Social science research on farmers’ perspectives on nutrient

loss reductioninforming collaborative action to

improve water quality

J. Gordon Arbuckle Jr.

SWCS Annual ConferenceJuly 27, 2016

Study context:• 1997 Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico

Watershed Nutrient Task Force established– 5 fed agencies, 12 states, tribes in MARB– Goal: Reduce and control Gulf hypoxia

• 2008 Action Plan: Asked states to develop Nutrient Reduction Strategies by 2013

• Undercurrent of regulatory threat

Study context:• Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy released May

2013• Goals: Reduce point/nonpoint source nutrient flow• Goal for agriculture: 41% reduction in N loss & 29%

reduction in P loss• Strategy is voluntary

http://www.nutrientstrategy.iastate.edu/sites/default/files/documents/NRS1-141001.pdf

Science Assessment: What Practices Work

Goals will only be reached if nearly all farmers increase use of diversity of practices: e.g., Cover crops + no-till + MRTN calculator + split application

Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy: Awareness of and Attitudes Toward

• Research on behavior change points to awareness and attitudes as necessary (but not sufficient) conditions for action

• Awareness Attitudes Behavior• If people do not know about a situation or

potential action (awareness) and/or do not consider it to be something that requires action (attitude), they are not likely to act

Data from the Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll, an annual survey of Iowa farmers• Since 1982, focus on issues of importance to

agriculture in the Midwest• Cooperation with Iowa Dept. of Ag and NASS• Generally about 1,200 farmers, ~55% response rateData from Iowa 5-year rotating HUC6/HUC8 watershed survey funded by ISU and IDALS: • ~1,800 farmers per yearBoth surveys’ objectives: Track changes in awareness, attitudes, actions; understand barriers to change

Methods

Awareness of the Nutrient Reduction Strategy

Gave a description, then asked how knowledgeable they were about the Iowa

Nutrient Reduction Strategy prior to reading the description

Not at allknowledgeable

Slightly knowledgeable

Somewhatknowledgeable Knowledgeable

Veryknowledgeable

IFRLP 2014 20% 27% 32% 18% 4%NRS 2015 7% 23% 42% 22% 6%

Information about the Nutrient Reduction Strategy has been publicized through many sources. Through what sources have you learned about it?

SourceFarm Poll

2014

NRS Survey 2015

Percent

I had not heard about it until now 18 --

The farm press (magazines, TV programs, websites) 63 81

Iowa State University Extension and Outreach 45 60Natural Resources Conservation Service or Soil and Water Conservation District 41 61Government agency (e.g., Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship) 39 47Commodity or farm organization (e.g., Soybean Assn, Corn Growers, Farm Bureau) 35 52

The popular press (general interest newspapers, magazines) 30 51Local agricultural retailer (e.g., fertilizer, agricultural chemical dealer) 14 28

Seed company salesperson 9 18

Independent/private crop adviser or agronomist 8 19

Concern: I am concerned about agriculture’s impacts on Iowa’s water quality

Support: I would like to improve conservation practices on the land I farm to help meet Nutrient Reduction Strategy goals

Source: 2014 Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll

Barriers: Short-term pressure to make profit margins makes it difficult to invest in conservation

practices whose benefits are mostly long-term

Source: 2014 Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll

Barriers: Landlords are often unwilling to spend money on conservation

Source: 2014 Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Disagree/StronglyDisagree

Uncertain Agree/StronglyAgree

14%

30%

56%

Proportion rented statewide: 53%

Source: 2012 Census of Agriculture

Percent farmland rented, 2012

Barriers to Specific Practices: Risks, Cost, Knowledge, Relevance

Risk to crop yield

Costtoo high

compared to benefits

Don’t know enough about it

Not appropriate for my farm’s soil or terrain

—Percent Checked—

Cover crops 8.0 32.2 43.9 15.4Nitrogen rate based on Corn N

rate calculator (MRTN) 4.9 9.2 72.7 8.8Nitrogen stabilizer (e.g., N-

SERVE) 1.0 47.5 30.0 14.6No till (all years of rotation) 34.3 9.7 17.4 33.3

In-field buffer strips (e.g., contour) to filter nutrients and sediment 3.9 17.2 26.6 47.6

Growing season nitrogen application (i.e., side-dress) 11.0 24.8 16.2 33.8

Variable rate N application 4.6 30.2 39.3 17.5

Influential actors: Fertilizer and ag chemical dealers should do more to help farmers address nutrient losses into waterways

82.4%

75.2% 75.2%

5.4%7.9%

10.9%

4.9% 6.1% 6.6%3.0% 4.3% 2.7%

0.7% 0.7% 0.6%0.5% 0.8% 0.5%0.1% 0.1% 0.2%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Fertilizer type Fertilizer timing Fertilizer application rates

Fert/ag chem dealer ISU Extension Pvt crop consultantOther farmers NRCS/SWCD Farmer orgCommodity assn

Where do Farmers Go First for Fertilizer Information?

Corn and soybean producers only

Summary of Findings

• Many farmers knowledgeable of NRS, awareness growing

• Most Iowa farmers seem to have positive attitudes toward NRS, are supportive of goals

• They are concerned about water quality• Numerous perceived barriers: Costs, concerns

about yields, pressure to make profit margins, lack of knowledge

• The main source of nutrient management information is fertilizer and ag chemical dealers, and these are the least likely source of NRS info

Multiple-Benefit Prairie Conservation Strips. Photo courtesy of A. McDonald

Social science research informing process

• Key stakeholders—IA Dept of Ag, DNR, ISU—working on continued NRS awareness raising

• Identification of common barriers guiding action– Research and extension on BMP risk management– Knowledge building on major practices– Targeted cost-share– Outreach to landlords

• Highlighting pathways to change: Private sector advisers– Public sector is engaging advisers, especially fertilizer dealers

• Focus on helping advisers to take more responsibility for assisting farmers to reduce nutrient losses

• Retailers conducting survey of client nutrient management practices

Multiple-Benefit Prairie Conservation Strips. Photo courtesy of A. McDonald

Conclusions

• Early returns encouraging: Iowa farmers recognize need to do more

• Iowa dialogue on agriculture and water quality is lively, a lot of agreement that although progress is being made, there’s a long way to go

• Unprecedented institutional commitment to water quality in ag community, both public (agencies and universities) and private sector (commodity groups, ag retailers) are taking both symbolic and real steps

• Social science research increasingly viewed as key to progress: Top officials regularly reference survey results; commitment to 5-year survey effort

Multiple Benefit Prairie Conservation Strips. Photo courtesy of A. McDonald

Thank you!

Multiple Benefit Prairie Conservation Strips. Photo courtesy of A. McDonald