The Impact of Federal and State Conservation Programs on Farmer Nitrogen Management.

The U.S. federal government, as well as many state and local governments, operate a number of conservation programs aimed at ameliorating the environmental problems associated with agriculture. While motives and barriers to conservation program participation and adoption of conservation practices have been extensively studied, the direct impacts of programs on ongoing farm operations remains underexplored. To examine the effects of conservation programs on nitrogen management, an aspect of crop production with significant environmental impacts we conducted interviews with 154 corn producers in three Midwestern U.S. states with a range of program experiences. We found that programs shifted farmer N management behavior through three social processes: (1) engaging farmers in the conservation system by introducing them to the state and federal conservation agencies, (2) incentivizing trialing of specific N management practices, and (3) increasing practice adoption through continued program engagement. Working-lands programs were far more effective at shifting on-farm nutrient management practices than land retirement, certification, or outreach-based programs, though all programs had the indirect benefit of increasing farmer familiarity with conservation agencies and programs. Working-lands programs directly motivated practice adoption; including soil testing regimes, implementing nutrient management plans, and splitting nitrogen applications to improving availability; by reducing producer risk and providing technical assistance, especially whole-farm planning. The additional benefits of all programs were moderated by participant selection bias, in particular that program participants were more predisposed to conservation efforts by existing stewardship and innovation attitudes.

Farmer participation in U.S. Farm Bill conservation programs.

Conservation policy in agricultural systems in the United States relies primarily on voluntary action by farmers. Federal conservation programs, including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, offer incentives, both financial and technical, to farmers in exchange for adoption of conservation practices. Understanding motivations for (as well as barriers to) participation in voluntary programs is important for the design of future policy and effective outreach. While a significant literature has explored motivations and barriers to conservation practice adoption and participation in single programs, few studies in the U.S. context have explored general participation by farmers in one place and time. A mixed-methods research approach was utilized to explore farmer participation in all U.S. Farm Bill programs in Indiana. Current and past program engagement was high, with nearly half of survey respondents reporting participation in at least one program. Most participants had experience with the Conservation Reserve Program, with much lower participation rates in other programs. Most interview participants who had experience in programs were motivated by the environmental benefits of practices, with incentives primarily serving to reduce the financial and technical barriers to practice adoption. The current policy arrangement, which offers multiple policy approaches to conservation, offers farmers with different needs and motivations a menu of options. However, evidence suggests that the complexity of the system may be a barrier that prevents participation by farmers with scarce time or resources. Outreach efforts should focus on increasing awareness of program options, while future policy must balance flexibility of programs with complexity.

Environmental attitudes and drift reduction behavior among commercial pesticide applicators in a U.S. agricultural landscape.

Pesticide drift is a significant environmental problem in rural regions, and can result in losses to certain non-target crops and livestock, water and air pollution, and threats to human health. While state agencies seek to control the harmful effects of pesticides through licensing and certificate programs, the adoption rates of drift-reducing practices by commercial applicators remain highly variable. In order to effectively target outreach efforts to commercial applicators, managers need to better understand current use patterns and the motivations behind the adoption and non-adoption of preferred practices. Using a web and mail survey, this study explored environmental attitudes, awareness and concern for pesticide drift, and current practice adoption for drift reduction by commercial pesticide applicators in Indiana. Researchers surveyed three distinct applicator types: industrial weed management (utility right-of-way), agriculture, and aerial (which are mostly spraying in an agricultural setting). Overall, applicators exhibited positive environmental attitudes, but low concern for pesticide drift in the geographic areas where they operate. Adoption rates for several drift reduction technologies were high, particularly for equipment and spray modifications such as low-drift spray nozzles (88%) and increased spray droplet size (92%). Applicators were less familiar with specialty equipment (such as band sprayers, 13% adoption rate) and methods for identifying sensitive sites such as bee colonies and organic crops. Among the three groups, industrial weed management applicators had the lowest adoption rates. Applicators were motivated to adopt drift-reduction practices by the desire to be a good neighbor and a desire to be a good land steward. There is potential for use of more innovative, voluntary approaches to raise awareness of sites sensitive to pesticide drift in rural landscapes.