Farmers' attitudes to policies to reduce phosphorous runoff
Laura McCann, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia, Nedlands 6907
The Minnesota River in the northern Corn Belt region of the United States has a variety of water quality problems including bacterial contamination, sedimentation, and nutrient enrichment. Many of these pollutants come from non-point sources such as private septic systems and runoff from fields and feedlots. The predominant farming system in the basin is a corn soybean rotation and half of the farms also feed pigs or beef cattle. Average farm size is about 150 hectares. The soil is very fine textured so phosphorus attaches to soil particles and does not move down the soil profile.
As part of a larger study examining the transaction costs of policies to reduce agricultural non-point source phosphorus pollution of the Minnesota River, a mail survey of farmers’ attitudes and practices was conducted. The survey was sent to a randomly selected group of farmers in the Minnesota River Basin. The effective response rate was 50% with 358 usable surveys returned after 3 mailings.
Four policies were examined in depth in the overall study and the farmer survey focused on them. The four policies were: an expanded education program about best management practices to reduce phosphorus runoff, a requirement for conservation tillage on all cropped land, an expanded program of purchasing conservation easements called Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM), and a tax on phosphorus fertilizers.
One of the hypotheses was that increased cost to the farmer of a program would increase resistance to the policy, which would in turn increase the transaction costs of the policy. A regression of policy acceptability rating on perceived cost rating as well as other factors confirmed that there was a negative relation between these two factors. This is the only factor that was statistically significant across policies. It is possible that farmers who were particularly opposed to a policy would report the cost as being especially high so further research that measures actual costs of the policies is needed. Other factors were significant for individual policies. The acceptability of a conservation tillage requirement was positively correlated with that practice already being in place on the farm. Farmers with a university degree were more likely to support educational policies than those with less formal education. Other than perceived cost, no factor examined was significantly related to the acceptability of the RIM program. Older farmers were significantly more opposed to a phosphorus tax, although the effect was small.
Farmers were asked how much time they spent learning about conservation tillage before they started the practice or decided against it, as well after starting conservation tillage. This was a measure of the information costs associated with a requirement for conservation tillage. The average time spent of about 30 hours total per farmer was dwarfed by the decreased time spent on tillage operations of 75 hours per year. Conservation tillage is increasing in the Minnesota River Basin seemingly due to the decreased labor requirements and improvements in tillage equipment.
Many farmers were not able to answer a question regarding the phosphorus content in their soils even though they indicated that they practiced soil testing. One farmer suggested that soil test results should always be sent to the farmer instead of the fertilizer supplier so farmers could make better decisions. This seems reasonable since studies by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture indicated that farmers who received fertilizer recommendations from suppliers rather than independent consultants were more likely to over-fertilize. Sharpley, a soil scientist, has suggested that soil phosphorus levels above those required for maximum yields should be reported as excessive instead of very high. A question on the survey asking if they would reduce applications if their results indicated excessive instead of very high levels of phosphorus showed that this suggestion has some potential since essentially all the farmers said yes.
The survey also indicated that manure management is a problem as far as nutrient pollution. Only half of the livestock farmers test their manure nutrient levels or use published values. This indicates that they view manure as a waste product instead of a nutrient-rich resource. Previous studies have shown that farmers in southern Minnesota typically over-apply manure, even when risk regarding nutrient levels is taken into account, indicating a potential role for education. I suggest there is also a role for technology in the form of on-farm manure testing kits in addition to technologies that facilitate the transport of manure such as composting.
The survey highlighted problem areas as well as opportunities for reducing agricultural phosphorus pollution. Farmers perceived that water quality in the Minnesota River was a problem and that agriculture contributed to it. There was support for changing practices if the farmers perceive a problem and a solution. The survey results can form the basis for further research in soil science and agricultural economics as well as improved educational programs.
The SEA News index is at http://welcome.to/seanews