Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arbuckle JG, Roesch-McNally G (2015) Cover crop adoption in Iowa: the role of perceived practice characteristics. J Soil Water Conserv 70(6):418–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batie SS (2009) Green payments and the US Farm Bill: information and policy changes. Front Ecol Environ 7(7):380–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgart-Getz A, Prokopy LS, Floress K (2012) Why farmers adopt best management practices in the United States: a meta-analysis of the adoption literature. J Environ Manag 96(1):17–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baylis K, Peplow S, Rausser G, Simon L (2008) Agri-environmental policies in the EU and United States: a comparison. Ecol Econ 65:753–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3:77–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chantorn C (2013) Why do livestock farmers participate in voluntary environmental programs? An empirical study of the Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP). Master’s Thesis, Michigan State University.

  • Christianson L, Knoot T, Larsen D, Tyndall J, Helmers T (2014) Adoption potential of nitrate mitigation practices: an ecosystem services approach. Int J Agric Sustain 12(4):407–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claassen R Hansen L, Peters M, Breneman V, Weinberg M, Cattaneo A, Feather P, Gadsby D, Hellerstein D, Hopkins J, Johnston P, Morehart M, Smith M (2001) Agri-environmental policy at the crossroads: guideposts on a changing landscape. Agricultural Economic Report Number 794.

  • Claassen R (2003) Emphasis shifts in U.S. agri-environmental policy. USDA Economic Research Service., Amber Waves

    Google Scholar 

  • Claassen R, Duquette E, Horowitz J (2013) Additionality in agricultural conservation payment programs. J Soil Water Conserv 68(3):74A–78A

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claassen R (2014) 2014 Farm Act continues most previous trends in conservation. Amber Waves, USDA Economic Research Service. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2014/may/2014-farm-act-continues-mostprevious-trends-in-conservation/

  • Corbin J, Strauss A (1990) Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qual Sociol 13(1):3–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coughenour CM (2003) Innovating conservation agriculture: the case of no-till cropping. Rural Sociol 68(2):278–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson EA et al. (2012) Excess nitrogen in the U.S. environment: trends, risks, and solutions. Issues in Ecology, Report Number 15, Winter 2012.

  • Davidson EA, Suddick EC, Rice CW, Prokopy LS (2015) More food, low pollution (Mo Fo Lo Po): a grand challenge for the 21st century. J Environ Qual 44(2):305–311

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dowd BM, Press D, Los Huertos M (2008) Agricultural nonpoint source water pollution policy: the case ofCalifornia’s central coast. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment. 128:151–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn M, Ulrich-Schad JD, Prokopy LS, Myers RL, Watts CR, Scanlon K (2016) Perceptions and use of cover crops among early adopters: findings from a national survey. J Soil Water Conserv 71(1):29–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Floress K, Reimer A, Thompson A, Burbach M, Knutson C, Prokopy L, Ribaudo M, Ulrich-Schad J (2018) Measuring behavior in conservation social science: recommendations for researchers and practitionars. Land Use Policy 70:414–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greiner R, Gregg D (2011) Farmers’ intrinsic motivations, barriers to the adoption of conservation practices and effectiveness of policy instruments: empirical evidence from northern Australia. Land Use Policy 28:257–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helms JD (1985) Brief history of the USDA Soil Bank Program. Historical Insights #1, United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved March 7, 2017: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1045666.pdf

  • IDALS [Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship] (2015) Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy Annual Progress Report 2014-2015. Retrieved September 20, 2017:http://www.nutrientstrategy.iastate.edu/sites/default/files/documents/1415progress.pdf

  • ISUEO [Iowa State University Extension and Outreach] (2014) Reducing nutrient loss: science shows what works. Retrieved April 21, 2016: https://www.cals.iastate.edu/sites/default/files/misc/183758/sp435.pdf

  • Johnston AM, Bruulsema TW (2014) 4R nutrient stewardship for improved nutrient use efficiency. Procedia Eng 83:365–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser FG, Hubner G, Bogner FX (2005) Contrasting the theory of planned behavior with the value-belief-norm model in explaining conservation behavior. J Appl Social Psychol 35(10):2150–2170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert D, Shaible GD, Johansson R, Daberkow S (2006) Working-land conservation structures: evidence on program and non-program participants. American Agricultural Economics Association (AAEA) national meeting, 2006.

  • Lambert DM, Sullivan P, Claassen R, Foreman L (2007) Profiles of US farm households adopting conservation-compatible practices. Land Use Policy 24:72–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln NK, Ardoin NM (2016) Cultivating values: environmental values and sense of place as correlates of sustainable agricultural practices. Agric Human Values 33(2):389–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubben B, Pease J (2014) Conservation and the Agricultural Act of 2014. Choices 29(2):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Manson SM, Jordan NR, Nelson KC, Brummel RF (2016) Modeling the effect of social networks onadoption of multifunctional agriculture Environmental Modeling and Software 75:388–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maybery D, Crase L, Gullifer C (2005) Categorizing farming values as economic, conservation, and lifestyle. J Econ Psychol 26:59–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCann L, Claassen R (2014) Are farmer transaction costs a barrier to conservation program participation? Paper presented at the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, MN, 28–30 July 2014

  • McGuire, J, LW Morton, and AD Cast (2013) Reconstructing the good farmer identity: shifts in farmer identities and farm management practices to improve water quality. Agricu Human Values (published online 20 June 2012), 30(1):57-69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mezzatesta M, Newburn DA, Woodward RT (2013) Additionality and the adoption of farm conservation practices. Land Econ 89(4):722–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar N, Robertson GP (2015) Nitrogen transfers and transformations in row-crop ecosystems. p 213-251. In: Hamilton SK, Doll JE, Robertson GP eds. The ecology of agricultural landscapes: long-term research on the path to sustainability. Oxford University Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon K, Cocklin C (2011) A landholder-based approach to the design of private-land conservation programs. Conserv Biol 25(3):493–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell C, Osmond DL (2018) Carolina dreamin: a case for understanding farmers’ decision-making and hybrid agri-environmental governance initiatives as complex assembleges. In Forney J, Rosin C, Campbell H eds. Agri-environmental governance as an assemblage: multiplicity, power, and transformation. Routledge

  • Osmond DL, Hoag DLK, Luloff AE, Meals DW, Neas K (2015) Farmers’ use of nutrient management: lessons from watershed case studies. J Environ Qual 44:382–390

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Prokopy LS, Floress K, Klotthor-Weinkauf D, Baumgart-Getz A (2008) Determinants of agricultural BMP adoption: evidence from the literature. J Soil Water Conserv 63(5):300–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabalais NN, Turner RE, Wiseman WJ (2001) Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. J Environ Qual 30:320–329

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rabotyagov SS, Campbell TD, White M, Arnold JG, Atwood J, Norfleet ME, Kling CL, Gassman PW, Valcu A, Richardson J, Turner RE, Rabalais NN (2014) Cost-effective targeting of conservation investments to reduce the northern Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(52), pp 18530-18535.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reimer A, Thompson AW, Prokopy LS (2012) The multi-dimensional nature of environmental attitudes among farmers in Indiana: implications for conservation adoption. Agric Human Values 29:29–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reimer AP, Prokopy LS (2014a) One federal policy, four different policy contexts: an examination of agri-environmental policy implementation in the Midwestern United States. Land Use Policy 38:605–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reimer AP, Prokopy LS (2014b) Farmer participation in U.S. farm bill conservation programs. Environ Manag 53:318–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reimer A (2015) Ecological modernization in U.S. agri-environmental programs: trends in the 2014 Farm Bill. Land Use Policy 47:209–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribaudo M, Delgado J, Hansen L, Livingston M, Mosheim R, Williamson J (2011) Nitrogen in agricultural systems: implications for conservation policy. USDA Economic Research Report #127. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err127.aspx

  • Robertson GP, Vitousek PM (2009) Nitrogen in agriculture: balancing the cost of an essential resource. Annu Rev Environ Resour 34:97–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson GP, Swinton SM (2005) Reconciling agricultural productivity and environmental integrity: a grand challenge for agriculture. Front Ecol Environ 3(1):38–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of innovations. The Free Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaible GD, Mishra AK, Lambert DM, Panterov G (2015) Factors influencing environmental stewardship in U.S. agriculture: conservation program participants vs. non-participants. Land Use Policy 46:125–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheeder RJ, Lynne GD (2011) Empathy-conditioned conservation: “Walking in the shoes of others” as a conservation farmer. Land Econ 87(3):433–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schertz LP, Doering III OC (1999) The making of the 1996 Farm Act. Iowa State University Press, Ames

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart D, Gillon S (2013) Scaling up to address new challenges to conservation on US farmland. Land Use Policy 31:22–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart D, Benveniste E, Harris LM (2014b) Evaluating the use of an environmental assurance program to address pollution from United States cropland. Land Use Policy 39:34–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart D, Houser M (2018) Producing compliant polluters: seed companies and nitrogen fertilizer application in U.S. corn agriculture. Rural Sociology https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12212

  • Stuart D, Denny R, Houser M, Reimer A, Marquart-Pyatt S (2018) Farmer selection of sources of information for nitrogen management in the US Midwest: implications for environmental programs. Land Use Policy 70:289–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stubbs M (2010) Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues. Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report for Congress. 7-5700.

  • Swinton SM, Lupi F, Robertson GP, Hamilton SK (2007) Ecosystem services and agriculture: cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecol Econ 64(2):245–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson AW, Reimer AP, Prokopy LS (2015) Unraveling the Alternative-Conventional AgriculturalParadigm Scale: Developing farmer specific measures of environmental attitudes. Agriculture and HumanValues 32(2):385–399

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich-Schad JD, Garcia de Jalon S, Babin N, Pape A, Prokopy LS (2018) Measuring and understanding agricultural producers’ adoption of nutrient best management practices. J Soil Water Conserv 72(5):506–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture-National Agricultural Statistics Service), (2016) Statistics by State. www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/. Accessed July 2018.

  • USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), (2016) The Conservation Reserve Program: 49th Signup Results. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-public/usdafiles/Conservation/PDF/SU49Book_State_final1.pdf

  • U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), (2009) National Water Quality Inventory: 2004 Report to Congress. EPA/841-R-08-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington D.C. 20460

  • Vollmer-Sanders C, Wolf C, Batie SS (2011) Financial and environmental consequences of a voluntary farm environmental assurance program in Michigan. J Soil Water Conserv 66(2):122–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vollmer-Sanders C, Allman A, Busdeker D, Moody LB, Stanley WG (2016) Building partnerships to scale up conservation: 4R nutrient stewardship certification program in the Lake Erie watershed. J Gt Lakes Res 42(6):1395–1402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldman KB, Kerr JM (2014) Limitations of certification and supply chain standards for environmental protection in commodity crop production. Annu Rev Resour Econ 6:429–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber C, McCann L (2015) Adoption of nitrogen-efficient technologies by U.S. corn farmers. J Environ Qual 44:391–401

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weis T (2010) The accelerating biophysical contradictions of industrial capitalist agriculture. J Agrar Change 10(3):315–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation’s Dynamics of Coupled Natural and Human Systems program, award number 1313677 with additional support from NSF’s Kellogg Biological Station Long Term Ecological Research Site (NSF grant no. DEB 1027253) and Michigan State University AgBioResearch. We would like to thank Dr. Sandra Marquart-Pyatt and Matthew Houser for their assistance with the interview design, and data collection, and analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. W.K. Kellogg Biological Station, Michigan State University, Hickory Corners, East Lansing, MI, USA

    Adam P. Reimer

  2. Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

    Riva C. H. Denny

  3. Sustainable Communities Program and School of Earth Sciences and Environmental Sustainability, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA

    Diana Stuart

Authors
  1. Adam P. Reimer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Riva C. H. Denny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Diana Stuart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam P. Reimer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reimer, A.P., Denny, R.C.H. & Stuart, D. The Impact of Federal and State Conservation Programs on Farmer Nitrogen Management. Environmental Management 62, 694–708 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1083-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1083-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation