71st SWCS International Annual Conference July 24-27, 2016 Louisville, KY

1. Social science research on
farmers’ perspectives on nutrient
loss reduction
informing collaborative action to
improve water quality
J. Gordon Arbuckle Jr.
SWCS Annual Conference
July 27, 2016

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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 rate
Data from Iowa 5-year rotating HUC6/HUC8 watershed
survey funded by ISU and IDALS:
• ~1,800 farmers per year
Both surveys’ objectives: Track changes in
awareness, attitudes, actions; understand
barriers to change
Methods

8. 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 all
knowledgeable
Slightly
knowledgeable
Somewhat
knowledgeable Knowledgeable
Very
knowledgeable
IFRLP 2014 20% 27% 32% 18% 4%
NRS 2015 7% 23% 42% 22% 6%

9. Information about the Nutrient Reduction Strategy has been publicized
through many sources. Through what sources have you learned about it?
Source
Farm 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 60
Natural Resources Conservation Service or Soil and Water
Conservation District 41 61
Government agency (e.g., Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land
Stewardship) 39 47
Commodity or farm organization (e.g., Soybean Assn, Corn Growers,
Farm Bureau) 35 52
The popular press (general interest newspapers, magazines) 30 51
Local agricultural retailer (e.g., fertilizer, agricultural chemical
dealer) 14 28
Seed company salesperson 9 18
Independent/private crop adviser or agronomist 8 19

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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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/Strongly
Disagree
Uncertain Agree/Strongly
Agree
14%
30%
56%

14. Proportion rented
statewide: 53%
Source: 2012 Census of Agriculture
Percent farmland rented, 2012

15. Barriers to Specific Practices:
Risks, Cost, Knowledge, Relevance
Risk to crop yield
Cost
too 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 15.4
Nitrogen rate based on Corn N
rate calculator (MRTN) 4.9 9.2 72.7 8.8
Nitrogen stabilizer (e.g., N-
SERVE) 1.0 47.5 30.0 14.6
No 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

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

17. 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 consultant
Other farmers NRCS/SWCD Farmer org
Commodity assn
Where do Farmers Go First for Fertilizer Information?
Corn and soybean
producers only

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. Thank you!
Multiple Benefit Prairie Conservation Strips. Photo courtesy of A. McDonald