15 pages, Cover crops—crops grown primarily to protect and improve soil—are widely considered to be an important component of sustainable agricultural systems because their use can provide multiple ecosystem services without compromising yields over time. Specialty crops—fruits, vegetables, and horticultural crops—are increasingly important to US agriculture and food security and uniquely vulnerable to climate-related problems that cover crops can help to address. Yet far less research has been conducted on cover crop use by farmers who grow mainly specialty crops, compared to the much larger body of research on farmers who principally grow row crops like corn (Zea mays) and soybeans (Glycine max). In this study, we draw on survey data from a stratified, random sample of 881 specialty crop growers in Michigan and Ohio to accomplish two main goals. First, we seek to characterize cover crop use among this important group of farmers, focusing on types of cover crop used and use of multiple types. Second, we examine the relationship between cover crop use on vegetable and fruit farms and key social and economic factors, with particular attention to farmers’ environmental values, adherence to organic principles, and sources of information. According to survey results, cover cropping is more likely when farmers (1) manage certified organic (p < 0.01) or organic-in-practice (p < 0.05) farms; (2) report being influenced by private crop consultants (p < 0.01); (3) attach high importance to agri-environmental goals (p < 0.01); and (4) grow vegetable crops instead of or in addition to fruit crops (p < 0.001). No relationship was found to exist between cover cropping and farmers’ concerns about climate-related risks, education level, or perceived self-efficacy. We conclude by suggesting that the importance of structural factors to farmers’ decisions about cover crops should not be underestimated. Promoting and strengthening the market for organic food may be the most direct pathway toward increasing the number of farmers who use cover crops. Historically important entities in agricultural networks, including cooperative extension and conservation nongovernmental organizations, might enhance their impact on cover crop use by forming new partnerships with private crop consultants.
14pgs, The adoption of soil conservation practices by farmers offers the potential to greatly improve soil health and water quality at large geographic scales. In considering the potential benefits of soil conservation practices to improve ecological outcomes on farms, it is important to ascertain where farmers get their information about soil conservation and what type of information they are exposed to and by whom. One primary way that farmers learn about soil conservation practices is via agricultural trade publications (ATPs). We conducted a content analysis using a computational text analysis method to analyze all the online soil conservation coverage from four influential ATPs in Wisconsin. We focused on 10 different soil conservation practices and found that the most frequently covered soil conservation practices were tillage, manure, and grazing. Additionally, we analyzed the thematic categories for how each soil conservation practice was covered in terms of agricultural, environmental and economic benefits. Generally, articles tended to mention environmental and economic benefits more than agricultural benefits across all soil conservation practices. We also unpacked the subcategories of environmental benefits using cover crops practice as an example to demonstrate how it was covered in terms of subcategories such as biodiversity, sustainability, climate change, water quality, and soil health. Our analysis also looked at how agricultural technology was featured in the stories about soil conservation and found that this category was regularly mentioned for each practice. Finally, we examined the message sources for stories on soil conservation and found that extension and the federal government were the most the frequently cited entities. We also discussed how this form of computational content analysis can provide longitudinal insights about trends in a particular soil conservation practice like cover crops, which showed a clear upward trend in coverage in ATPs for the time period studied. These nuanced content analyses provide insights into what types of thematic categories are featured about soil conservation practices covered in ATPs in Wisconsin. Advocates of soil conservation practices can use our results to determine if some practices could benefit from more attention in ATPs as well as which benefits and themes have received more media coverage. Additionally, stakeholders from entities that serve as different message sources can determine how their organizations are doing as the spokespeople for the soil conservation practices being advocated.
9pgs, Soil loss due to crop harvest contributes to land degradation, and knowledge of this challenge can guide the choice of crops for sustainable agriculture. Nigeria is the largest producer of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) and the third largest producer of peanut (Arachis hypogaea Linn) in the world. Due to limited information on soil loss during peanut and cassava harvests worldwide, and cost of nutrient loss, a two-year field experiment was conducted to compare soil loss due to harvesting of peanut and cassava and to estimate cost of nutrient loss due to crop harvest under traditional agriculture. Peanut pod yields of 2.39 and 2.08 t ha–1harvest–1 removed 0.62 and 0.58 t ha–1 harvest–1 during peanut harvest, respectively, for years 1 and 2. Similarly, cassava yields of 22.71 and 21.40 t ha–1 harvest–1 removed 1.11 and 0.91 t ha–1harvest–1 during cassava harvest, respectively, for years 1 and 2. Crop yields strongly correlated with soil loss due to peanut harvest (R2= 0.36; p < 0.001) and soil loss due to cassava harvest (R2 = 0.23; p < 0.01). Significantly higher soil loss due to cassava harvest compared to peanut harvest can be ascribed to higher cassava yield. Also, soil nutrient loss due to crop harvest was significantly (p < 0.001) higher for cassava compared with peanut by 27.6% phosphorus (P) and 73.7% potassium (K) for the first year and 39.2% P and 79.1% K for the second year. Fertilizer equivalent cost of P and K losses due to cassava harvest for the two years was higher than that of peanut by US$29 ha–1. The study indicated that the intensity of nutrient loss by harvesting is largely dependent on the crop type, and harvesting of cassava can deplete soil nutrients faster than that of peanut under traditional agriculture. Sequential planting of cassava (deep rooted crop) followed by peanut (shallow rooted crop) as a crop rotation management practice is recommended to mitigate soil loss due to continuous harvesting of cassava, and harvesting with thorough shaking technique is also suggested to reduce nutrient loss potential of crop harvesting.
6 pages, In this time of information overload, successfully engaging farmers with compelling outreach materials is a major challenge for conservation programs and related research projects. One potential approach is targeting information to the recipient, e.g., local rather than regional soil and water conditions, when sending messages to farmers. Targeted information may increase engagement by making materials stand out as more relevant and useful; conversely, it may decrease engagement by making farmers wary of the program and how it is using the information. We tested the effect of targeted information on farmer engagement using a large, randomized controlled trial in Iowa. In partnership with Iowa State University, we sent 2,996 farmers a single mailing with information about erosion at the local watershed (targeted) or state (control) level and measured their responses to a two-minute survey. We found that targeted information increased relative response rates by 20%, from 13.8% to 16.4%. This level of increase is meaningful for practitioners, as well as statistically significant. Our findings show that targeted information can be an important tool for practitioners and researchers seeking to better connect with farmers who are inundated with marketing mail.
14 pages, As agricultural conservation priorities evolve to address new complex social-ecological problems and emerging social priorities, new conservation incentive program participation and success can be enhanced by incorporating local stakeholder preferences into program design. Our research explores how farmers incorporate ecosystem services into management decisions, their willingness to participate in payment for ecosystem services programs, and factors beyond compensation level that would influence participation. We conducted three focus groups with 24 participants between January of 2019 and May of 2019 in Vermont. Our study revealed that a strong, intrinsic stewardship ethic motivates farmers to enhance ecosystem service provisioning from their farms, though financial pressures often limit decision-making. These results suggest that programs with sufficient levels of payment may attract participation, at least among some types of farmers, to enhance ecosystem services from farms in Vermont. However, farmers may be deterred from participating by perceived unfairness and distrust of the government based on previous experiences with regulations and conservation incentive structures. Farmers also expressed distrust of information about ecosystem services supply that conflicts with their perceptions of agroecosystem functioning, unless delivered by trusted individuals from the extension system. The delivery of context-specific information on how management changes impact ecosystem service performance from trusted sources could enhance farmers’ decisions, and would aptly complement payments. Additionally, farmers expressed a desire to see a program that both achieves additionality and rewards farms who have been stewards, goals that are potentially at odds. Our findings offer important insights for policy makers and program administrators who need to understand factors that will influence farmers’ willingness to participate in payment for ecosystem service programs and other conservation practice adoption initiatives, in Vermont and elsewhere.
