Corn Belt farmers’ concerns about water-related threats to farm viability

PREPARED BY MAAZ GARDEZI AND J. GORDON ARBUCKLE JR.

Climate change presents a number of threats to the Corn Belt’s predominant corn-soybean The Project agricultural system. A key objective of the Sustainable The Sustainable Corn Project is a USDA-funded transdisciplinary partnership among 11 institutions Corn project is to conduct social science research creating new science and educational opportunities. to assess farmers’ understanding of climate change The project seeks to increase resilience and adaptability and attitudes toward adaptation and mitigation of midwestern agriculture by identifying farmer practices and strategies. Toward that end, a survey practices and policies that increase sustainability while meeting crop demand. of Corn Belt farmers was conducted in February and sustainablecorn.org March 2012. This report summarizes a portion of that survey. More comprehensive results are available The Survey at: sustainablecorn.org/What_Farmers_are_Saying/ The farmer survey was carried out in partnership Farmer_Survey. with the Useful to Useable (U2U) project, another USDA-funded climate and agriculture project. The In general, human behavioral responses to potential 2012 survey was completed by 4,778 corn farmers hazards and threats are influenced by perceived risks. with at least US$100,000 of gross sales and a In other words, if people do not view a given situation minimum of 80 acres of corn production. or event as risky, they are not likely to act in response. Where Climate scientists predict that Corn Belt weather The sample was stratified by 22 six-digit Hydrologic will become increasingly variable and extreme, with Code Unit (HUC) watersheds that cover a substantial negative implications for agriculture. Our survey portion of 11 Corn Belt states—, , , sought to measure farmers’ level of concern about , , , , , , , and . The 22 watersheds those predicted impacts. contain over half of U.S. corn and soybean acres. The survey provided a list of predicted changes in the Corn Belt climate that are viewed as threats to agriculture. The items covered potential threats the past few years. How concerned are you about to farm operations from increased precipitation, the following potential problems for your farm drought and heat, and pest and disease. The items operation?” Farmers’ concerns were measured on were preceded by the text, “The following are problems a four-point concern scale from “not concerned” that some Corn Belt farmers have experienced over (1) to “very concerned” (4).

For more information, contact: J. Gordon Arbuckle Jr., Iowa State University, [email protected], 515-294-1497 or Linda Prokopy, Purdue University, [email protected], 765-494-8191. Source: Loy, Adam, Jon Hobbs, J. Gordon Arbuckle Jr., Lois Wright Morton, Linda Stalker Prokopy, Tonya Haigh, Tricia Knoot, Cody Knutson, Amber Saylor Mase, Jean McGuire, John Tyndall, and Melissa Widhalm. 2013. Farmer Perspectives on Agriculture and Weather Variability in the Corn Belt: A Statistical Atlas. CSCAP 0153-2013. Ames, IA: Cropping Systems Coordinated Agricultural Project (CAP): Climate Change, Mitigation, and Adaptation in Corn-based Cropping Systems. Available at sustainablecorn.org. 1 % Minnesota 43 Black Root Big SiouxSurvey Results 34 This report presents data for five items that Des Maquoketa Southeastern 25 Moines Plum Lake % Missoumeasuredri I owfarmers’a concernsRock aboutMichigan water- Minnesota 43 Elkhorn Little 16 Black Root Sioux Loup Big related threats: (1) increased flooding; (2) Sioux 34 Upper Western 7 Lower Illinois Lake Erie Platte more frequentSkunk extreme rains; (3) increases Middle Platte Missouri Wapsipinicon Des Maquoketa Southeastern 25 Big Nishnabotna Lower Moines Plum Lake Blue in saturated soils and ponded water; (4) Iowa Illinois Wabash Missouri Rock Michigan Elkhorn Little 16 Sioux increased loss of nutrients intoPatoka waterways Loup White Upper Western 7 and, (5) increased soilKaskaskia erosion. For the Lower Illinois Lake Erie Platte Skunk Middle Platte Missouri Wapsipinicon purposes of this report, the concerned and Big Nishnabotna Lower Blue very concerned categories are combined. Illinois Wabash (n = 4,778) Patoka White On average across all watersheds, 26% of Kaskaskia farmers were concerned or very concerned about increased flooding (table 1). Concern was highest in Patoka-White watershed, FIGURE 1 | Increased flooding, percent concerned or very concerned.(n = 4,778) where more than four in ten (43%) farmers selected the concerned or very concerned % category.Minnesota Level of concern was lowest for 72 Black Root Big Siouxrespondents in Big Blue watershed, where 62 only 7% indicated that they were concerned Des Maquoketa 51 Moines Plum Southeastern % Missouor veryri concernedIowa aboutRock increasedLa kfloodinge Minnesota 72 Elkhorn Little Michigan 41 Black Root Sioux Loup (figure 1). Big Sioux 62 Upper Western 31 Lower Illinois Lake Erie Platte Skunk Middle Platte Wapsipinicon MissouIn addition,ri across all watersheds half (50%) Des Maquoketa 51 Big Nishnabotna Lower Plum Southeastern Blue Moines Iowa Illinois Wabash Missouri Rock Lake of respondents were concerned or very Elkhorn Little Michigan 41 Sioux concerned about more frequentPatoka extreme Loup White Upper Western 31 Lower Illinois Lake Erie rains as a threat toKaskaskia their farm operations Platte Skunk Middle Platte Missouri Wapsipinicon Big Nishnabotna Lower (table 1). Respondents in Western Lake Blue Illinois Wabash (n = 4,778) Erie watershed had the highest level of Patoka concern on this variable (72% concerned White Kaskaskia or very concerned), and respondents in Big Blue watershed (31% concerned or very concerned) expressed the lowest level of FIGURE 2 | More frequent extreme rains, percent concerned(n = or4,778) concern (figure 2). very concerned.

2 More than 42% of respondents across % Minnesota 64 Black Root Big all watersheds were concerned or very Siouxconcerned about increases in saturated 52 Des Maquoketa 39 soils and ponded water (table 1). Sixty-four % Moines Iowa Plum Southeastern Minnesota Missouri Rock Lake 64 Little Michigan 26 Black Root Elkhorn Siouxpercent of respondents in Western Lake Erie Loup Big Upper Western 14 Sioux 52 Lowerwatershed selected the concernedIllinois orLa veryke Erie Platte Skunk Middle Platte Wapsipinicon Missouconcernedri categories, compared to 14% in Des Maquoketa 39 Big Nishnabotna Lower Moines Plum Southeastern Blue Illinois Wabash Missouri Iowa Rock Lake Big Blue watershed (figure 3). Little Michigan 26 Elkhorn Sioux Patoka Loup White Upper Western 14 Kaskaskia Lower Illinois Lake Erie Among respondents across all watersheds, Platte Skunk Middle Platte Missouri Wapsipinicon about one third (33%) were concerned Big Nishnabotna Lower Blue Illinois or very concerned about increased loss Wabash (n = 4,778) Patoka of nutrients into waterways (table 1). White Respondents in Western Lake Erie Kaskaskia watershed expressed the highest level of concern (54% concerned or very concerned). FIGURE 3 | Increases in saturated soils and ponded water,(n percent = 4,778) Respondents in Southeastern Lake Michigan concerned or very concerned. watershed expressed the lowest levels of concern (22% concerned or very concerned) % aboutMinnesota potential increases in nutrient losses Black Root 54 Big Sioux (figure 4). 46

Des 38 Moines Maquoketa Southeastern % MissouOnri averageIow aacrossPlum all watersheds,Lak e38% Minnesota Rock Michigan 54 Elkhorn Little Black Root Sioux 30 Loup of farmers were concerned or very Big Sioux Upper Western 46 Lower Illinois Lake Erie 22 Platteconcerned aboutSkunk increased soil erosion Middle Platte Wapsipinicon Missouri Des 38 Big Nishnabotna(table 1). Concern wasLower highest in Kaskaskia Moines Maquoketa Southeastern Blue Illinois Missouri Iowa Plum Lake Wabash Rock Michigan Elkhorn Little watershed, where more than half (54%) Sioux 30 Patoka Loup of respondents expressed concernWhite about Upper Western Lower Illinois Lake Erie 22 Kaskaskia Platte Skunk increased soil erosion, and lowest in Middle Middle Platte Missouri Wapsipinicon Big Nishnabotna Lower Blue Illinois Platte watershed (20%) (figure 5). Wabash (n = 4,778) Patoka White Kaskaskia

FIGURE 4 | Increased loss of nutrients into waterways, percent(n = 4,778) concerned or very concerned.

% Minnesota 54 Black Root Big Sioux 46

Des Maquoketa 37 Moines Plum Southeastern % Missouri Iowa Lake Minnesota Little Rock Michigan 54 Elkhorn Sioux 29 Black Root Loup Big Sioux Upper Western 46 Lower Illinois Lake Erie 20 Platte Skunk Middle Platte Wapsipinicon Missouri Des Maquoketa 37 Big Nishnabotna Lower Moines Plum Southeastern Blue Illinois Missouri Iowa Lake Wabash Little Rock Michigan Elkhorn Sioux 29 Patoka Loup White Upper Western Lower Illinois Lake Erie 20 Kaskaskia Platte Skunk Wapsipinicon Middle Platte Missouri Big Nishnabotna Lower Blue Illinois Wabash 3 (n = 4,778) Patoka White Kaskaskia

FIGURE 5 | Increased soil erosion, percent concerned or (n = 4,778) very concerned.

3 TABLE 1 | Concern1 about stress on water resources from climate-related threats, percent of farmers concerned or very concerned, by watershed.

Watershed (HUC6) Increased flooding More frequent Increases in Increased loss Increased soil extreme rains saturated soils and of nutrients into erosion ponded water waterways All Watersheds 26 50 42 33 38 Loup 14 34 19 24 31 Middle Platte 24 39 32 23 20 Elkhorn 18 37 28 25 30 Big Blue 7 31 14 24 35 Lower Platte 20 42 25 31 37 Big Sioux 24 37 38 32 34 Missouri-Little Sioux 22 39 29 28 30 Missouri-Nishnabotna 25 53 41 31 49 Minnesota 22 46 42 30 25 Des Moines 27 51 48 35 35 Iowa 20 49 41 25 39 Black Root 13 37 24 26 34 Skunk Wapsipinicon 28 51 42 39 48 Maquoketa Plum 19 59 29 34 44 Lower Illinois 32 55 50 37 38 Rock 28 50 45 32 34 Kaskaskia 35 62 57 39 54 Upper Illinois 34 50 49 34 30 Wabash 35 58 56 42 43 Patoka-White 43 67 57 39 50 Southeastern Lake Michigan 17 44 40 22 30 Western Lake Erie 42 72 64 54 50 1Concerns were measured on a 4-point concern scale: not concerned, somewhat concerned, concerned, very concerned.

Please cite this publication as: Gardezi, Maaz and J. Gordon Arbuckle Jr. 2015. Corn Belt farmers’ concerns about water-related threats to farm viability. CSCAP-0180-2015. Ames, IA: Cropping Systems Coordinated Agricultural Project (CAP): Climate Change, Mitigation, and Adaptation in Corn-based Cropping Systems. This publication is based on a survey of Midwestern corn producers implemented through a collaboration of two USDA-NIFA supported projects, Cropping Systems Coordinated Agricultural Project (CAP): Climate Change, Mitigation, and Adaptation in Corn-based Cropping Systems (Award No. 2011-68002-30190) and Useful to Usable (U2U): Transforming Climate Variability and Change Information for Cereal Crop Producers (Award No. 2011-68002-30220). Additional funding was provided by the Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station, Purdue University College of Agriculture, and the Iowa Natural Resources Conservation Service. The Sustainable Corn project (officially referred to as the Climate and Corn-based Cropping Systems Coordinated Agricultural Project) is a transdisciplinary partnership among 11 institutions: Iowa State University; Lincoln University; Michigan State University; The Ohio State University; Purdue University; South Dakota State University; University of Illinois; University of Minnesota; University of Missouri; University of Wisconsin; USDA Agricultural Research Service – Columbus, Ohio; and USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA-NIFA). ​Project website: sustainablecorn.org.

Blue C-100 M-68 Y-0 K-12 Green C-100 M-0 Y-86 K-3 Yellow C-0 M-10 Y-100 K-0 Font: Museo Sans 300 and 500

University of Wisconsin–Extension

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 800-795-3272 (voice) or 202-720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 4