**Core Conservation Practices:**

**Paths and Barriers Perceived by Small and Limited Resource
Farmers**[^1]

# 

**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

Joseph J. Molnar, Annette Bitto,[^2] and Gail Brant[^3]

# 

Small and limited resource farms comprise more than three-quarters of
the operations in Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi, yet this segment of
the farm population has disproportionately low levels of adoption of
established measures for conserving soil and protecting groundwater.
Four sets of conservation practices---Conservation Tillage (CT), Crop
Nutrient Management (CNM), Integrated Weed and Pest Management (IPM),
and Conservation Buffers (CB)---are the central focus of efforts by
conservation agencies to improve water quality. The purpose of this
report is to describe the need and preferences for technical assistance
to achieve national conservation objectives---specifically the adoption
and diffusion of core conservation practices---on small and limited
resource farms in the Deep South. Using statewide samples from Alabama,
Georgia, and Mississippi, we present detailed profiles of the use and
understanding of these practices among small and limited resources
farmers. In particular, we compare the perceptions, practices, and
program participation patterns of black and white small and limited
resource farmers.

The number of black-owned farms is declining at a more rapid rate than
other farms. This trend has called into question the treatment of
minority farmers have experience in receiving federal assistance. Many
minority and limited-resource farmers blame government policies and
practices for the severe decline in farm ownership by minorities,
especially black farmers, in the last several decades.

Minority farm advocates blame farm program regulations
that---intentionally or not---prevent minority and limited-resource
farmers from accessing the programs that have helped larger non-minority
producers survive the changes in agriculture in the last 50 years. And
they identify institutional insensitivity to the differing needs of
minority and limited-resource customers and pubic agency tendencies to
neglect their responsibility to reach out and serve all that need
assistance. Some farm advocates liken minority farmers to an
\"endangered species\".

The disparity in participation and treatment of non-minority and
minority farmers may be partially accounted for by the smaller average
size of minority and female-operated farms, their lower average crop
yields, and their greater likelihood not to plant program crops, as well
as less sophisticated technology, insufficient collateral, poor cash
flow, and poor credit ratings. However, representatives of minority and
female farm groups point out that previous discrimination in USDA
programs has helped to produce these very conditions now used to explain
disparate treatment. This report provides basic information profiling
the conservation practices and technical assistance preferences of black
and white small farm operators, a body of information not available from
any other source.

-   ***NRCS Action* --** Program managers must recognize that a climate
    of skepticism, sometimes mistrust, in itself is a barrier to program
    participation among small and limited resource farmers. This
    clientele faces basic questions of farm survival and household
    poverty that must be answered before conservation problems can be
    addressed.

## METHOD

The sampling design for the study was structured so as to yield
approximately equal numbers of black and white farmers in Alabama,
Georgia, and Mississippi. Data were obtained from a simple random sample
of white farm operators included those operations with less than
\$40,000 gross annual sales. All black and other minority farm operators
on established mailing lists were selected for the minority segment of
the survey. Survey data were collected by mail using a self-administered
instrument. A second request questionnaire was used to increase the mail
response. A total of 834 farmers returned completed surveys.

**Main Findings of the Study**

###### Characteristics of Respondents 

Most of the small-scale operators who responded to the study were male
and due to sample selection procedures were nearly equally divided
between black and white in each state. Thirty seven percent of the
Alabama and Mississippi black respondents had a college education or
higher. About a fourth of all operators did not work off the farm in the
previous year. About 37 percent of the sample had spouses who worked 200
or more days off the farm, but differences were not significant by race
or state. About half either had no farm spouse or had a spouse who did
not work off the farm.

**Income Sources**

Farm income category differed significantly by race. More white farmers
in each state reported farm incomes in the top three categories. More
black farmers in each state were in the lower income categories. Row
crops such as cotton, soybeans, and other items were a source of income
for approximately a third of the farmers. In each state, more white
farmers reported growing row crops and they were consistently more
likely to report this enterprise as a source of most of their farm
income. Only 2 percent of the sample raised poultry, primarily white
farmers. Small and limited resource farmers are not participating in the
poultry industry, one of the most technologically dynamic and
economically active components of agriculture.

**Conservation Tillage (CT)**

Conservation tillage practices were familiar to 70 percent of the
overall sample of farmers in each state, although not at all familiar to
a large proportion of black farmers. A third of all the farmers viewed
conservation tillage as not practical on their farms. The data suggest
that many farmers have been reached by the efforts of NRCS, extension,
and other public agencies, but they also suggested that many have not
been contacted, convinced, and commissioned with the CT solutions that
fit their farm situations. A lack of how-to information prohibited many
black farmers from performing conservation techniques on their
operations.

Black farmers were consistently less familiar with CT than white
farmers. About a third of the respondents felt that CT would be
practical on their farms. Only about 15 percent of the respondents had
crop acreage planted used CT practices. More whites consistently had
more land under CT than blacks. Less than 10 percent used any single CT
technique. No-till and reduced-till were the overall most used tillage
practices. The main perceived problems with CT were more weeds, higher
herbicide costs, and high equipment costs, each cited by about 10
percent of the sample.

Education predicted each of the CT adoption variables. Respondents with
more years of schooling were more familiar with CT, they thought that CT
was more practical on their farms, they gave more reasons for using CT
on their operations, and they had actually adopted more of the CT
practices on their land. Total gross value of sales predicted
familiarity with CT and the perception that it would be practical on the
operator's farm. It was not significantly related to the number of
reasons given nor the actual number of practices adopted.

-   ***NRCS Action* --** Information for minority farmers about the
    benefits of CT must be customized to fit their typical farm
    operations. Labor and time saving should be emphasized. Information
    about government loan programs or other means to reduce the initial
    cost of equipment should be developed and distributed.

## *NRCS Action* -- Information about CT should be presented using a format appropriate to the level of formal education of the intended audience. When working with some farmers, the sixth grade reading competency level should be used when writing brochures, newsletters, and fact sheets. Other farmers may prefer videos, photos, and displays as opposed to written text.

-   ***NRCS Action --*** Conservation district programs that allow
    renting no-till drills could help to offset the expensive purchase
    of CT equipment. Either publicize existing equipment loan programs
    or work with Conservation Districts to help establish them.

**Crop Nutrient Management (CNM)**

Over half of the farmers in this study were familiar with crop nutrient
management. Around 11 percent were very familiar. Alabama black farmers
had the highest proportion that was not familiar. Almost a fourth of the
sample believed that CNM practices would be practical on their
operation.

More black farmers reported never using soil testing than whites by a
large margin in each state. More Georgia farmers reported testing every
year. Less than 10 percent of the sample soil tested every year, and
about 44 percent tested every three years or less often.

Education predicted three of the four adoption precursor variables, but
not the actual frequency of soil testing. Respondents with more years of
schooling were more familiar with CNM. They viewed CNM as more practical
on their farms and they gave more reasons for using CNM. Whether or not
the respondent farmed row crops predicted perceived practicality, the
number of reasons given for CNM use, and the frequency of soil testing.
The variable was not linked to differences in familiarity with CNM.
Black farmers had lower frequencies of soil testing than white farmers.
There were no other differences by race on the other adoption variables.

Black farmers were much more likely to say that they had not used
fertilizer in the past five years. They were much less likely to be
involved in row crop enterprises where fertilizer is a central tool.
Almost 41 percent of the sample uses side-dressing for the application
of commercial fertilizer, followed closely by at planting time and
before crops are planted. White farmers tended to use more of each
approach to crop fertilization.

Whites were significantly more likely to adjust the amount of fertilizer
they use in different fields. The basic knowledge for such adjustments
comes from soil testing. More white than black farmers in each state
applied litter or manure to their fields, a statistically significant
pattern. Most respondents indicated that their crop rotation cycle
varied from year to year. Whites were more likely to include legumes in
their rotations in each state, but only 10 percent of black Alabama
operators did so.

Although soil testing is a fundamental step in economically sound and
environmentally responsible farming, a third of the sample never engaged
in soil testing. Given that 7 of 8 small and limited resource farmers
used commercial fertilizer, and that about 1 in 5 used broiler litter on
the land, the information from a soil test is a basic part of making
nutrient management decisions.

-   ***NRCS Action* --**NRCS should consider working in cooperation with
    local Extension to increase the number of small and limited resource
    farmers who test their soil. One-on-one technical assistance, with
    specific outreach to black farmers, must be undertaken. Assistance
    on how to soil test, where to take the test within the farmer's
    operation, and how to interpret and apply test results must be
    provided. The financial cost associated with soil testing must be
    assessed. Where appropriate, arrangements to defray the cost of a
    soil test also must be considered.

**Integrated Pest Management (IPM)**

Familiarity with Integrated Pest Management (IPM) varied significantly
by race and state. About half the sample was not familiar with IPM. Less
than 8 percent of the overall sample indicated that they were very
familiar with IPM as a means for controlling weeds, insects, and other
threats to crop yield. Black farmers were less familiar with IPM than
white farmers. Alabama black farmers were most unfamiliar with IPM
compared to other categories of producers. About a third of the farmers
believed that IPM would be practical for their operation, but more
whites in each state said that it was not very practical. About
three-quarters of the black operators had no opinion.

Only a small number of respondents reported implementing any IPM
practices. Georgia white farmers reported using more practices than any
other category of producer. The main problems associated with IPM
pertained to the expense of the chemical and the costs of crop scouting.

Older farmers had adopted fewer practices, but age was not otherwise
related to the IPM adoption variables. Farmers with more farm sales were
more familiar with IPM. Farmers who work more days off the farm adopted
more IPM practices, but the number of days the spouse worked off the
farm was negatively related to the number of IPM practices adopted.
Those who raised row crops saw IPM as more practical, they indicated
more reasons for using IPM, and had actually implemented more IPM
practices on their farms. Farm sales as a percent of total income was a
consistent predictor of the IPM adoption variables. Farmers who were
more dependent on farm income were more aware of IPM, were more
convinced of its practicality, gave more reasons for using it, and had
actually implemented more IPM practices on their farms.

-   ***NRCS Action* --** Effort to communicate environmentally-friendly
    IPM practices to small and limited resource crop farmers should
    emphasize low-cost, no-cost interventions that reduce risk and have
    the potential to increase crop quality if not quantity, as well as
    farm income.

**Conservation Buffers (CB)**

Familiarity with Conservation Buffers (CB) varied markedly between black
and white farmers. More whites than blacks reported using grass filter
strips on their farms. More white farmers used each of the various kinds
of conservation buffers than black farmers.

Whites consistently viewed CB as more useful than black farmers. The
main perceived problem with CB was that they take too much land out of
production and are costly to build and maintain. There were no
consistent differences by race, but white farmers were more likely to
cite problems. The option to indicate that they had tried buffers and
they did not work was provided in the questionnaire, but was not
selected by any respondent.

Approximately 38% of black farmers responded that they were not at all
familiar with buffers compared to approximately 23% of white farmers.
Similarly, over half the black farmers had no opinion about the
practicality of the use of conservation buffers as compared to
approximately one third of white farmers. Thus, CB remain widely
unadopted among black operators.

-   ***NRCS Action* --** In order to assess and increase familiarity and
    the practicality of conservation buffers, outreach activities could
    include the use of color pictures, illustrations, and short
    descriptions of alternative conservation buffer practices. These
    illustrations should depict buffers that are suitable for use in the
    local area, as well as the situations where buffers are most
    appropriate. The use of these visuals will help to ensure that
    farmers have a shared understanding of the purpose and practicality
    of this intervention.

-   ***NRCS Action* --** Work with small and limited resource farmers to
    use buffers that can be linked to identifiable ways to enhance or
    diversify farm income. Examples include: growing trees for wood
    products, producing high quality hay for livestock, and/or producing
    specialty crops such as highly valued seeds. Such assistance should
    feature alternatives for land taken out of production that still
    yield economic returns.

### Conservation Program Participation

Of those with conservation plans, about 26 percent indicated that the
plan was fully implemented, and another 27 percent indicated it was ¾
completed. Whites consistently reported higher levels of conservation
plan completion in each of the three states. A fourth of the black
farmers said their plans were less than 25 percent completed.

The Conservation Reserve Program was the most often cited government
program in which respondents participated. The rates of participation in
the different programs varied widely across states and race categories,
but were most nearly equal by race in Georgia. Less than a fifth of the
respondents cited a lack of understanding of program requirements for
not participating in the various conservation programs that were
mentioned to them. Mississippi white farmers were least likely to
indicate this problem at 11 percent, but 23 percent of the Mississippi
black farmers felt this way. Around 10 percent said they could not
afford to sign up for CRP.

Education was a significant predictor of whether or not the operator had
a conservation plan, what proportion of that plan was implemented, the
frequency of NRCS contacts, and satisfaction with NRCS assistance.
Operators with more farm sales were more likely to have implemented a
higher proportion of their conservation plan, to have more NRCS
contacts, and to be more satisfied with those contacts. Operating more
acres was positively associated with each of the plan and contact
variables. Larger operators were more likely to have conservation plan,
to have more of it implemented, to have more NRCS contacts, and to be
more satisfied with NRCS assistance. Row crop farmers were more likely
to have a plan and to have more of it implemented. Similarly, fruit and
vegetable farmers were likely to have a plan, because it is often a
required condition for receiving government payments. Those who received
such payments were more likely to have a farm plan, to have more of it
implemented, to have more NRCS contacts, and to be more satisfied with
NRCS.

Half the sample had no contact with NRCS in the past year, but
differences by race and state were not statistically significant.
Mississippi farmers reported the most frequent contacts. Around 2/3
indicated contacts through visits to county offices, a third by letter.
Georgia had the highest rates of no contact.

Respondents were asked to indicate their satisfaction with the
information or services received from NRCS. Overall 80 percent were very
or somewhat satisfied with this conservation agency. Whites were more
satisfied than blacks in Alabama and Mississippi; the proportions
satisfied were equal in Georgia. Seventeen percent of Alabama black
farmers were dissatisfied compared to 7 percent or less in all the other
state or race categories.

Those with more education, more land, and higher levels of government
payments were more likely to have a conservation plan, to have a greater
proportion of it implemented, to have more previous contacts with NRCS,
and to express higher levels of satisfaction with the services they
received from the agency. Farmers with higher gross sales had
implemented more of their conservation plans, had more contacts with
NRCS, and were more satisfied with the agency. Men and those with income
from row crops were more likely to have a conservation plan and to have
more of it implemented. Those more dependent on farming for income were
more likely to have a conservation plan and to indicate that they had
more of it implement. They also had more contacts with NRCS, but were
not more satisfied with the agency's services.

-   ***NRCS Action* --** This study shows that developing a conservation
    plan is the linchpin for installing conservation systems. In order
    for NRCS field staffs to work with people who have not participated
    in conservation programs previously, it is essential to allocate
    time and effort toward developing conservation plans. This type of
    **commitment** needs to be made by NRCS managers and field office
    staff in order to successfully work with the various groups
    identified in this study. NRCS managers should apply both incentives
    and disincentives to field staffs to increase the number of
    conservation plans developed with these low income and minority
    groups.

-   ***NRCS Action* --** NRCS can provide assistance to small and
    limited resource farmers concerning the relevance and applicability
    of CRP continuous sign-up for their operation. A sound economic
    analysis must be undertaken for row crop operators in order to
    compare up-front incentive and rental payments to gross farm sales.

### Information Sources

Limited resource farmers consistently ranked the cooperative extension
agent as the most important information source across states and race
categories, except white Alabama farmers. This segment ranked extension
as the third most important source. In each state, black farmers gave
higher importance ratings to extension than white farmers. Farm
magazines or newsletters were the next most important source. The third
most important information source was "another farmer or family member."
This source was particularly important for white farmers in
Alabama---rating even higher than extension for that group, but there
were no significant differences by state or race. NRCS was fourth ranked
as an information source in the overall sample. Black farmers,
particularly in Alabama and Mississippi, tended to give higher ratings
to NRCS as a conservation information source but these differences were
not statistically significant.

-   ***NRCS Action* --** NRCS should work cooperatively with local
    Extension, agricultural chemical dealers, and other technical farm
    specialists when formulating CORE 4 recommendations for
    implementation by small and limited resource farmers. Realistic
    interventions couched in the language and realities of target
    farming systems will be more readily understood and adopted by small
    and limited resource farmers.

-   ***NRCS Action* --** When communicating with Black small and limited
    resource farmers about conservation relative to the adoption of
    conservation practices/programs, NRCS technical specialists should
    partner with county Extension personnel or others with close working
    relationship with minority farmers. Once the initial contact has
    been established, quarterly follow-up is suggested.

### Information Delivery Mode

About 64 percent of the sample indicated that printed materials such as
bulletins, newsletters, and other publications were their preferred
means of receiving information. There were no statistically significant
differences by race or state. Farm Service Agency offices were the next
most frequently cited, by 41 percent of the sample. There were no
significant differences by race or state. Black farmers preferred group
meetings or seminars more than whites did, a statistically significant
difference. Similarly, blacks preferred workshops more than whites did.

Black farmers did prefer university specialists as information sources
more than white farmers. They also preferred electronic media for home
use such as videotapes more than white farmers. Both differences were
statistically significant. Whites preferred news media more than blacks,
a statistically significant difference.

-   ***NRCS Action* --** NRCS should develop videotapes that present
    information about the practice/ program and services of the Agency.
    This videotape should use state personnel and examples to present
    and illustrate information in the context of local customs, values,
    and vocabulary.

-   ***NRCS Action* --** NRCS staff should contact local leaders and
    assist them run local meetings that present information on the types
    of technical and financial assistance available for conservation
    activities. Other agencies (i.e., FSA and Extension) and private
    groups should also be involved.

### Land and Water Resources

More white farmers reported owning larger acreages in each state. Nine
percent owned no land. Slightly more blacks than whites in each state
owned no land. A third of the sample rented land from other farmers, but
the pattern of differences was not statistically significant. More
Mississippi and Alabama black farmers rented land from others, but more
Alabama farmers of both races rented land from others than farmers in
other states.

Creeks or streams were the most frequently reported on-farm water
resources. Nearly half the farmers had a creek or stream on their
property, but about 30 percent had no water body or watercourse on their
land at all

-   ***NRCS Action* --** Efforts to expand the acreage treated with Core
    4 practice among small and limited resource farmers must recognize
    the diverse set of tenure and landholding arrangements that
    characterize this segment of the farm population. In particular, the
    ways that these arrangements discourage, and sometimes provide
    perverse disincentives, to adopting Core 4 practices must be
    anticipated and understood.

##### CONCLUSION

Reaching the unaware and the uncommitted with the basic precepts of land
management will require an extended effort of outreach and technical
support. Black and white limited resource farmers who participated in
the study differed in a number of basic ways. More black farmers had
less than a high school education and more white farmers tended to grow
row crops and engage in other more intensive farm enterprises. The
findings call for more focused outreach efforts to black farmers.

-   ***NRCS Action* --** NRCS must accelerate its outreach efforts to
    small and limited resource farmers. Outreach activities must include
    developing an information and education program about the
    practicality and benefits of the "Core 4" practices. Sound economic
    analysis of the costs and benefits of the "best mix" of core
    practices must be undertaken. Given the finding that half the study
    sample (no significant difference by race) had no contact with NRCS
    in the past year, designated time periods for follow-up must be
    specified.

-   ***NRCS Action* --** Future outreach strategies to Black small and
    limited resource farmers must have specific objectives to increase
    Black farmers' familiarity and understanding of how to use the Core
    4 practices. These objectives can best be accomplished by the
    cooperative efforts of NRCS and local Extension specialists.

Many of our survey respondents of both races had college educations and
advanced degrees, pointing to the rapidly growing segment of part-time,
hobby, and lifestyle farm residents that may have felt and unfelt needs
for guidance on land treatment strategies.

The challenge to public agencies is to provide timely and appropriate
responses to the felt needs for technical assistance. In addition, the
agencies must find a way to stimulate a demand for conservation
assistance by increasing awareness of the practical tools that are
available for protecting soil resources and water quality.

We identified perceived barriers and disadvantages to the implementation
of core conservation practices. Each set of core conservation practices
has obstacles to implementation by the full gamut of small and limited
resource farms.

Some obstacles reflect defects and limits in the outreach mechanisms of
the public agencies. Some reflect limits in the applicability and fit of
the recommended practices on each individual small and limited resource
farm. A third set of limits to implementation bear on the interests and
capabilities of the individual farm operator. Age, personality,
financial capability, and technical capacity all shape an individual
farm operator's ability to consider and use the interventions
recommended by NRCS and other public agencies.

-   ***NRCS Action* --** Particularly in the case of black farmers,
    there may be local organizations that have close relationships with
    operators that can more effectively communicate Core 4 practices and
    the possibilities for technical assistance available from NRCS.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***NRCS Action* --** Differences in personal income may require NRCS
    to use alternative low cost technologies in planning and
    implementing Core 4 practices such as conservation buffers. Movable
    water sources and low cost fencing could be used on small acreages
    that support small herds of cattle. District programs that would
    allow for renting no-till drills could be used for conservation
    tillage activities.

The data revealed a large segment of operators who had no contact with
NRCS or other public agencies. It was not that core conservation
practices have been tried and found wanting on these farms; rather, they
have been found wanting to be tried.

-   ***NRCS Action* --** Under certain conditions, NRCS must rely on the
    goodwill and respect that farmers have for other farm agencies,
    particularly the Cooperative Extension Service, that are already
    well-regarded and familiar to farmers.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***NRCS Action* --** Although no public agency is without its
    limits, NRCS' conservation partners often have access to and
    relationships with small and limited resource farmers that would be
    difficult or inefficient to duplicate.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***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.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***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.

[^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
    [jmolnar@acesag.auburn.edu](../jmolnar@acesag.auburn.edu)

[^3]: USDA-NRCS-Social Science Team