1

Power of Peers:How Effective are Indiana Farmer

Networks?Aaron Pape

2

Nutrient Management

3

Local Problems

Mwcog.org

Cleanwisconsin.org

4

Gulf Dead Zone

Epa.gov

5

Nitrogen Management

Okstate.eduPrecisionag.com

Okstate.edu

6

Not Enough Farmers are Adopting Them!

Ironfiremen.com

Nrcs.usda.gov Mnn.com

7

Social Networks

• Harness relationships

• Limited ag literature says important• Haven’t identified mechanism

• Gaining popularity in Forestry (WI, Scandinavia)

Minnesota.publicradio.org

8

Formal vs Informal Network

• Formal• Defined group: workplace, church, club, team

• Informal• Unorganized collection of people: friends, family, neighbors

• Boundaries not always clear

9

Farmer Networks

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

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

12

Response Rates

OFN Adapt Overall0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

62.80%

50.00%

61.20%

Response Rates

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.

14

Why Farmers Join a Network

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.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

% responded "A Lot"

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.”

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.

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%

18

Water Quality Awareness

• Water pollutants• Sediment/silt, nitrates, phosphorous, bacteria (E. Coli)

• Pollutant Sources• Manure, crop fertilizer, sewage treatment plants, littering, etc.

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.

20

Trust

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)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

***

***

***

*

***

**

Trust of Select Information Sources

Non-Network Network

21

Hypothesis #1

• Network farmers are different than non-network farmers.• Demographics

• Attitudes & Awareness

• Trust

22

Management Practices

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

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Non-network NetworkPercentage

23

Management Practices

Soil Testing Variable Rate Split Application Nutrient Management Plan0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

89.03

62.3465.77

63.2161.97

37.76

48.58

42.7

Network Non-Network

Perc

enta

ge

24

Hypothesis #2

• Network farmers do more nutrient management and conservation practices than non-network farmers.

25

Network OutcomesChanges in Management by Years of Participation

1 2 3 4 50

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Years of Participation

Avera

ge R

esp

on

se

(1=

Str

on

gly

Ag

ree,

5=

Str

on

gly

Dis

ag

ree)

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.”

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.”

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.

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.”

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.”

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.”

32

Diffusion Outside Network

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

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.

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.

35

Improvements

• Actionable Data• Strip trials

• Efficiency ratio (N/yield)

betaseed.comCropquest.com

36

Ideal Farmer Network

• More frequent interactions

• Farmer diversity

• Involve professionals

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.

38

Acknowledgements

• Linda Prokopy

• Erin Pape