Andy Hager W. 3597 Pine Ave., Stetsonville, WI 54480-9559 715/678-2465 • ahager@tds.net Larry Johnson W886 State Road 92, Brooklyn, WI 53521 608/455-1685 • lpjohn@rconnect.com Lavra Paine P.O. Box 567, Portage, WI 53901-0567 608/742-9682 (h) 920/623-447? (w) lavra.paine@ces.uwex.edu

INTERNATIONAL AUSTRALIA

NAMIBIA

Helen Carrell P.O. Box 1263, Warwick, QLD 4370 61-7-46617393 • 61-7-46670835 helen@insideoutmgt.com

Gero Diekmann P.O. Box 363, Okahandja 9000 264-62-518091 nam00132@mweb.com.na

Steve Hailstone 5 Lampert Rd., Crafers, SA 5152 61-4-1882-2212 hailstone@internode.on.net

Colin Nott P.O. Box 11977, Windhoek 264-61-228506 canott@iafrica.com.na

Graeme Hand “Inverary” Caroona Lane, Branxholme, VIC 3302 61-3-5578-6272 • 61-4-1853-2130 gshand@hotkey.net.au

Wiebke Volkmann P.O. Box 182, Otavi 264-67-234-557 or 264-81-127-0081 wiebke@mweb.com.na NEW ZEALAND

Mark Gardner P.O. Box 1395, Dubbo, NSW 2830 61-2-6882-0605 mark.g@ozemail.com.au George Gundry Willeroo, Tarago, NSW 2580 048-446-223 • grne@interact.net.au Brian Marshall P.O. Box 300, Guyra NSW 2365 61-2-6779-1927 • fax: 61-2-6779-1947 bkmrshl@northnet.com.au Bruce Ward P.O. Box 103, Milsons Pt., NSW 1565 61-2-9929-5568 • fax: 61-2-9929-5569 blward@holisticresults. com. au Brian Wehlburg c/o “Sunnyholt”, Injue, QLD 4454 61-7-4626-7187 ijapo2000@yahoo.com CANADA Don and Randee Halladay Box 2, Site 2, RR 1 Rocky Mountain House, AB, T0M 1T0 403/729-2472 • donran@telusplanet. net Noel McNaughton 5704-144 St., Edmondton, AB, T6H 4H4s 780/432-5492 noel@mcnaughton.ca Len Pigott Box 222, Dysart, SK, SOH 1HO 306/432-4583 JLPigott@sasktel.net Kelly Sidoryk Box 374, Lloydminster, AB, S9V 0Y4 403/875-4418 hi-gain@telusplanet.net MEXICO Ivan Aguirre La Inmaculada Apdo. Postal 304, Hermosillo, Sonora 83000 tel/fax: 52-637-377-8929 rancho_inmaculada@yahoo.com Elco Blanco-Madrid Hacienda de la Luz 1803 Fracc. Haciendas del Valle II Chihuahua Chih., 31238 52-614-423-4413 (h) • 52-614-107-8960 (c) elco_blanco@hotmail.com Manuel Casas-Perez Calle Amarguva No. 61 Lomas Herradura Huixquilucan, Mexico City CP 52785 52-55-5291-3934 (w) 52-55-54020090 (c) Jose Ramon “Moncho” Villar Av. Las Americas #1178 Fracc. Cumbres, Saltillo, Coahuila 25270 52-844-415-1542 fmholistico@att.net.mx

John King P.O. Box 12011 Beckenham, Christchurch 8030 64-3-338-5506 succession@clear.net.nz SOUTH AFRICA Sheldon Barnes P.O. Box 300, Kimberly 8300 barnesfarm@mweb.co.za Johan Blom P.O. Box 568, Graaf-Reinet 6280 27-49-891-0163 johanblom@cybertrade.co.za Ian Mitchell-Innes P.O. Box 52, Elandslaagte 2900 27-36-421-1747 blanerne@mweb.co.za Norman Neave P.O. Box 69, Mtubatuba 3935 27-084-2452/62 norberyl@telkomsa.net Dick Richardson P.O. Box 1806, Vryburg 8600 tel/fax: 27-53-927-4367 judyrich@cybertrade.co.za Colleen Todd P.O. Box 21, Hoedspruit 1380 27-82-335-3901 (cell) colleen_todd@yahoo.com SPAIN Aspen Edge Apartado de Correos 19 18420 Lanjaron Granada (0034)-958-347-053 aspen@holisticdecisions.com ZAMBIA Mutizwa Mukute PELUM Zambia Office P.O. Box 36524, Lusaka 260-1-261119/261124/261118/263514 pelum@kepa.org.zm ZIMBABWE Liberty Mabhena Spring Cabinet P.O. Box 853, Harare 263-4-210021/2 • 263-4-210577/8 fax: 263-4-210273 Huggins Matanga Private Bag 5950, Victoria Falls 263-11-404-979 hmatanga@mweb.co.zw Elias Ncube P. Bag 5950, Victoria Falls 263-3-454519 rogpachm@africaonline.co.zw

N u m b e r 10 3

*

IN PRACTICE

19

Network Affiliates

There are several branch organizations or groups affiliated with The Savory Center in the U.S. and abroad (some publish their own newsletters.) We encourage you to contact the group closest to you:

UNITED STATES ARIZONA HRM of Arizona Norm Lowe 2660 E. Hemberg, Flagstaff, AZ 86004 928/214-0040 • loweflag@aol.com CALIFORNIA Holistic Management of California Tom Walther, newsletter editor 5550 Griffin St. Oakland, CA 94605 510-530-6410; tagjag@aol.com COLORADO Colorado Branch For Holistic Management Megan Phillips, newletter editor PO Box 310, Mesa, CO 81643 970-487-3515 edit@coloradoholisticmanagement.org

NEWYORK Regional Farm & Food Project Tracy Frisch, contact person 148 Central Ave., 2nd Floor Albany, NY 12206 518-427-6537 USDA/NRCS-Central NY RC&D Phil Metzger 99 North Broad St., Norwich, NY 13815 607/334-3231, ext. 4 phil.metzger@ny.usda.gov NORTHWEST Managing Wholes Peter Donovan 501 South St., Enterprise, OR 97828 541/426-2145 www.managingwholes.com

GEORGIA Constance Neely SANREM CRSP 1422 Experiment Station Watkinsville, GA 30677 706/769-3792 cneely@holisticmanagement.org

OKLAHOMA Oklahoma Land Stewardship Alliance Charles Griffith, contact person Route 5, Box E44, Ardmore, OK 73401 580/223-7471 cagriffith@brightok.net

MONTANA Beartooth Management Club Wayne Burleson RT 1, Box 2780, Absarokee, MT 59001 406/328-6808 rutbuster@montana.net

PENNSYLVANIA Northern Penn Network Jim Weaver, contact person RD #6, Box 205, Wellsboro, PA 16901 717/724-7788 jaweaver@epix.net

20

IN PRACTICE

*

September / O c t o b e r 2 0 0 5

TEXAS HRM of Texas Peggy Cole, Executive Director 5 Limestone Trail, Wimberley, TX 78676 512-847-3822 pcole@hrm-texas.org www.hrm-texas.org

West Station for Holistic Management Peggy Maddox PO Box 694, Ozona, TX 76943 325-392-2292 westgift@earthlink.net

INTERNATIONAL AUSTRALIA Bruce Ward P.O. Box 103, Milsons Point, NSW 1565; 61 2 9929-5568 fax: 61 2 9929 5569 blward@holisticresults.com.au CANADA Canadian Holistic Management Lee Pengilly Box 216, Stirling AB, T0K 2E0 403-327-9262 MEXICO Fundacion para Fomentar el Manejo Holistico, A.C., Jose Ramon Villar, President Ave. Las Cumbres Saltillo Coahuila 25270 tel/fax:52-844-415-1542 jrvillar@att.net.mx

Elco Blanco-Madrid, Director of Education Hacienda de la Luz 1803 Fracc. Haciendas del Valle II Chihuahua, Chih. C.P. 31238 52-614-423-4413 (h) 52-614-107-8960 (c) NAMIBIA Namibia Centre for Holistic Management Argo Rust, contact person P.O. Box 23600, Windhoek 9000 tel/fax: 62-540430; 62-81-2463319 argo@iway.na SOUTH AFRICA Community Dynamics (Newsletter in English) Dick & Judy Richardson P.O. Box 1806, Vryburg 8600 tel/fax: 27-53-9274367 judyrich@cybertrade.co.za