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.
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.
12 pages., via online journal., Development of extension and outreach that effectively engage farmers in climate
change adaptation and/or mitigation activities can be informed by an improved understanding of farmers’ perspectives on climate change and related impacts. This research employed
latent class analysis (LCA) to analyze data from a survey of 4,778 farmers from 11 US Corn
Belt states. The research focused on two related research questions: (1) to what degree do
farmers differ on key measures of beliefs about climate change, experience with extreme
weather, perceived risks to agriculture, efficacy, and level of support for public and private adaptive and mitigative action; and (2) are there potential areas of common ground
among farmers? Results indicate that farmers have highly heterogeneous perspectives, and
six distinct classes of farmers are identified. We label these as the following: the concerned
(14%), the uneasy (25%), the uncertain (25%), the unconcerned (13%), the confident (18%),
and the detached (5%). These groups of farmers differ primarily in terms of beliefs about
climate change, the degree to which they had experienced extreme weather, and risk perceptions. Despite substantial differences on these variables, areas of similarity were discerned
on variables measuring farmers’ (1) confidence that they will be able to deal with increases
in weather variability and (2) support for public and private efforts to help farmers adapt to
increased weather variability. These results can inform segmented approaches to outreach that
target subpopulations of farmers as well as broader engagement strategies that would reach
wider populations. Further, findings suggest that strategies with specific reference to climate
change might be most effective in engaging the subpopulations of farmers who believe that
climate change is occurring and a threat, but that use of less charged terms such as weather
variability would likely be more effective with a broader range of farmers. Outreach efforts
that (1) appeal to farmers’ problem solving capacity and (2) employ terms such as “weather
variability” instead of more charged terms such as “climate change” are more likely to be
effective with a wider farmer audience.
