Farmers’ Use of Nutrient Management: Lessons from Watershed Case Studies

Abstract

Nutrient enrichment of water resources has degraded coastal waters throughout the world, including in the United States (e.g., Chesapeake Bay, Gulf of Mexico, and Neuse Estuary). Agricultural nonpoint sources have significant impacts on water resources. As a result, nutrient management planning is the primary tool recommended to reduce nutrient losses from agricultural fields. Its effectiveness requires nutrient management plans be used by farmers. There is little literature describing nutrient management decision-making. Here, two case studies are described that address this gap: (i) a synthesis of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, the Conservation Effects Assessment Project, and (ii) field surveys from three nutrient-impaired river basins/ watersheds in North Carolina (Neuse, Tar-Pamlico, and Jordan Lake drainage areas). Results indicate farmers generally did not fully apply nutrient management plans or follow basic soil test recommendations even when they had them. Farmers were found to be hesitant to apply N at university-recommended rates because they did not trust the recommendations, viewed abundant N as insurance, or used recommendations made by fertilizer dealers. Exceptions were noted when watershed education, technical support, and funding resources focused on nutrient management that included easing management demands, actively and consistently working directly with a small group of farmers, and providing significant resource allocations to fund agency personnel and cost-share funds to farmers. Without better dialogue with farmers and meaningful investment in strategies that reward farmers for taking what they perceive as risks relative to nutrient reduction, little progress in true adoption of nutrient management will be made.

Nutrients in the nexus

“…They indicated that financial incentives and more readily available evidence to demonstrate effective local pollution reduction would have the greatest effect on adoption rates. Based on several farm surveys in North Carolina and a survey of farmers in 13 watersheds across the US, Osmond et al (2014) showed that farmers generally did not fully apply nutrient management plans or follow basic soil test recommendations even when they had them. Farmers were found to be hesitant to apply N at university-recommended rates because they did not trust the recommendations, viewed abundant N as insurance, or used recommendations made by fertilizer dealers.…”

“…Exceptions to these patterns have been noted when education, technical support, and funding resources focused on nutrient management included easing management demands, actively and consistently working directly with a small group of farmers, and providing both significant resource allocations to fund agency personnel and cost-share funds to farmers (Osmond et al 2014). A significant disconnect exists between farmer behavior relative to nutrient management and its importance as the first line-of-defense in reducing agricultural nonpoint source pollution.…”

“…Policies to advance Bmore food, low pollution ddressing farmers' decision-making and farmers' perceptions of risk Although some studies have documented that most fertilizer recommendations are made by private sector crop advisors (Stuart et al 2014), other surveys emphasize that farmers mostly make the decisions about fertilizer applications (Osmond et al 2014). Regardless, it is critical that everyone involved in agriculture, whether the fertilizer manufacturers and distributors, the crop advisors, or the public sector (i.e., extension, USDA-NRCS, soil and water districts) work together to ensure adoption of recommendations that optimize crop yield while limiting the negative environmental consequences of N losses into the environment.…”

More Food, Low Pollution (Mo Fo Lo Po): A Grand Challenge for the 21st Century

“…In summary, the study reveals that the NO 3 -mitigation methods had some effectiveness at the farm scale but had little acceptance socially and would have to be implemented on a grand scale to be effective. Osmond et al (2015) synthesized results from informant surveys in 13 watersheds of the USDA Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) study, supplemented with field surveys from three nutrient-impaired watersheds in North Carolina. The CEAP results indicate that farmers generally did not follow nutrient management plans or basic soil test recommendations even when they had them.…”

Confronting Climate Change Challenges to Dryland Cereal Production: A Call for Collaborative, Transdisciplinary Research, and Producer Engagement

“…To date, CEAP's field studies have not yet been able to determine how river basin water quality variations can be attributed to specific conservation farming practices within the studied watersheds (Tomer and Locke, 2011). On the other hand, CEAP projects have made significant progress in understanding and demonstrating how agricultural practices could be managed to reduce nitrate and phosphorus water pollution in environmentally sensitive rivers and estuaries (e.g., Mississippi River Basin and Chesapeake Bay; Lund et al, 2011;Osmond et al, 2015). The USDA's continued support of CEAP's field research, farmer education and encouragement of innovation (e.g., the NRCS Environmental Quality Incentives Program assistance to farmer investments in improved practices) is needed to build a better, more accurate knowledge base of how watershed ecosystem services function; and how they could be better protected, managed and valued.…”