This document analyzes the effectiveness of farmer networks in Indiana at influencing nitrogen management practices. It summarizes research on two networks involving 250 and 30 farmers respectively. It finds that network farmers are generally younger, more educated and have larger farms than non-network farmers. While network farmers perform more conservation practices, they are primarily motivated by economic factors rather than water quality. The research also found limited evidence that network farmers influence practices of those outside the networks. To be more effective, it suggests networks should focus on reaching farmers needing the most change, through more inclusive and frequent interactions.

1. Power of Peers:
How Effective are Indiana
Farmer Networks?
Aaron Pape
1

2. 2
Nutrient Management

3. Local Problems
Mwcog.org
Cleanwisconsin.org
3

4. Gulf Dead Zone
Epa.gov
4

5. Nitrogen Management
Okstate.edu
Precisionag.com
Okstate.edu 5

6. Not Enough Farmers are Adopting Them!
Ironfiremen.com
Nrcs.usda.gov Mnn.com
6

7. Social Networks
• Harness relationships
• Limited ag literature says important
• Haven’t identified mechanism
• Gaining popularity in Forestry (WI, Scandinavia)
Minnesota.publicradio.org 7

8. Formal vs Informal Network
• Formal
• Defined group: workplace, church, club, team
• Informal
• Unorganized collection of people: friends, family, neighbors
• Boundaries not always clear
8

9. Farmer Networks
9

10. Farmer Network Background
• On-Farm Network: 250 farmers in 19 groups
• Maumee Adapt Network: 30 farmers in 1 group in IN
• Aerial imagery
• Corn Stalk Nitrate Test
• Replicated strip trials
• Winter group meeting
10

11. Methods
• Interviews
• Semi-structured interviews
• 15 from On-Farm, 5 from Adapt
• Survey
• Census of network farmers
• Compared with 2014 Indiana Nutrient Management Survey
11

12. Response Rates
62.80%
50.00%
61.20%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
OFN Adapt Overall
Response Rates
12

13. Hypotheses
o Network farmers are different than non-network farmers.
o Network farmers do more conservation practices than non-network
farmers.
o Network farmers are spreading their knowledge of nitrogen management
to non-network farmers through their informal networks.
13

14. Why Farmers Join a Network
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
I want to collect data to defend against regulation.
My concern for water quality.
Opportunity to learn new nitrogen management practices.
I want to increase my profitability.
I want to improve my nitrogen use efficiency.
% responded "A Lot"
14

15. Why Farmers Join a Network
• Understand their nitrogen use efficiency
• “I just wanted to see where we stood on our nitrogen usage. If we were close to
applying what we needed to apply and hopefully not over-applying.”
• Fear of regulation
• “At least we’re trying to do something, see what the results are before EPA comes after
you, at least we can go ‘Well here’s what Indiana is doing.’ Some of the states I know
they are hard on. Without having any real data to say differently and anybody out there
knows the EPA likes to swing their long arm as much as they can.”
15

16. Why Farmers Join a Network
• Interviews show they are not really concerned about water quality.
• “Yeah. I worry about that. I’m worried about economics more than I am about water
quality, but those two kind of go hand-in-hand. If you just put too much nitrogen on, it
affects the water quality. It will also affect the economics.”
• Reinforces focus on economics seen in survey.
16

17. Demographic Comparisons
Network Farmers Non-Network Farmers
Age 54 62
Education-Bachelor’s or higher 48.3% 31.3%
Farm Size 1,911 acres 1,583 acres
Farm Full-time 59.9% 52.2%
17

18. Water Quality Awareness
• Water pollutants
• Sediment/silt, nitrates, phosphorous, bacteria (E. Coli)
• Pollutant Sources
• Manure, crop fertilizer, sewage treatment plants, littering, etc.
18

19. Water Quality Attitudes
• Significant difference with two attitudes
• My actions have an impact on water quality.
• I would be willing to change my management to improve water quality.
19

20. Trust
20
***
***
***
*
***
**
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Crop consultants
Purdue Extension
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Soil & Water Conservatin District
Other landowners/ friends/farmers
Agricultural organizations
Farm Service Agency (FSA)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Trust of Select Information Sources
Non-Network Network

21. Hypothesis #1
• Network farmers are different than non-network farmers.
• Demographics
• Attitudes & Awareness
• Trust
21

22. Management Practices
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Using conservation crop rotation
Avoiding winter fertilizer application
Avoiding fall application of nitrogen fertilizer
Using vegetated riparian buffers
Using no-till, strip-till, or ridge till
Considering location and soil characteristics
4R Nutrient Stewardship
University fertilizer recommendations
Using cover crops
PercentageNon-network Network
22

23. Management Practices
89.03
62.34
65.77
63.2161.97
37.76
48.58
42.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Soil Testing Variable Rate Split Application Nutrient Management Plan
Percentage
Network Non-Network
23

24. Hypothesis #2
• Network farmers do more nutrient management and conservation practices
than non-network farmers.
24

25. Network Outcomes
Changes in Management by Years of Participation
25
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5
AverageResponse(1=StronglyAgree,
5=StronglyDisagree)
Years of Participation

26. Network Outcomes: Management Changes
• Some decreased N use
• “We decided to back off ten pounds of nitrogen this year.”
• Some increased N use
• “The lighter soil types, I’m maybe putting on a little more than I was. I know they’re
probably not wanting to go that way.”
26

27. Management Changes
• Many feel vindicated in their current practices.
• “This has just been a confidence builder in what we were doing already.”
• Some feel they don’t have enough information to base a decision on.
• “There’s no way I’m going to make a huge change on the farm with just two years’
worth of data that I know one’s a drought and one’s had an equipment issue. If we can
get 7 years of – 5 to 7 years of consistent data, I could start to consider that as fact to
start to make a change in the operation.”
27

28. Management Changes
• Role of weather
• Weather is a huge barrier to perceived behavioral control.
• “Something specifically that’s changed; maybe trying to do variable rate nitrogen. I’ve
abandoned that idea. Mother Nature varies our rate on her own. But we just got to
keep up with what the plant needs. If we get 5 inches of rain in one area and an inch
and a half in another, we’ve lost some of our nitrogen where we had 5 inches.”
• Helplessness at the hands of the weather perpetuated at meetings.
28

29. Diffusion within Networks
• Some farmers had learned from others in the group.
• “I suppose you could say it has from the standpoint that it has convinced us that
sidedressing is the best way to put on our nitrogen, because we’ve looked at the data that
other people give who don’t do sidedressing and like I said, it seems like sidedressing is the
favorable thing to do.”
• Others say hearing from other farmers is interesting, but doesn’t change anything.
• “It’s always interesting to hear what other people have different management practices
they’re using for their operations, but normally we use management practices because they
best suite our operation.”
29

30. Diffusion within Network
• When asked if they are influenced by their friends and neighbors, many
farmers talked about crop consultants and input dealers instead.
• “And with using a crop consultant you try to get those things all aligned. He’s doing the
same for all the neighbors he works with. You’re not maybe getting the data from the
neighbor, but you’re getting the data from the central clearing houses working with all
the neighbors.”
30

31. Diffusion Outside Network
• A few farmers said they spread their knowledge to other farmers.
• “Oh, I think a lot of them ask me about it, yes. You know, how much nitrogen they
should be putting on and things like that. Then I tell them what I’m doing and then
look at their situation, yeah. I think very much so, yes. We’re looked at as far as a
resource for information around here. That helps because being in the seed business,
not just being a farmer.”
• Others said they don’t.
• “I guess I really don’t. Probably the couple of neighbors that we talk to the most,
frankly, are in the network.”
31

32. Diffusion Outside Network
• Only one farmer could give a specific example of how he influenced another
farmer’s nitrogen management regime.
32

33. Hypothesis #3
• Network participation does seem to influence nitrogen management changes
the longer the farmer is in the network.
• Network farmers do not seem to be effectively spreading their knowledge
to farmers outside the networks.
33

34. Takeaways
• Network farmers are younger, better educated, more skeptical, and have bigger
operations.
• Environmental motivations are much lower than economic and regulatory
motivations.
• Network farmers do more conservation practices than non-network farmers.
• The survey shows a relationship between length of participation and making
management changes.
• Network farmers do not seem to be spreading practices outside the networks.
34

35. Improvements
• Actionable Data
• Strip trials
• Efficiency ratio (N/yield)
betaseed.com
Cropquest.com
35

36. Ideal Farmer Network
• More frequent interactions
• Farmer diversity
• Involve professionals
36

37. Parting Thoughts
• The networks are “preaching to the choir.”
• We need to reach the farmers that need to change most.
• Farmer networks should be more inclusive and interactions more frequent.
• The networks are making “good” farmers better, but not making
“bad” farmers good.
37

38. Acknowledgements
• Linda Prokopy
• Erin Pape
38