Core Conservation Practices – Executive Summary i

Core Conservation Practices:

Paths and Barriers Perceived by Small and Limited Resource Farmers1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

1 Research supported by the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Social Science Institute 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

3 USDA-NRCS-Social Science Institute

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
Core Conservation Practices – Executive Summary ii

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 femaleoperated 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.
Core Conservation Practices – Executive Summary iii

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
Core Conservation Practices – Executive Summary iv

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.
Core Conservation Practices – Executive Summary v

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, nocost 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
Core Conservation Practices – Executive Summary vi

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 3⁄4 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
Core Conservation Practices – Executive Summary vii

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 upfront 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.
Core Conservation Practices – Executive Summary viii

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
Core Conservation Practices – Executive Summary ix

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.

 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
Core Conservation Practices – Executive Summary x

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.

 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.

 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 limitedresource 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.