Advertisement

Growing Switchgrass in the Corn Belt: Barriers and Drivers from an Iowa Survey

  • Sarah Varble
  • Silvia Secchi
Chapter

Abstract

While agriculture has dramatically increased the production of crops for energy generation, there has been limited growing of dedicated perennial crops for liquid fuel or electricity production. Adoption of dedicated perennials can be the first step in the transformation from unsustainable, energy intensive agricultural production to a system that is resilient to climate change, environmentally sustainable and financially stable for farmers. We focus on the perennial switchgrass because it is a native species and there is evidence of its favorable agronomic and environmental profile under a wide range of growing conditions. However, since switchgrass is a novel, perennial crop, there are challenges for farmers who want to grow it. This paper examines which factors are significant predictors in the interest of farmers in producing switchgrass through the analysis of the results of a survey completed by farmers in the Clear Creek watershed in rural Iowa. Knowledge of switchgrass and production on highly erodible land are both highly correlated with interest in growing switchgrass. In addition, long-term contracts with bio-refineries would help farmers decrease adoption risk. Our results can help establish policies that could influence farmers to shift production from annual crops to perennial native biomass energy crops. Switchgrass production has the potential to move agriculture from a contributor to climate change into a sector that mitigates climate change via reduction in energy-intensive inputs, such as fertilizers, production of renewable fuels, and sequestration of carbon in the soils.

Keywords

Switchgrass adoption Sustainability Mitigation Adaptation Risk aversion Innovation Corn Belt 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded in part by the National Science Foundation Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation Award 0835607 and Coupled Natural Human Systems Award 1114978. The views expressed are solely the authors’ own. We thank the editors and two reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions.

References

  1. Babcock BA, Gassman PW, Jha M, Kling CL (2007) Adoption subsidies and environmental impacts of alternative energy crops. Iowa State University, Center for Agricultural and Rural DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  2. Babcock BA, Shogren JF (1995) The cost of agricultural production risk. Agric Econ 12(2):141–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumgart-Getz A, Prokopy LS, Floress K (2012) Why farmers adopt best management practice in the United States: a meta-analysis of the adoption literature. J Environ Manag 96(1):17–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.10.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergtold JS, Fewell J, Williams J (2014) Farmers’ willingness to produce alternative cellulosic biofuel feedstocks under contract in Kansas using stated choice experiments (journal article). Bioenergy Res 7(3):876–884.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-014-9425-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carpenter S, Walker B, Anderies JM, Abel N (2001) From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what? (journal article). Ecosystems 4(8):765–781.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0045-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cope MA, McLafferty S, Rhoads BL (2011) Farmer attitudes toward production of perennial energy grasses in east Central Illinois: implications for community-based decision making. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 101(4):852–862.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2011.575320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cowan T, Johnson R,Stubbs M (2009) Conservation Provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill (Updated January 13, 2009). Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, Order Code RL34557Google Scholar
  8. Druschke CG (2013) Watershed as common-place: communicating for conservation at the watershed scale. Environmental Communication 7(1):80–96.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2012.749295 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Druschke CG, Secchi S (2014) The impact of gender on agricultural conservation knowledge and attitudes in an Iowa watershed. J Soil Water Conserv 69(2):95–106.  https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.69.2.95 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elkington J (1998) Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone Publishing Limited, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Gedikoglu H (2012) 'Impact of off-farm employment on farmers’ willingness to grow switchgrass and Miscanthus' 2012 Annual Meeting, February 4–7, 2012. Southern Agricultural Economics Association, BirminghamGoogle Scholar
  12. Groom MJ, Gray EM, Townsend PA (2008) Biofuels and biodiversity: principles for creating better policies for biofuel production. Conserv Biol 22(3):602–609.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00879.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Iowa Cooperative Soil Survey (2003) Iowa Soil Properties and Interpretation DatabaseGoogle Scholar
  14. IPCC (2012) Summary for policymakers. In: Field CB, Barros V, Stocker TF, Qin D, Dokken DJ, Ebi KL (eds) Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge/New York, pp 3–21Google Scholar
  15. IPCC (2013) In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J (eds) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, United Kingdom, New York, p 1535Google Scholar
  16. IPCC (2014) In: Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, Bilir TE, Chatterjee M, Ebi KL, Estrada YO, Genova RC, Girma B, Kissel ES, Levy AN, MacCracken S, Mastrandrea PR, White LL (eds) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part a: global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press Cambridge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Jensen K, Clark CD, Ellis P, English B, Menard J, Walsh M et al (2007) Farmer willingness to grow switchgrass for energy production. Biomass Bioenergy 31(11):773–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson JMF, Karlen DL, Andrews SS (2010) Conservation considerations for sustainable bioenergy feedstock production: if, what, where, and how much? J Soil Water Conserv 65(4):88A–91A.  https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.65.4.88A CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Just RE (1975) Risk aversion under profit maximization. Am J Agric Econ 57(2):347–352. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1238513 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kerr L (2014) Compelling a nutrient pollution solution: how nutrient pollution litigation is redefining cooperative federalism under the clean water act. Environmental Law Lewis & Clark Northwestern School of Law 44(4):1219–1255Google Scholar
  21. Lee, Isenhart, T., Schultz, R., & Mickelson, S. (1998). Nutrient and sediment removal by switchgrass and cool-season grass filter strips in Central Iowa, USA. Agrofor Syst, 44(2–3), 121–132Google Scholar
  22. Liebig MA, Schmer MR, Vogel KP, Mitchell RB (2008) Soil carbon storage by switchgrass grown for bioenergy. Bioenergy Res 1(3–4):215–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ma Z, Wood CW, Bransby DI (2000) Soil management impacts on soil carbon sequestration by switchgrass. Biomass Bioenergy 18(6):469–477.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(00)00013-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McKinley DC, Ryan MG, Birdsey RA, Giardina CP, Harmon ME, Heath LS et al (2011) A synthesis of current knowledge on forests and carbon storage in the United States. Ecol Appl 21(6):1902–1924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McLaughlin SB, Walsh ME (1998) Evaluating environmental consequences of producing herbaceous crops for bioenergy. Biomass Bioenergy 14(4):317–324.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(97)10066-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nicholas KA, Durham WH (2012) Farm-scale adaptation and vulnerability to environmental stresses: insights from winegrowing in northern California. Glob Environ Chang 22(2):483–494.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ostrom E (1994) Constituting social capital and collective action. Journal of Theoretical Politics 6(4):527–562.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0951692894006004006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ostrom E, Burger J, Field CB, Norgaard RB, Policansky D (1999) Revisiting the commons: local lessons, global challenges. Science 284(5412):278–282.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5412.278 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Park SE, Marshall NA, Jakku E, Dowd AM, Howden SM, Mendham E et al (2012) Informing adaptation responses to climate change through theories of transformation. Glob Environ Chang 22(1):115–126.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rabotyagov SS, Campbell TD, White M, Arnold JG, Atwood J, Norfleet ML et al (2014) Cost-effective targeting of conservation investments to reduce the northern Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111(52):18530–18535.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1405837111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Sabatier F, Lubell M, Trachtenberg Z, Vedlitz A, Matlock M (2005) Swimming upstream: collaborative approaches to watershed management. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  33. Sagor ES, Becker DR (2014) Personal networks and private forestry in Minnesota. J Environ Manag 132(0):145–154.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Scavia D, Bertani I, Obenour DR, Turner RE, Forrest DR, Katin A (2017) Ensemble modeling informs hypoxia management in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114(33):8823–8828.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1705293114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scavia D, Rabalais NN, Turner RE, Justic D, Wiseman WJ (2003) Predicting the response of Gulf of Mexico hypoxia to variations in Mississippi River nitrogen load. Limnol Oceanogr 48(3):951–956. <Go to ISI>://000182982300001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schmer MR, Vogel KP, Mitchell RB, Perrin RK (2008) Net energy of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass (article). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105(2):464–469. <Go to ISI>://000252551100015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schnitkey G (2013) Concentration of Corn and Soybean Production in the U.S. Urbana-Champaign: Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Available at: http://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2013/07/concentration-corn-soybean-production.html
  38. Secchi S, Tyndall J, Schulte LA, Asbjornsen H (2008) High crop prices and conservation. J Soil Water Conserv 63(3):68A–73A.  https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.63.3.68A CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shields D (2013) 'Federal Crop Insurance: Background' C. R Service December 12:2013Google Scholar
  40. Skevas T, Swinton SM, Hayden NJ (2014) What type of landowner would supply marginal land for energy crops? Biomass and Bioenergy 67(supplement C):252–259.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.05.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z, Gwary D, Janzen H, Kumar P et al (2007) Policy and technological constraints to implementation of greenhouse gas mitigation options in agriculture. Agric Ecosyst Environ 118(1–4):6–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.06.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith P, Olesen JE (2010) Synergies between the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change in agriculture. J Agric Sci 148(05):543–552.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859610000341 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Strengers BJ, Van Minnen JG, Eickhout B (2008) The role of carbon plantations in mitigating climate change: potentials and costs. Clim Chang 88(3–4):343–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tilman C,K, Matson P, Naylor R, Polasky S (2002) Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418:671–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tucker M, Napier TL (2002) Preferred sources and channels of soil and water conservation information among farmers in three midwestern US watersheds. Agric Ecosyst Environ 92(2–3):297–313.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00293-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Turner RE, Rabalais NN (2003) Linking landscape and water quality in the Mississippi River basin for 200 years. Bioscience 53(6):563–572.  https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0563:llawqi]2.0.co;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. U.S. Department of Agriculture (2012) Highly erodible land conservation and wetland conservation compliance fact sheet. N. a. FSA, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  48. USDA NASS Research and Development Division (2017) Cropland Data Layer. Available at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/SARS1a.htm
  49. USDA Office of the Chief Economist, W. A. O. B (2017) Prepared by the interagency agricultural projections committee, 'USDA agricultural projections to 2026. Long-term projections report OCE-2017-1′, Washington D.C. Available at: http://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/projections/USDAAgriculturalProjections2022.pdf
  50. Varble S, Secchi S, Druschke CG (2015) An examination of growing trends in land tenure and conservation practice adoption: results from a farmer survey in Iowa. Environ Manag:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0619-5
  51. Villamil MB, Alexander M, Silvis AH, Gray ME (2012) Producer perceptions and information needs regarding their adoption of bioenergy crops. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16(6):3604–3612.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wejnert B (2002) Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: a conceptual framework. Sociology 28(1):297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wen Z, Ignosh J, Parrish D, Stowe J, Jones B (2009) Identifying farmers’ interest in growing switchgrass for bioenergy in southern Virginia. J Ext 47(5)Google Scholar
  54. Wilhelm WW, Johnson JMF, Hatfield JL, Voorhees WB, Linden DR (2004) Crop and soil productivity response to corn residue removal. Agron J 96(1):1–17.  https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2004.1000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Southern Illinois University-CarbondaleCarbondaleUSA
  2. 2.University of IowaIowaUSA

Personalised recommendations