Core Conservation Practices

Core Conservation Practices: Paths and Barriers Perceived by Small and Limited Resource Farmers1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Joseph J. Molnar, Annette Bitto,2 and Gail Brant3

Small and limited resource farms comprise treatment of minority farmers have more than three-quarters of the operations in experience in receiving federal assistance. Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi, yet this Many minority and limited-resource farmers segment of the farm population has blame government policies and practices for disproportionately low levels of adoption of the severe decline in farm ownership by established measures for conserving soil and minorities, especially black farmers, in the protecting groundwater. Four sets of last several decades. conservation practices—Conservation Tillage (CT), Crop Nutrient Management Minority farm advocates blame farm (CNM), Integrated Weed and Pest program regulations that—intentionally or Management (IPM), and Conservation not—prevent minority and limited-resource Buffers (CB)—are the central focus of farmers from accessing the programs that efforts by conservation agencies to improve have helped larger non-minority producers water quality. The purpose of this report is survive the changes in agriculture in the last to describe the need and preferences for 50 years. And they identify institutional technical assistance to achieve national insensitivity to the differing needs of conservation objectives—specifically the minority and limited-resource customers and adoption and diffusion of core conservation pubic agency tendencies to neglect their practices—on small and limited resource responsibility to reach out and serve all that farms in the Deep South. Using statewide need assistance. Some farm advocates liken samples from Alabama, Georgia, and minority farmers to an "endangered Mississippi, we present detailed profiles of species". the use and understanding of these practices among small and limited resources farmers. The disparity in participation and treatment In particular, we compare the perceptions, of non-minority and minority farmers may practices, and program participation patterns be partially accounted for by the smaller of black and white small and limited average size of minority and female- resource farmers. operated farms, their lower average crop yields, and their greater likelihood not to The number of black-owned farms is plant program crops, as well as less declining at a more rapid rate than other sophisticated technology, insufficient farms. This trend has called into question the collateral, poor cash flow, and poor credit 1 Research supported by the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Social Science Team and the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University 2 Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849-5406 [email protected] 3 USDA-NRCS-Social Science Team

Core Conservation Practices – Executive Summary i ratings. However, representatives of sample selection procedures were nearly minority and female farm groups point out equally divided between black and white in that previous discrimination in USDA each state. Thirty seven percent of the programs has helped to produce these very Alabama and Mississippi black respondents conditions now used to explain disparate had a college education or higher. About a treatment. This report provides basic fourth of all operators did not work off the information profiling the conservation farm in the previous year. About 37 percent practices and technical assistance of the sample had spouses who worked 200 preferences of black and white small farm or more days off the farm, but differences operators, a body of information not were not significant by race or state. About available from any other source. half either had no farm spouse or had a spouse who did not work off the farm. . NRCS Action – Program managers must recognize that a climate of skepticism, Income Sources sometimes mistrust, in itself is a barrier to program participation among small Farm income category differed significantly and limited resource farmers. This by race. More white farmers in each state clientele faces basic questions of farm reported farm incomes in the top three survival and household poverty that categories. More black farmers in each state must be answered before conservation were in the lower income categories. Row problems can be addressed. crops such as cotton, soybeans, and other items were a source of income for METHOD approximately a third of the farmers. In each state, more white farmers reported growing The sampling design for the study was row crops and they were consistently more structured so as to yield approximately equal likely to report this enterprise as a source of numbers of black and white farmers in most of their farm income. Only 2 percent of Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi. Data the sample raised poultry, primarily white were obtained from a simple random sample farmers. Small and limited resource farmers of white farm operators included those are not participating in the poultry industry, operations with less than $40,000 gross one of the most technologically dynamic and annual sales. All black and other minority economically active components of farm operators on established mailing lists agriculture. were selected for the minority segment of the survey. Survey data were collected by Conservation Tillage (CT) mail using a self-administered instrument. A second request questionnaire was used to Conservation tillage practices were familiar increase the mail response. A total of 834 to 70 percent of the overall sample of farmers returned completed surveys. farmers in each state, although not at all familiar to a large proportion of black Main Findings of the Study farmers. A third of all the farmers viewed conservation tillage as not practical on their Characteristics of Respondents farms. The data suggest that many farmers have been reached by the efforts of NRCS, Most of the small-scale operators who extension, and other public agencies, but responded to the study were male and due to they also suggested that many have not been

Core Conservation Practices – Executive Summary ii contacted, convinced, and commissioned . NRCS Action – Information about CT with the CT solutions that fit their farm should be presented using a format situations. A lack of how-to information appropriate to the level of formal prohibited many black farmers from education of the intended audience. performing conservation techniques on their When working with some farmers, the operations. sixth grade reading competency level should be used when writing brochures, Black farmers were consistently less newsletters, and fact sheets. Other familiar with CT than white farmers. About farmers may prefer videos, photos, and a third of the respondents felt that CT would displays as opposed to written text. be practical on their farms. Only about 15 percent of the respondents had crop acreage  NRCS Action – Conservation district planted used CT practices. More whites programs that allow renting no-till drills consistently had more land under CT than could help to offset the expensive blacks. Less than 10 percent used any single purchase of CT equipment. Either CT technique. No-till and reduced-till were publicize existing equipment loan the overall most used tillage practices. The programs or work with Conservation main perceived problems with CT were Districts to help establish them. more weeds, higher herbicide costs, and high equipment costs, each cited by about 10 Crop Nutrient Management (CNM) percent of the sample. Over half of the farmers in this study were Education predicted each of the CT adoption familiar with crop nutrient management. variables. Respondents with more years of Around 11 percent were very familiar. schooling were more familiar with CT, they Alabama black farmers had the highest thought that CT was more practical on their proportion that was not familiar. Almost a farms, they gave more reasons for using CT fourth of the sample believed that CNM on their operations, and they had actually practices would be practical on their adopted more of the CT practices on their operation. land. Total gross value of sales predicted familiarity with CT and the perception that it More black farmers reported never using would be practical on the operator’s farm. It soil testing than whites by a large margin in was not significantly related to the number each state. More Georgia farmers reported of reasons given nor the actual number of testing every year. Less than 10 percent of practices adopted. the sample soil tested every year, and about 44 percent tested every three years or less . NRCS Action – Information for minority often. farmers about the benefits of CT must be customized to fit their typical farm Education predicted three of the four operations. Labor and time saving adoption precursor variables, but not the should be emphasized. Information actual frequency of soil testing. Respondents about government loan programs or with more years of schooling were more other means to reduce the initial cost of familiar with CNM. They viewed CNM as equipment should be developed and more practical on their farms and they gave distributed. more reasons for using CNM. Whether or not the respondent farmed row crops

Core Conservation Practices – Executive Summary iii predicted perceived practicality, the number Extension to increase the number of of reasons given for CNM use, and the small and limited resource farmers who frequency of soil testing. The variable was test their soil. One-on-one technical not linked to differences in familiarity with assistance, with specific outreach to CNM. Black farmers had lower frequencies black farmers, must be undertaken. of soil testing than white farmers. There Assistance on how to soil test, where to were no other differences by race on the take the test within the farmer’s other adoption variables. operation, and how to interpret and apply test results must be provided. The Black farmers were much more likely to say financial cost associated with soil testing that they had not used fertilizer in the past must be assessed. Where appropriate, five years. They were much less likely to be arrangements to defray the cost of a soil involved in row crop enterprises where test also must be considered. fertilizer is a central tool. Almost 41 percent of the sample uses side-dressing for the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) application of commercial fertilizer, followed closely by at planting time and Familiarity with Integrated Pest before crops are planted. White farmers Management (IPM) varied significantly by tended to use more of each approach to crop race and state. About half the sample was fertilization. not familiar with IPM. Less than 8 percent of the overall sample indicated that they Whites were significantly more likely to were very familiar with IPM as a means for adjust the amount of fertilizer they use in controlling weeds, insects, and other threats different fields. The basic knowledge for to crop yield. Black farmers were less such adjustments comes from soil testing. familiar with IPM than white farmers. More white than black farmers in each state Alabama black farmers were most applied litter or manure to their fields, a unfamiliar with IPM compared to other statistically significant pattern. Most categories of producers. About a third of the respondents indicated that their crop rotation farmers believed that IPM would be cycle varied from year to year. Whites were practical for their operation, but more whites more likely to include legumes in their in each state said that it was not very rotations in each state, but only 10 percent practical. About three-quarters of the black of black Alabama operators did so. operators had no opinion.

Although soil testing is a fundamental step Only a small number of respondents in economically sound and environmentally reported implementing any IPM practices. responsible farming, a third of the sample Georgia white farmers reported using more never engaged in soil testing. Given that 7 practices than any other category of of 8 small and limited resource farmers used producer. The main problems associated commercial fertilizer, and that about 1 in 5 with IPM pertained to the expense of the used broiler litter on the land, the chemical and the costs of crop scouting. information from a soil test is a basic part of Older farmers had adopted fewer practices, making nutrient management decisions. but age was not otherwise related to the IPM adoption variables. Farmers with more farm  NRCS Action –NRCS should consider sales were more familiar with IPM. Farmers working in cooperation with local who work more days off the farm adopted

Core Conservation Practices – Executive Summary iv more IPM practices, but the number of days the spouse worked off the farm was Approximately 38% of black farmers negatively related to the number of IPM responded that they were not at all familiar practices adopted. Those who raised row with buffers compared to approximately crops saw IPM as more practical, they 23% of white farmers. Similarly, over half indicated more reasons for using IPM, and the black farmers had no opinion about the had actually implemented more IPM practicality of the use of conservation practices on their farms. Farm sales as a buffers as compared to approximately one percent of total income was a consistent third of white farmers. Thus, CB remain predictor of the IPM adoption variables. widely unadopted among black operators. Farmers who were more dependent on farm income were more aware of IPM, were more  NRCS Action – In order to assess and convinced of its practicality, gave more increase familiarity and the practicality reasons for using it, and had actually of conservation buffers, outreach implemented more IPM practices on their activities could include the use of color farms. pictures, illustrations, and short descriptions of alternative conservation . NRCS Action – Effort to communicate buffer practices. These illustrations environmentally-friendly IPM practices should depict buffers that are suitable for to small and limited resource crop use in the local area, as well as the farmers should emphasize low-cost, no- situations where buffers are most cost interventions that reduce risk and appropriate. The use of these visuals have the potential to increase crop will help to ensure that farmers have a quality if not quantity, as well as farm shared understanding of the purpose and income. practicality of this intervention.

Conservation Buffers (CB)  NRCS Action – Work with small and limited resource farmers to use buffers Familiarity with Conservation Buffers (CB) that can be linked to identifiable ways to varied markedly between black and white enhance or diversify farm income. farmers. More whites than blacks reported Examples include: growing trees for using grass filter strips on their farms. More wood products, producing high quality white farmers used each of the various kinds hay for livestock, and/or producing of conservation buffers than black farmers. specialty crops such as highly valued seeds. Such assistance should feature Whites consistently viewed CB as more alternatives for land taken out of useful than black farmers. The main production that still yield economic perceived problem with CB was that they returns. take too much land out of production and are costly to build and maintain. There were no Conservation Program Participation consistent differences by race, but white farmers were more likely to cite problems. Of those with conservation plans, about 26 The option to indicate that they had tried percent indicated that the plan was fully buffers and they did not work was provided implemented, and another 27 percent in the questionnaire, but was not selected by indicated it was ¾ completed. Whites any respondent. consistently reported higher levels of

Core Conservation Practices – Executive Summary v conservation plan completion in each of the to have more NRCS contacts, and to be three states. A fourth of the black farmers more satisfied with NRCS. said their plans were less than 25 percent completed. Half the sample had no contact with NRCS in the past year, but differences by race and The Conservation Reserve Program was the state were not statistically significant. most often cited government program in Mississippi farmers reported the most which respondents participated. The rates of frequent contacts. Around 2/3 indicated participation in the different programs contacts through visits to county offices, a varied widely across states and race third by letter. Georgia had the highest rates categories, but were most nearly equal by of no contact. race in Georgia. Less than a fifth of the respondents cited a lack of understanding of Respondents were asked to indicate their program requirements for not participating satisfaction with the information or services in the various conservation programs that received from NRCS. Overall 80 percent were mentioned to them. Mississippi white were very or somewhat satisfied with this farmers were least likely to indicate this conservation agency. Whites were more problem at 11 percent, but 23 percent of the satisfied than blacks in Alabama and Mississippi black farmers felt this way. Mississippi; the proportions satisfied were Around 10 percent said they could not equal in Georgia. Seventeen percent of afford to sign up for CRP. Alabama black farmers were dissatisfied compared to 7 percent or less in all the other Education was a significant predictor of state or race categories. whether or not the operator had a conservation plan, what proportion of that Those with more education, more land, and plan was implemented, the frequency of higher levels of government payments were NRCS contacts, and satisfaction with NRCS more likely to have a conservation plan, to assistance. Operators with more farm sales have a greater proportion of it implemented, were more likely to have implemented a to have more previous contacts with NRCS, higher proportion of their conservation plan, and to express higher levels of satisfaction to have more NRCS contacts, and to be with the services they received from the more satisfied with those contacts. agency. Farmers with higher gross sales had Operating more acres was positively implemented more of their conservation associated with each of the plan and contact plans, had more contacts with NRCS, and variables. Larger operators were more likely were more satisfied with the agency. Men to have conservation plan, to have more of it and those with income from row crops were implemented, to have more NRCS contacts, more likely to have a conservation plan and and to be more satisfied with NRCS to have more of it implemented. Those more assistance. Row crop farmers were more dependent on farming for income were more likely to have a plan and to have more of it likely to have a conservation plan and to implemented. Similarly, fruit and vegetable indicate that they had more of it implement. farmers were likely to have a plan, because They also had more contacts with NRCS, it is often a required condition for receiving but were not more satisfied with the government payments. Those who received agency’s services. such payments were more likely to have a farm plan, to have more of it implemented,

Core Conservation Practices – Executive Summary vi  NRCS Action – This study shows that for that group, but there were no significant developing a conservation plan is the differences by state or race. NRCS was linchpin for installing conservation fourth ranked as an information source in systems. In order for NRCS field staffs the overall sample. Black farmers, to work with people who have not particularly in Alabama and Mississippi, participated in conservation programs tended to give higher ratings to NRCS as a previously, it is essential to allocate time conservation information source but these and effort toward developing differences were not statistically significant. conservation plans. This type of commitment needs to be made by  NRCS Action – NRCS should work NRCS managers and field office staff in cooperatively with local Extension, order to successfully work with the agricultural chemical dealers, and other various groups identified in this study. technical farm specialists when NRCS managers should apply both formulating CORE 4 recommendations incentives and disincentives to field for implementation by small and limited staffs to increase the number of resource farmers. Realistic interventions conservation plans developed with these couched in the language and realities of low income and minority groups. target farming systems will be more readily understood and adopted by small  NRCS Action – NRCS can provide and limited resource farmers. assistance to small and limited resource farmers concerning the relevance and  NRCS Action – When communicating applicability of CRP continuous sign-up with Black small and limited resource for their operation. A sound economic farmers about conservation relative to analysis must be undertaken for row the adoption of conservation crop operators in order to compare up- practices/programs, NRCS technical front incentive and rental payments to specialists should partner with county gross farm sales. Extension personnel or others with close working relationship with minority Information Sources farmers. Once the initial contact has been established, quarterly follow-up is Limited resource farmers consistently suggested. ranked the cooperative extension agent as the most important information source across states and race categories, except Information Delivery Mode white Alabama farmers. This segment ranked extension as the third most important About 64 percent of the sample indicated source. In each state, black farmers gave that printed materials such as bulletins, higher importance ratings to extension than newsletters, and other publications were white farmers. Farm magazines or their preferred means of receiving newsletters were the next most important information. There were no statistically source. The third most important significant differences by race or state. Farm information source was “another farmer or Service Agency offices were the next most family member.” This source was frequently cited, by 41 percent of the particularly important for white farmers in sample. There were no significant Alabama—rating even higher than extension differences by race or state. Black farmers

Core Conservation Practices – Executive Summary vii preferred group meetings or seminars more than whites did, a statistically significant Creeks or streams were the most frequently difference. Similarly, blacks preferred reported on-farm water resources. Nearly workshops more than whites did. half the farmers had a creek or stream on their property, but about 30 percent had no Black farmers did prefer university water body or watercourse on their land at specialists as information sources more than all white farmers. They also preferred electronic media for home use such as . NRCS Action – Efforts to expand the videotapes more than white farmers. Both acreage treated with Core 4 practice differences were statistically significant. among small and limited resource Whites preferred news media more than farmers must recognize the diverse set of blacks, a statistically significant difference. tenure and landholding arrangements that characterize this segment of the  NRCS Action – NRCS should develop farm population. In particular, the ways videotapes that present information that these arrangements discourage, and about the practice/ program and services sometimes provide perverse of the Agency. This videotape should disincentives, to adopting Core 4 use state personnel and examples to practices must be anticipated and present and illustrate information in the understood. context of local customs, values, and vocabulary. CONCLUSION

 NRCS Action – NRCS staff should Reaching the unaware and the uncommitted contact local leaders and assist them run with the basic precepts of land management local meetings that present information will require an extended effort of outreach on the types of technical and financial and technical support. Black and white assistance available for conservation limited resource farmers who participated in activities. Other agencies (i.e., FSA and the study differed in a number of basic Extension) and private groups should ways. More black farmers had less than a also be involved. high school education and more white farmers tended to grow row crops and engage in other more intensive farm Land and Water Resources enterprises. The findings call for more focused outreach efforts to black farmers. More white farmers reported owning larger acreages in each state. Nine percent owned  NRCS Action – NRCS must accelerate no land. Slightly more blacks than whites in its outreach efforts to small and limited each state owned no land. A third of the resource farmers. Outreach activities sample rented land from other farmers, but must include developing an information the pattern of differences was not and education program about the statistically significant. More Mississippi practicality and benefits of the “Core 4” and Alabama black farmers rented land from practices. Sound economic analysis of others, but more Alabama farmers of both the costs and benefits of the “best mix” races rented land from others than farmers in of core practices must be undertaken. other states. Given the finding that half the study sample (no significant difference by

Core Conservation Practices – Executive Summary viii race) had no contact with NRCS in the Age, personality, financial capability, and past year, designated time periods for technical capacity all shape an individual follow-up must be specified. farm operator’s ability to consider and use the interventions recommended by NRCS  NRCS Action – Future outreach and other public agencies. strategies to Black small and limited resource farmers must have specific  NRCS Action – Particularly in the case objectives to increase Black farmers’ of black farmers, there may be local familiarity and understanding of how to organizations that have close use the Core 4 practices. These relationships with operators that can objectives can best be accomplished by more effectively communicate Core 4 the cooperative efforts of NRCS and practices and the possibilities for local Extension specialists. technical assistance available from NRCS. Many of our survey respondents of both races had college educations and advanced  NRCS Action – Differences in personal degrees, pointing to the rapidly growing income may require NRCS to use segment of part-time, hobby, and lifestyle alternative low cost technologies in farm residents that may have felt and unfelt planning and implementing Core 4 needs for guidance on land treatment practices such as conservation buffers. strategies. Movable water sources and low cost fencing could be used on small acreages The challenge to public agencies is to that support small herds of cattle. provide timely and appropriate responses to District programs that would allow for the felt needs for technical assistance. In renting no-till drills could be used for addition, the agencies must find a way to conservation tillage activities. stimulate a demand for conservation assistance by increasing awareness of the The data revealed a large segment of practical tools that are available for operators who had no contact with NRCS or protecting soil resources and water quality. other public agencies. It was not that core conservation practices have been tried and We identified perceived barriers and found wanting on these farms; rather, they disadvantages to the implementation of core have been found wanting to be tried. conservation practices. Each set of core conservation practices has obstacles to  NRCS Action – Under certain implementation by the full gamut of small conditions, NRCS must rely on the and limited resource farms. goodwill and respect that farmers have for other farm agencies, particularly the Some obstacles reflect defects and limits in Cooperative Extension Service, that are the outreach mechanisms of the public already well-regarded and familiar to agencies. Some reflect limits in the farmers. applicability and fit of the recommended practices on each individual small and  NRCS Action – Although no public limited resource farm. A third set of limits to agency is without its limits, NRCS’ implementation bear on the interests and conservation partners often have access capabilities of the individual farm operator. to and relationships with small and

Core Conservation Practices – Executive Summary ix limited resource farmers that would be difficult or inefficient to duplicate.

 NRCS Action – NRCS must continue to nurture and strengthen the Conservation Partnership with the private sector. This can be most effectively done using local Resource, Conservation and Development Councils (RC&D). These councils have the advantage of being locally based with representation from local businesses and organizations, including non-profit groups.

 NRCS Action – NRCS has ongoing efforts to develop working relationships with community-based organizations and educational institutions that could help communicate programs to small and limited resource farmers.

Other public agencies and nongovernmental organizations might help overcome cultural and language differences that sometimes interfere with minority participation in farm programs. These partners can help address the special needs of small-scale and limited- resource enterprises in implementing the technological improvements, alternative enterprises, and conservation measures that protect the land and enhance water quality.

 NRCS Action – NRCS can direct small farmers to other USDA agencies such as Rural Development to assist with low cost loans.

 NRCS Action – NRCS can partner with other USDA agencies and non-profit organizations to provide low interest loans and/or grants to small and limited resource farmers.

Core Conservation Practices – Executive Summary x