Economic 

Information

Bulletin

Number 62

December 2009

United States 

Department 

of Agriculture

Economic 

Research 

Service

Participation in Conservation

Programs by Targeted Farmers:

Beginning, Limited-Resource, and Socially 

Disadvantaged Operators’ Enrollment Trends

Cynthia Nickerson

Michael Hand
www.ers.usda.gov

Visit Our Website To Learn More!

National Agricultural Library

Cataloging Record:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs 

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and, where 

applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual 

orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an 

individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited 

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 

for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should 

contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 

795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider 

and employer.

Photo credits: USDA/NRCS.

www.ers.usda.gov/

Nickerson, Cynthia J.

 Participation in conservation programs by targeted farmers : 

beginning, limited-resource, and socially disadvantaged operators’ 

enrollment trends.

 (Economic information bulletin ; no. 62)

 1. Conservation of natural resources—Government policy—United 

States.

 2. Agriculture and state—Social aspects—United States.

 3. Farmers—United States—Social conditions.

 4. Farmers—United States—Economic conditions.

 I. Hand, Michael. II. United States. Dept. of Agriculture. Economic 

Research Service.

 III. Title.

S930
United States

Department

of Agriculture

www.ers.usda.gov

A Report from the Economic Research Service

Abstract

Beginning, limited-resource, and socially disadvantaged farmers make up as much as 40 

percent of all U.S. farms. Some Federal conservation programs contain provisions that 

encourage participation by such “targeted” farmers and the 2008 Farm Act furthered these 

efforts. This report compares the natural resource characteristics, resource issues, and conservation treatment costs on farms operated by targeted farmers with those of other participants 

in the largest U.S. working-lands and land retirement conservation programs. Some evidence 

shows that targeted farmers tend to operate more environmentally sensitive land than other 

farmers, have different conservation priorities, and receive different levels of payments. 

Data limitations preclude a defi nitive analysis of whether efforts to improve participation 

by targeted farmers hinders or enhances the conservation programs’ ability to deliver environmental benefi ts cost effectively. But the different conservation priorities among types of 

farmers suggest that if a signifi cantly larger proportion of targeted farmers participates in 

these programs, the programs’ economic and environmental outcomes could change.

Keywords: Conservation programs, Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), beginning 

farmers, limited-resource producers, socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers

Acknowledgments

The authors thank David Nulph and Vince Breneman (both from USDA’s Economic 

Research Service) for assistance with analyses using geographic information systems 

data. We also thank the following for their helpful comments on earlier drafts: Mary 

Ahearn, David McGranahan, and Marca Weinberg, all from ERS; Alex Barbarika 

from USDA’s Farm Service Agency; Cathy Kling from Iowa State University; Dayton 

Lambert from the University of Tennessee; and Felix Spinelli from USDA’s Natural 

Resources Conservation Service. Angela Anderson (editorial) and Victor B. Phillips, Jr. 

(layout and design) provided production assistance.

Cynthia Nickerson, cnickerson@ers.usda.gov

Michael Hand, mhand@ers.usda.gov

Participation in Conservation 

Programs by Targeted Farmers

Beginning, Limited-Resource, and Socially 

Disadvantaged Operators’ Enrollment Trends

Economic

Information

Bulletin

Number 62

December 2009
ii

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

Contents

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

What We Know About Targeted Farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Conservation Programs Available to Targeted Farmers. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

To What Extent Do Targeted Farmers Participate 

 in Conservation Programs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

How Do Targeted Farmers Use Conservation Programs? . . . . . . . . . . 19

 EQIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

 CRP and WRP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Conclusions and Policy Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Appendix: Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Recommended citation format for this publication:

Nickerson, C., and M. Hand. Participation in Conservation Programs 

by Targeted Farmers: Beginning, Limited-Resource, and Socially 

Disadvantaged Operators’ Enrollment Trends, Economic Information 

Bulletin No. 62, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 

December 2009.
iii

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

Summary

Targeted farmers include those with 10 or fewer years of experience, farmers 

with limited farm sales and income, and farmers belonging to segments of 

the population that have historically been subject to discrimination, such 

as African American, American Indian, Alaskan Native, Hispanic, Asian 

American, or Pacifi c Island farmers. Targeted farmers make up as much as 

40 percent of all U.S. farms, and, although many participate in conservation 

programs, targeted farmers typically have not participated in government 

agricultural programs at the same rate as other farmers. To help offset potential barriers to participation, USDA offers targeted farmers more favorable 

payment and enrollment terms in conservation programs than are available to 

other farmers.

What Is the Issue?

Farm legislation in both 2002 and 2008 encouraged targeted farmers to 

participate in conservation programs by making them eligible for more favorable payment and enrollment terms than other farmers received. Such Federal 

provisions can alter program outcomes in unintended ways if targeted 

farmers adopt different conservation practices, address different environmental needs, or operate land that is more or less environmentally sensitive than the land operated by other farmers. Targeting certain farmer types 

could result in tradeoffs between environmental performance, cost-effective 

delivery of program benefi ts, and improved access to Federal conservation 

programs. This report addresses this issue by examining participation patterns 

in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation 

Reserve Program (CRP), and Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) to provide 

information on the types of farmers who enroll, the geographic distribution 

of participants, the types and costs of conservation practices they implement, 

the resource issues they address, the natural resource characteristics associated with their farms, and whether different types of farmers participate in 

different ways. Participation rates are measured where possible based on both 

the number of farms and acres enrolled in conservation programs, as these 

two measures can provide very different pictures of targeted farmer participation. Those three conservation programs account for 74 percent of authorized 

conservation spending in the 2008 Farm Act.

What Did the Study Find?

During 2004-07, targeted farmers participated differently in conservation 

programs than did other farmers. While not defi nitive, evidence shows that 

targeted farmers tended to operate more environmentally sensitive land than 

other farmers, had different conservation priorities, and received different 

levels of payments. Those differences suggest that economic and environmental outcomes could change if the proportion of targeted farmers enrolled 

in the programs increases signifi cantly.
iv

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

Enrollment Patterns

Beginning and limited-resource farmers—two of the three targeted-farmer 

groups—were less likely to participate in EQIP than was the U.S. farm 

population as a whole (data on socially disadvantaged farmer participation in 

EQIP were not available). These two farmer types operated about 27 percent 

of all farms in 2006 but held 12 percent of EQIP contracts. This participation trend was observed in nearly every region of the country, suggesting 

that policies that make it easier for these farmers to enroll could increase 

participation. One new policy aimed at encouraging participation, however, 

is likely to have little effect. The 2008 Farm Act requires that 5 percent 

of EQIP funds be set aside annually for beginning farmers, but beginning 

farmers have typically received more than 10 percent of EQIP payments 

annually in recent years. 

Like their participation patterns in EQIP, targeted farmers enrolled disproportionately fewer farms in conservation programs that retire land from production. Twenty-two percent of farms operated by all three groups of targeted 

farmers were enrolled in the CRP and WRP, even though they operate 31 

percent of all farms. A different pattern emerges, however, when the amount 

of enrolled acreage is evaluated instead of the number of enrolled farmers: 

Targeted farmers enrolled disproportionately more acreage in CRP and WRP 

than other farmers. Targeted farmers operated 15 percent of farmland acres in 

2007 but controlled 17 percent of acres enrolled in these programs. 

Environmental Problems 

and Priorities for Treatment

Beginning farmers in the Delta region (the only area for which we could 

analyze soil data) who participated in EQIP tended to enroll more highly erodible land than other participating farmers. This trend suggests that conservation 

efforts by these farmers could provide more program benefi ts than efforts by 

other farmers. The available data, however, make it diffi cult to determine with 

certainty if targeting these farmers would increase program benefi ts because 

the characteristics of program participants may not represent this farmer group 

as a whole. If, in general, few beginning farmers operate highly erodible land 

(and the few that do have “self-selected” and have already chosen to enroll), 

targeting more of these farmers for enrollment may not provide more conservation benefi ts than are provided by other farmer types.

Conservation priorities of farmers participating in conservation programs 

differ by farmer type. Beginning and limited-resource farmers enrolled in 

EQIP addressed livestock forage and health needs and plant productivity/

quality issues more often than did other farmer types. And although both 

beginning and limited-resource farmers participating in EQIP were more 

likely to farm closer to quality-impaired waters, the limited-resource farmers 

were less likely to address water quality problems. Several possible reasons 

may explain these tendencies. First, limited-resource farmers may face 

fi nancial or other constraints in adopting practices that might improve water 

quality. Second, these farmers may derive more direct benefi ts by focusing 

on other issues (like improving plant health and vigor). Finally, limitedresource farmers tend to operate smaller farms that are not subject to the 

same regulatory requirements facing larger farm operators who use EQIP to 
v

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

fund water pollution reduction practices (e.g., pollutant discharge regulations 

for concentrated animal feeding operations). In land retirement programs, 

targeted farmers of all types were more likely than other farmer types to 

be located in areas where proposed conservation efforts were expected to 

achieve the greatest reduction in soil erosion and the greatest improvement 

in water quality. 

Costs of Treatment

The size of conservation payments varied among farmer groups. 

• In EQIP, average payments (which represent the cost to government) to 

beginning farmers were signifi cantly higher than the average payments to 

other farmers, while payments to limited-resource farmers were signifi -

cantly lower. Both beginning and limited-resource farmers implemented 

a larger number of conservation practices than other farmers did, but the 

scale of those practices tended to be smaller. 

• In CRP and WRP, targeted farmers enrolled a greater share of operated 

acreage and received smaller per acre payments, but the number and 

types of conservation practices adopted did not differ signifi cantly from 

those of other farmers.

How Was the Study Conducted?

The analysis relied on USDA data from EQIP and CRP administrative records, the 2007 Census of Agriculture, and the National Resources 

Inventory (NRI). The analysis also used data from the Agricultural Resource 

Management Survey (ARMS), which is conducted annually by the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service and the Economic Research Service. 

The EQIP and CRP contract data identifi ed the resource problems that 

received treatment and, for EQIP, how payments and adoption of practices 

varied between beginning/limited-resource producers and other participant 

types. The analysis used the ARMS data from 2004-07 to analyze payment 

and acreage enrollments in CRP and WRP by farmer type and to summarize 

the characteristics of targeted farmers. The 2001 ARMS data on conservation practice adoption (the most recent year data were available) were used to 

examine conservation practice adoption patterns in land retirement programs. 

The census, NRI, and other data characterized the distribution of farmer 

types relative to measures of environmental conditions. 

EQIP, CRP, ARMS, NRI, and census data were used to characterize differences among current conservation program participants and to suggest that 

targeted and other farmers may differ in their ability to provide environmental benefi ts cost effectively. Providing fi rm answers about the impacts of 

favoring particular farmer types would require more information, including 

quantitative estimates of the environmental benefi ts provided by different 

farmer types and whether targeted participants are more cost-effective 

providers of benefi ts than nonparticipants. Also, targeted farmers’ acreages 

are disproportionately small, and information about program participants’ 

farm sizes would be needed to distinguish whether differences between 

farmer types are due to the type of farmer or farm size.

1

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

Introduction

The Federal Government has a long history of providing assistance to 

farmers and ranchers to encourage the adoption of practices that reduce unintended negative environmental spillovers from agricultural production. Much 

of this conservation assistance is provided through voluntary programs that 

help fi nance the installation of conservation structures (e.g., riparian buffers 

and grassed waterways) and the adoption of environmentally friendly land 

management practices or that provide technical support to identify conservation needs and develop implementation plans. The 2008 Food, Conservation, 

and Energy Act (2008 Farm Act) is projected to increase conservation 

program funding by more than 17 percent. If appropriated at authorized 

levels, $11.5 billion in conservation assistance will go to working farm and 

ranchland that remain in production, and $13 billion will go to land retirement programs.

Both the 2002 and 2008 Farm Act legislation included provisions that ensure 

accessibility for all eligible farmers and ranchers to conservation programs. 

These provisions provide favorable payment terms to reduce unintentional 

barriers to participation for farmers who may face unique circumstances, 

such as limited farming experience, limited fi nancial resources, and limited 

opportunities. The favorable payment terms are available to beginning, 

limited-resource, or socially disadvantaged segments of the farm population 

(“targeted farmers” for the purposes of this report). 

Targeted farmers’ characteristics can affect their participation in conservation programs (see box, “Defi ning Targeted Farmers”). For example, recent 

Economic Research Service (ERS) research shows that beginning farmers 

tend to have smaller farms, lower levels of onfarm income, and different 

personal and household characteristics than do established farms (Ahearn and 

Newton, 2009) and that these differences can affect decisions about conservation activities (Lambert et al., 2006; Caswell et al., 2001). 

Providing favorable payment terms to particular types of farmers may make 

Federal conservation programs more accessible if targeted farmers could not 

participate without them. Some evidence suggests that encouraging participation by targeted farmers may also alter the environmental benefi ts generated 

by conservation programs. Comparing the distribution of farmer types and 

highly erodible land suggests that socially disadvantaged farmers are more 

likely than other farmers to be located in counties where a higher proportion of cropland is highly erodible (fi g. 1).1 When farmers are more likely 

to operate marginal land, targeting them for participation could increase the 

environmental benefi ts provided by conservation programs. 

Changing program participation rates among targeted farmers could also 

affect program costs, and whether costs increase or decrease depends on 

the cost effectiveness of practices implemented by new participants. If the 

farmers who enroll in conservation programs provide environmental benefi ts 

at the lowest cost, encouraging their participation achieves both economic 

and accessibility goals. If applicants from targeted groups provide benefi ts 

at a higher cost, encouraging their participation may improve access at the 

expense of economic goals.

1This comparison uses 2007 Census 

of Agriculture data, which identifi es the 

principal operator’s race and ethnicity, 

and 1997 National Resources Inventory data that identifi es cropland by 

erodibility level. The ARMS data used 

in this report defi ne socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, but the 

Census data do not allow us to identify 

these farmers in precisely the same 

way (see appendix, “Data Sources”). 

However, the geographic distribution 

of these farmers is comparable between 

Census and ARMS.
2

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

This report examines participation patterns of targeted farmers relative to 

other farmers in major Federal conservation programs. We focus on the 

extent of their participation, the geographic distribution of participants, the 

types and costs of conservation practices implemented, and resource issues 

farmers typically face and address. Although the available data preclude a 

defi nitive assessment of economic tradeoffs from improving accessibility, 

this report improves our understanding of how these farmers use and impact 

conservation programs.

Figure 1

Distribution of selected farmer types and highly erodible cropland, by county

Note: Counties in dark green with a black outline identify the greatest overlap between the distribution of selected socially disadvantaged groups 

and highly erodible cropland. Although some rangeland may also be subject to erosion, erodibility data are available only for cropland.

Source: 2007 Census of Agriculture (non-White and Hispanic operators) data and 1997 National Resources Inventory (highly erodible 

cropland) data.

Percent of cropland

designated highly erodible

Less than 15%

15% - 50%

Greater than 50%

No outline signifies missing data.

Percent of farm operators who are

non-White or Hispanic

Less than 5%

5% - 20%

20% - 50%

Greater than 50%

Blank counties signify missing data.
3

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

Defi ning Targeted Farmers

USDA has established defi nitions for beginning, limited-resource, and 

socially disadvantaged farmers (referred to as “targeted” for the purposes 

of this report). Our defi nitions correspond to USDA defi nitions to the extent 

that available data allow us to do so. 

Beginning farmers and ranchers (BF)—Using data from USDA’s 

Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) (see appendix, “Data 

Sources”), we can identify up to three operators per farm and defi ne beginning farmers and ranchers as operators with not more than 10 years of 

experience. In 2006, however, ARMS identifi es more than one operator in 

only one version of the survey. For that year, we defi ne beginning farms as 

those operated by a primary operator with not more than 10 years of experience. USDA generally defi nes beginning farmers and ranchers as those 

who materially and substantially participate in farm or ranch operations, but 

have not operated a farm or ranch for more than 10 consecutive years. If 

operated by an entity, this requirement applies to all members of the entity 

(USDA, 2007). 

Limited-resource farmers and ranchers (LR)—Farmers and ranchers are 

defi ned as limited resource if in each of the last 2 years they earned less than 

$105,000 in gross farm sales (adjusted for infl ation) and had low household 

income (USDA, 2007; Hoppe et al., 2007). Low household income means 

that the household income was less than the national poverty level for a family 

of four or was less than half the county median household income in the 2 

previous years. 

Socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers (SDA)—In this report, we 

defi ne a farm as operated by a socially disadvantaged farmer and rancher if 

the principal operator is African American, American Indian, Alaskan Native, 

Hispanic, Asian American, or Pacifi c Islander. We do not include women in 

this defi nition. While some socially disadvantaged farmer defi nitions include 

groups subject to gender prejudice, our defi nition is consistent with the 

Conservation Title in the 2008 Farm Act, which excludes women (unless they 

meet the socially disadvantaged defi nition some other way). Prior to the 2008 

Farm Act, conservation programs administered by USDA did not use socially 

disadvantaged farmer defi nitions. USDA does, however, have various credit, 

insurance, and outreach programs to improve access to USDA programs for 

such farmers and ranchers (Dismukes et al., 1997a). 
4

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

What We Know About Targeted Farmers

Targeted farmers include beginning, limited-resource, and socially disadvantaged farmers, and most farm operators identify with just one of these three 

groups (fi g. 2). During 2005-07, the largest proportion (59 percent) of farms 

operated by targeted farmers was beginning-farmer operations. Socially 

disadvantaged (SDA) farmers accounted for 21 percent and limited-resource 

farmers, 33 percent. These percentages sum to more than 100, signaling that 

some farmers belong to multiple groups. For example, 5 percent of these 

farmers were both beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers, and 4 

percent were both beginning and limited-resource farmers. Only 1 percent of 

these farms were operated by farmers who belonged to all three groups. 

The characteristics of these operations can improve our understanding about why 

targeted farmers might participate in conservation programs differently than other 

farmers. Targeted farmers operate a sizable proportion of land. In 2007, they 

operated about 677,000 farms—nearly 31 percent of the Nation’s 2.1 million 

farms (fi g. 3). Yet, these farmers account for a disproportionately small amount 

of farm production value, contributing only 12 percent of the nearly $290 billion 

in farm commodities produced by all U.S. farms in 2007. This smaller farm 

production value refl ects the fact that a larger proportion of these farmers operate 

small-scale family farms (defi ned as those with less than $250,000 in sales) and 

that a smaller proportion of beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers identify farming as their major occupation—residential or lifestyle farms—compared 

with other farmer types (table 1).2 Limited-resource farmers are more likely to 

report farming as their major occupation; however, fewer farms are operated by 

them. Low-sales farms and farmers who devote time to nonfarming occupations 

may face fi nancial or labor constraints that preclude use of conservation practices 

that are capital- or management-intensive. 

2The Economic Research Service 

developed a classifi cation system that 

categorizes farms based on sales, major 

occupation of the primary operator, and 

farm ownership structure. For a detailed 

description, see Hoppe et al., 2007.

Figure 2

Farms operated by targeted farmers and ranchers

BF only

BF and LR

LR only

SDA and LR

2%*

SDA only

BF and SDA BF, SDA, and LR—1%

49%

4%

13%

5%*

26%

* Coefficient of variation is between 25 percent and 50 percent.

BF=Beginning farmers; SDA=Socially disadvantaged farmers; LR=Limited-resource farmers.

Note: Farms operated by women are not included with socially disadvantaged farmers, unless 

they otherwise meet the SDA definition. 

Source: ERS calculation based on USDA’s pooled 2005-07 Agricultural Resource Management Surveys, Phase III, conducted by the National Agricultural Statistics Service and the 

Economic Research Service.
5

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

Although their farms are typically small, some targeted farmers operate 

relatively large farms. In 2007, the median acres operated—the midpoint of the 

range of acres operated—by targeted farmers ranged from 41 to 75 acres, 

compared with 94 acres for small family farms and 118 acres for farms of all 

sizes operated by other farmer types (table 2). The high average number of 

acres operated, relative to median number of acres operated, suggests that all 

farmer types include relatively large farms. In particular, a few socially 

disadvantaged farms are organized as nonfamily farms that operate larger 

farms, on average. Also, socially disadvantaged farms specializing in livestock are about 150 acres larger, on average, than socially disadvantaged 

farms in general. 

Beginning and limited-resource farmers are somewhat more likely than other 

farmers to report no production value. The share of these farmers reporting 

zero production value varies between 26 and 28 percent, compared with 

23 percent of small family farms operated by other farmer types.3,4 Recent 

research that analyzes production and conservation behavior revealed that 

decisions not to produce crops or livestock are positively associated with 

conservation payments (Lambert et al., 2006). This suggests that conditions 

that temporarily rule out farming may not preclude conservation program 

participation, although a lack of production over several years could make 

some farmers ineligible to participate. 

For farms reporting a positive production value, commodity production by 

targeted farmers appears similar to small family farms, at least at fi rst glance. 

Livestock accounts for most of the production value for farmers of all types, 

and more than half of socially disadvantaged farmers specialize in livestock 

(table 2). Specialization in beef cattle and other grazing livestock is common 

among small farms, due to the low labor and low cost requirements (Hoppe 

et al., 2007). Of farmers with a majority of their production value from crop 

3Production value refl ects the market 

value of what is produced in a given 

year, regardless of whether it is shared 

among multiple parties or put into inventory. Farms may have no production due 

to adverse weather conditions, disease, 

or other reasons (Hoppe et al., 2007). 

4When women are included in the 

defi nition of socially disadvantaged 

farmers, the proportion of socially 

disadvantaged farmers reporting zero 

production value rises from 20 percent 

to 33 percent.

Figure 3

Share of total farms and production, by operator status

Percent

Number of farms Value of production

0

20

40

60

80

100

30.8

12.4

85.4

63.2

2.3*

6.0

All other farms

Farms operated by women

Farms operated by BF, 

LR, and SDA farmers

* Coefficient of variation is between 25 percent and 50 percent.

BF=Beginning farmers; LR=Limited-resource farmers; SDA=Socially disadvantaged farmers.

Notes: Farms operated by women include farms with female primary operators that do not 

meet the definitions of targeted farmers. The “all other farms” category includes farms where 

women are not primary operators. Totals may not sum to 100 due to rounding. 

Source: ERS calculations based on USDA’s 2007 Agricultural Resource Management Survey, 

Phase III, conducted by the National Agricultural Statistics Service and the Economic 

Research Service.
6

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 1

Number of farms and production value, by farm typology and farmer status, 2007

 Large

 Residential Farming family Nonfamily

Item Retirement and lifestyle occupation Total farms farms All farms

All farms:

Total farms (number) 408,306 1,004,679 535,779 1,948,764 205,368 42,633# 2,196,766

Percent of all farms 18.6 45.7 24.4 88.7 9.4 1.9 100

Percent of small family farms 21.0 51.6 27.5 100 — — — 

Value of production 

 (percent of U.S. total) 1.5 4.2 11.1 16.8 67.5 15.7 100

All BF, LR, and SDA farmers:2

Total farms (number) 166,692 335,229 150,088 652,009 16,993 8,002 # 677,005

Percent of all BF, LR,

 and SDA farmers 24.6 49.5 22.2 96.3 2.5 1.2 100

Percent of small family farms 25.6 51.4 23 100 — — — 

Value of production 

 (percent of U.S. total) 0.4 0.9 1.6 2.9 6.8 2.7 12.4

Beginning farmers:

Total farms (number) 47,582 254,190 54,089 355,861 13,715 7,252 A 376,829

Percent of all beginning farmers 12.6 67.5 14.4 94.4 3.6 1.9 100

Percent of small family farms 13.4 71.4 15.2 100 — — — 

Value of production 

 (percent of U.S. total) 0.1 0.7 0.7 1.5 4.8 1.6 7.8

Limited-resource farmers:

Total farms (number) 120,333 49,328 85,331 254,992 0 0 254,992

Percent of all limited-resource 

 farmers 47.2 19.3 33.5 100 0 0 100

Percent of small family farms 47.2 19.3 33.5 100 — — — 

Value of production 

 (percent of U.S. total) 0.2 0.1 0.8 1.1 0 0 1.1

Socially disadvantaged farmers:

Total farms (number) 16,842 72,388 24,677 113,907 4,129 818 # 118,854

Percent of all SDA farmers 14.2 60.9 20.8 95.8 3.5 0.7 100.0

Percent of small family farms 14.8 63.6 21.7 100 — — — 

Value of production

 (percent of U.S. total) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 2.5 1.2 4.2

Socially disadvantaged farmers, 

 including women in the defi nition:

Total farms (number) 81,048 183,439 76,965 341,452 8,992 3,940 ## 354,383

Percent of all SDA farmers 22.9 51.8 21.7 96.4 2.5 1.1 100

Percent of small family farms 23.7 53.7 22.5 100 — — — 

Value of production 

 (percent of U.S. total) 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.1 4.1 1.6 6.8

Other farmer types: 3

Total farms (number) 241,614 669,450 385,691 1,296,755 188,375 34,631 # 1,519,761

Percent of all other farmer types 15.9 44.0 25.4 85.3 12.4 2.3 100

Percent of small family farms 18.6 51.6 29.7 100 — — — 

Value of production 

 (percent of U.S. total) 1.1 3.3 9.5 13.9 60.7 13.0 87.6

 # Coeffi cient of variation (CV=Standard Error / Estimate) is between 25 percent and 50 percent; ## CV is between 50 percent and 75 percent.

— Data not applicable. BF=Beginning farmers; LR=Limited-resource farmers; SDA=Socially disadvantaged farmers.

Note: Totals may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

1Small family farms include all farms with less than $250,000 in gross sales.

2Includes all farms operated by beginning, limited resource, or socially disadvantaged farmers. Does not include farms operated by women who 

do not meet other defi nitions of socially disadvantaged farmers. Some farmers may fi t the defi nition of more than one category and are included in 

the counts for each.

3Includes all farms that do not meet the defi nition of beginning, limited-resource, or socially disadvantaged farmers. Includes farms operated by 

women who do not meet other defi nitions of socially disadvantaged farmers.

Source: ERS calculations based on USDA’s 2007 Agricultural Resource Management Survey, Phase III, version 1, conducted by the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service and the Economic Research Service.

Small family farms1
7

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 2

Selected farm characteristics and fi nancial indicators, by farmer status, 2007

Selected farmer types1 Other farmer types2

 Socially 

Limited Socially disadvantaged, Beginning Small family All

Item resource disadvantaged including women farmer farms farms

Acres operated:

Mean (average) 153 314 234 163 270 509

Median 75 48 49 41 94 118

Percent of U.S. farmland 4.3 4.5 9.5 6.8 38.6 85.2

Percent of U.S. cropland 3.4 2.1 5.3 5.6 34.1 89.2

Percent of group

Tenure:

Full owner 78.7 68.7 78.6 77.6 65.8 59.9

Part owner 14.4 20.9 16.3 13.1 29.7 34.2

Tenant D 10.4# 5.1# 9.3 4.5 5.9

Commodity specialization:3

Livestock 47.5 53.2 44.4 43.9 45.4 44.5

Crop 24.4 26.1 20.4 26.6 29.8 33.8

Type of crop—

Field crops 18.8 12.1# 10.8 21.0 23.8 27.3

High value crops4 D 14.0 9.6 5.6 6.0 6.5

Whole farm CRP/WRP5 D D D D 1.7 1.5

Zero value of production 25.9 20.4 33.2 28.1 23.2 20.2

Sales class:6

$0 sales 17.6 17.6 23.6 20.4 15.8 13.6

$1 to $49,999 77.4 70.4 67.0 69.3 65.5 56.7

$50,000 to $99,999 D 4.6# 3.8 3.4 8.9 8.0

$100,000 to $174,999 D 1.9# 1.7 1.8 5.9 5.1

$175,000 to $499,999 0.0 3.0 2.2 2.9 4.0 9.5

$500,000 or more 0.0 2.6 1.0 2.3 0.0 7.1

Financial indicators:

Net farm business income 

 (average $) 2,448# 19,831# 10,810# 9,975 9,992 45,004

Net farm business income, 

 less conservation payments 

 (average $) 1,972# 19,497# 10,070# 9,475 9,089 43,842

Median net farm business 

 income 2,409# D 911## 673# 4,006 5,634

Operating expense ratio7 1.25 0.82 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.76

Debt to asset ratio8 0.03 0.09 0.07 0.12 0.04 0.08

Percent of household income 

 from off-farm sources9 182.2 91.4 101.0 103.2 102.7 81.6

 # Coeffi cient of variation (CV=Standard Error / Estimate) is between 25 percent and 50 percent; ##CV is between 50 percent and 75 percent.

CRP=Conservation Reserve Program; WRP= Wetlands Reserve Program.

D = Not reportable due to small sample size or estimate validity concerns. 

1The farmer categories are not mutually exclusive (fi g. 1).

2Includes all farms that do not meet the defi nition of beginning, limited resource, or socially disadvantaged farmers. Includes farms operated by 

women who do not meet other defi nitions of socially disadvantaged farmers. 

3Commodity that accounts for at least half of the farm’s value of production.

4Vegetables, fruits and tree nuts, and nursery and greenhouse.

5Defi ned as farms with all acres operated enrolled in CRP or WRP and no production.

6Sales classes are defi ned by gross farm sales, which include crop and livestock sales (regardless of who has claim on it), plus shares of production and government payments. For more detail, see Hoppe et al. (2007, p. 40). 

7Total cash operating expenses divided by total gross cash farm income.

8Total liabilities divided by total assets.

9Calculated as (total off-farm household income divided by total household income)*100.

Source: ERS calculations based on USDA’s 2007 Agricultural Resource Management Survey, Phase III, conducted by the National Agricultural 

Statistics Service and the Economic Research Service.
8

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

sales, a larger proportion of socially disadvantaged farmers focus on highvalue specialty crops, such as vegetables, fruits and tree nuts, and nursery 

and greenhouse products. 

Various measures of fi nancial performance reveal that not all targeted 

farmers are alike, and some are more likely to face issues that prevent them 

from adopting conservation practices. Limited-resource farmers may be more 

likely to face liquidity constraints due to lower net farm income and a higher 

operating expense ratio compared with other farmer types (table 2). Limitedresource farmers rely most heavily on off-farm income, the majority of which 

comes from unearned sources (Social Security, pensions, dividends, interest, 

and rent) (Hoppe et al., 2007). Most socially disadvantaged and beginning 

farmers operate residential farms, and most of their off-farm income comes 

from earned wages or self-employment (Hoppe et al., 2007). 

Targeted farmers are located across the United States, but some geographical 

concentration exists. The proportion of farms owned by beginning farmers 

ranges from 4 percent to 50 percent across U.S. counties, with higher 

proportions concentrated in Texas, Arizona, Colorado, and Florida (Ahearn 

and Newton, 2009). Socially disadvantaged farmers appear dispersed as 

a whole, but a large majority of African American farms are found in the 

South, and most American Indian farmers are found west of the Mississippi 

River. Farms operated by Asian/Pacifi c Islander operators are concentrated 

in California and Hawaii, while Hispanic-operated farms are concentrated 

in California, Colorado, Florida, New Mexico, and Texas (Dismukes et al., 

1997a, 1997b). 
9

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

Conservation Programs Available 

to Targeted Farmers

All farmers have the opportunity to participate in Federal conservation 

programs, as long as they meet program eligibility requirements. Certain 

program provisions are specifi cally designed to increase access to workinglands programs for targeted farmers and ranchers. Understanding the differences in program incentives, eligibility, and purpose help explain observed 

patterns of program participation by members of these groups.

Federal agricultural conservation programs use a voluntary approach to 

improve environmental conditions related to agricultural production. Federal 

conservation funding is divided among land retirement, working-lands 

conservation, land preservation, and technical assistance programs. Of these, 

the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program (EQIP), and Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) are the three largest 

programs and constitute about 70 percent of USDA conservation spending 

(see box, “Major Federal Conservation Programs”). 

Conservation programs use different approaches to address environmental concerns. Some goals of the major Federal conservation programs 

are similar—including reducing soil erosion, improving water and air quality, 

and enhancing wildlife habitat—but the approaches used to achieve these 

goals are different. The CRP and WRP seek to improve environmental 

quality by retiring environmentally sensitive land from production. EQIP 

helps producers address environmental concerns by providing fi nancial assistance to install conservation structures and adopt management practices on 

agricultural lands that remain in production.

Some farmers may be more likely than others to participate in land retirement 

than in working lands programs, although many farmers may participate in 

both. The CRP and WRP have historically been popular, in part, because of 

the steady source of income that producers can receive from annual rental 

payments. Retired farmers and operators whose primary occupation is not 

farming may be more likely than other farmers to retire land and enroll in 

CRP and more likely to use land retirement conservation practices than 

working-lands practices (Lambert et al., 2006). As a working-lands program, 

EQIP may be most attractive to producers who want to improve environmental performance without reducing the operation’s productive capacity, 

who operate land that is not eligible for CRP or WRP enrollment, who apply 

to CRP or WRP but are not accepted, or who favor shorter term conservation 

program contracts. 

EQIP and land retirement programs have different enrollment methods 

and criteria. In CRP, highly erodible land is eligible for enrollment if it has 

been planted with an agricultural commodity (including alfalfa and other 

multi-year grasses and legumes in rotation) in 4 of the 6 crop years prior 

to 2002 or is located in a designated conservation priority area.5 In general 

signups, which account for the vast majority of enrolled acreage, applications from across the country are pooled, ranked, and selected according 

to an Environmental Benefi ts Index (EBI) score (see box, “Major Federal 

Conservation Programs”). Rental payments received by the producer are 

5The 2008 Farm Act requires planting in 4 of the 6 years prior to 2008. 

Land coming out of CRP is considered 

planted, unless it is in trees.
10

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

Established by the 1985 Food Security Act, the CRP seeks to 

provide environmental benefi ts by encouraging the planting of 

long-term, resource-conserving covers, such as trees or native 

grasses, on marginal and environmentally sensitive retired 

agricultural land. In exchange, producers receive an annual 

rental payment over the term of a 10- or 15-year contract, 

as well as cost-share payments to offset part of the cost of 

installing conservation measures.

Producers can enroll land under either a competitive general 

signup or noncompetitive continuous signup. Under the 

competitive signup process, each parcel of land proposed for 

enrollment is assigned an Environmental Benefi ts Index (EBI) 

score. The EBI accounts for multiple environmental benefi ts 

that would be provided and the expected cost of the contract 

(USDA-FSA, 2008). Individual scores are calculated for 

each of the six factors in the EBI: benefi ts from soil erosion 

reduction, water quality benefi ts, wildlife benefi ts, air quality 

benefi ts, cost, and a measure of benefi ts likely to endure past 

the contract termination date. Proposals are nationally ranked 

and selected based on their overall EBI score. Land suitable 

for certain high-priority conservation practices (e.g., grassed 

waterways, fi lter strips, and riparian buffers) and meeting 

eligibility requirements may be enrolled without being subject 

to competitive bidding through a continuous signup.

CRP is the largest Federal conservation program; outlays 

totaled $1.86 billion in 2007 (USDA-FSA, 2008), and 

projected expenditures for 2008-12 total $10.9 billion.1

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

EQIP, established under the Federal Agricultural Improvement 

and Reform Act of 1996, addresses environmental concerns 

by providing incentives and technical help to install conservation structures and management practices on working agricultural lands. EQIP pays a portion of the costs for structural and 

vegetative practices, and most contracts are eligible for costshare payments up to 75 percent of the costs of conservation 

structures. Targeted farmers are eligible for cost-share rates 

25 percent higher than the otherwise applicable rate, up to 

90 percent. EQIP also provides incentive payments covering 

100 percent of the estimated cost of adopting management 

practices for all farmer types.

Funding decisions are made by States or local entities; each 

State determines its own conservation priorities and ranking 

criteria. In some cases, these criteria include targeted farmer 

status. Prior to 2002, producers could bid down payment 

rates to increase the probability of funding. The bidding 

process was eliminated in the 2002 Farm Security and Rural 

Investment Act, so smaller farmers, who were less able to bid 

down payment rates, would not be at a competitive disadvantage (USDA, 2003). 

The duration of EQIP contracts ranges from 1 to 10 years. 

Management practice agreements include incentive payments 

for up to 3 years. A producer can receive up to $300,000 in 

payments for all contracts held over a 6-year period. Total 

EQIP funding was $1 billion in 2007, about 22 percent of 

Federal conservation program funding (USDA-NRCS, 2007); 

projected expenditures for 2008-12 are $7.2 billion.

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)

WRP was established by the 1990 Food, Agriculture, 

Conservation, and Trade Act. It seeks to restore, protect, and 

enhance wetlands by retiring marginal agricultural lands. Land 

enrolled in WRP may be placed in a permanent conservation 

easement or a 30-year easement or may be improved using 

a cost-share restoration agreement. Easement payments may 

not exceed the lowest of the fair market value of the land, a 

geographic payment cap determined by the Secretary, or an 

offer made by the landowner. 

Applications to WRP are scored based on cost and environmental 

considerations. The NRCS State Conservationists have the 

authority to develop scoring criteria and select applications. 

WRP is the smallest of the major conservation programs, 

both in terms of acres enrolled and budget. WRP funding 

was about $227 million in 2007, or about 6 percent of total 

Federal conservation program funding (USDA-NRCS, 2007); 

projected expenditures for 2008-12 are $2.1 billion.

Major Federal Conservation Programs

1Projected expenditures come from ERS calculations based on 

the Congressional Budget Offi ce’s budget score of the 2008 Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act (H.R. 2419).
11

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

determined according to county-level average land rents and soil productivity, but producers can bid payments down to increase their EBI score, 

increasing their chance of selection. 

In WRP, land is eligible for enrollment if it is restorable as a wetland and 

suitable for wildlife benefi ts. WRP funds are allocated to State NRCS offi ces, 

which set enrollment priorities and make enrollment decisions. In CRP and 

WRP, enrollment priority is not given to farmers who are new to farming, 

have limited resources, or are socially disadvantaged. For these programs, 

participation patterns for all farmers can vary, depending on the relationship 

between national (in CRP) or State/sub-State (in WRP) conservation priorities and the resource concerns farmers are willing to address.

Like WRP, EQIP funding is allocated to State NRCS offi ces, and State 

offi ces are given the latitude to determine conservation priorities and whether 

State or sub-State offi ces make enrollment decisions. Unlike WRP or CRP, 

some State offi ces have set aside funds or prioritized enrollments of certain 

farmer types. The 2008 Farm Act mandates that at least 5 percent of all fi nancial assistance in EQIP be made available to beginning farmers and another 5 

percent be made available to socially disadvantaged farmers. The legislation 

specifi es a national threshold and does not require each State or sub-State 

offi ce to adopt the same threshold. 

Targeted farmers qualify for higher payment rates in EQIP. EQIP also 

includes favorable payment terms to encourage participation by targeted 

farmers, while CRP and WRP contain no such provisions. In EQIP, all 

participants can receive fi nancial assistance of up to 75 percent of the cost 

of installing structural and vegetative practices and 100 percent of the cost 

of adopting conservation management practices. Since 2002, beginning and 

limited-resource farmers have been eligible to receive up to 90 percent of 

the cost of structural and vegetative practices (although not all States offered 

the higher rates to these farmers). Under the 2008 Farm Act, socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers became eligible for the higher EQIP rates for 

these practices, and all three targeted groups became eligible for cost-share 

rates that were at least 25 percent higher than would otherwise be applicable, 

up to 90 percent of the cost. 
12

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

To What Extent Do Targeted Farmers 

Participate in Conservation Programs?

Many factors can affect farmers’ decisions to participate in conservation 

programs, including whether the fi nancial benefi ts from enrolling exceed 

the costs, the type and severity of environmental problems they face, and 

whether they believe their chances of being accepted will offset the transaction costs of enrolling. Analyzing enrollment patterns can illuminate whether 

different types of farmers participate in these programs to different degrees. 

Beginning and limited-resource farmers may be under-represented in 

EQIP, but representation in CRP and WRP is less clear. Participation in 

EQIP can be measured for farms operated by beginning farmers and limitedresource farmers—the two groups for which data on farmer status were 

collected during our study period (fi g. 4).6 These two groups operated about 

27 percent of all farms, but were associated with only 12 percent of EQIP 

contracts and received 15 percent of EQIP fi nancial assistance payments.7

Data on the number of acres operated by type of EQIP participant were 

not available, so evaluating participation by this measure was not possible. 

Also, although limited-resource farmers were about twice as likely to report 

farming as their major occupation than beginning farmers, they were no more 

likely to participate in EQIP. 

The extent to which particular farmer types participate in land retirement 

programs depends on how participation is measured. When participation 

is measured based on enrolled acres, the data suggest targeted farmers are 

proportionally represented in these conservation programs. These farmers 

operated nearly 15 percent of farmland acres and controlled 17 percent of 

acres enrolled in CRP and WRP in 2007 (fi g. 5). On the other hand, these 

6Although we are not able to identify 

socially disadvantaged farmers in the 

EQIP contract data, we are able to determine which contracts are on or near 

Indian reservations. See box, “EQIP 

Participation on American Indian Reservations.”

7Some farms have more than one 

EQIP contract. However, counting contracts instead of farms does not appear 

to bias the representation of beginning 

and limited-resource producers.

Figure 4

Share of farms, acres operated, and participation in EQIP, 

by producer type

Percent

Beginning or limited-resource farmers All other farms

All farms Acres operated EQIP contracts EQIP payments

0

20

40

60

80

100

27.3

84.9

15.1 11.0 11.5

88.5 89.0

72.7

EQIP= Environmental Quality Incentives Program.

Sources: ERS calculations based on USDA’s 2007 Agricultural Resource Management 

Survey Phase III, conducted by the National Agricultural Statistics Service and the Economic 

Research Service (all farms and acres operated); USDA-NRCS contract data, fiscal 2006 

(EQIP contracts and EQIP payments). NRCS contract data identifies beginning and limitedresource farmers, but not socially disadvantaged status.
13

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

farmers operated 31 percent of all farms, but they operated only 22 percent 

of farms enrolled in CRP or WRP. Taken together, the data suggest that, 

although disproportionately fewer of these farmers enroll land in land retirement programs, those that do enroll tend to enroll more of their land. 

Comparing payment patterns across programs suggests that participation rates 

by beginning and limited-resource farmers were not clearly higher in EQIP 

than in CRP/WRP (data on socially disadvantaged farmer participation in 

EQIP are not available). These two groups of farmers received similar proportions of payments in both programs (15.1 percent in EQIP and 15.0 percent in 

CRP/WRP). The proportions are similar despite the eligibility of beginning and 

limited-resource farmers for more favorable payment terms in EQIP since 2002 

and their enrollment priority in some States. However, a gap between EQIP 

and CRP/WRP, in terms of these farmers’ participation rates (as measured by 

payments), could have existed without the favorable terms. A gap might also 

have existed if a CRP eligibility requirement that all land offered for retirement be previously cropped 4 of the 6 crop years prior to 2002 had not been 

in effect (USDA-FSA, 2008). A signifi cantly smaller proportion of beginning 

and limited-resource farmers specialize in crop production (table 2), so fewer 

of these farmers qualify for CRP enrollment. The relative sizes of the programs 

may also matter. CRP and WRP expenditures exceeded EQIP expenditures by 

at least 2 to 1 in recent years, so land retirement programs were able to enroll 

more participants of all types. A preference for land retirement programs may 

be due, in part, to beginning and limited-resource farmers fi nding reduced 

labor requirements of land retirement practices more appealing (Claassen et al., 

2007; Lambert et al., 2006).8

8It is possible that preferences for 

particular programs may be driven 

more by farm size than farmer type. 

Data on the size of EQIP participant 

farms are not available, precluding us 

from drawing conclusions about the 

impact of farm size.

Figure 5

Share of farms, acres operated, and CRP or WRP participation, by producer type

Percent

* Coefficient of variation is between 25 percent and 50 percent.

BF=Beginning farmers; LR=Limited-resource farmers; SDA=Socially disadvantaged farmers.

CRP=Conservation Reserve Program; WRP=Wetlands Reserve Program.

Notes: Farms operated by women include farms with female primary operators who do not meet the definitions of beginning, limited-resource, or 

socially disadvantaged farmers. The “all other farms” category includes farms where women are not primary operators. Totals may not sum to 

100 due to rounding.

Source: ERS calculations based on USDA’s 2007 Agricultural Resource Management Survey, Phase III, conducted by the National Agricultural 

Statistics Service and the Economic Research Service. 

All farms Farms in 

CRP/WRP

Acres operated Acres operated 

by CRP/WRP

participants

Acres

enrolled in

CRP/WR

CRP/WRP

payments

0

20

40

60

80

100

Farms operated by BF, LR, and SDA farmers Farms operated by women All other farms

30.8 5.2*

5.6* 5.8*

63.2 70.4 81.2 85.7 77.0

21.9 14.8 9.1

17.4

78.2

15.8

6.0

7.7

4.0*
14

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

Although much of this report focuses on the enrollment 

patterns of different types of farmers, it is also important to examine conservation programs in certain types 

of communities or geographic areas. This places more 

emphasis on where conservation practices are adopted 

and what types of communities may accrue environmental benefi ts from conservation programs.

As an example, we examined EQIP participation and 

practice adoption on American Indian reservations and 

trust land. Reservation communities may be considered 

disadvantaged by a variety of measures, including household income and poverty rates, educational attainment, 

health outcomes (Ward et al., 2004), and food security (Gundersen, 2008). Whether this characterization 

extends to the environmental benefi ts derived from 

EQIP is not clear; the characteristics that defi ne a 

community as disadvantaged may not be closely associated with factors that determine EQIP participation 

and practice adoption. For example, farmers on reservations are not necessarily disadvantaged; reservation 

farmland may be leased to non-American Indian farm 

operators, and farm operators who are American Indian 

may not share the characteristics of other nonfarmers in 

the community. 

By comparing EQIP administrative data with the established borders of reservations from the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, we determined which EQIP contracts were 

within the borders of American Indian reservations. 

EQIP participation and farm characteristics, by location on or off American Indian reservations 

or tribal trust land

EQIP participation Contracts on reservation 

farmland

Contracts off reservation 

farmland1

All contracts2

Number of contracts 641 14,707 39,030

Percent of contracts associated with BF or LR 21.2 10.8 11.5

BF or LR contracts:

Median total contract payment ($) 28,428 17,365 8,618

Percent of total payments to BF or LRP contracts 1.7 13.5 15.1

Contracts with other farmer types:

Median total contract payment ($) 18,048 12,144 12,245

Percent of total payments 4.5 80.3 84.9

Selected farm characteristics3 Farms operating 

reservation farmland

Farms not operating 

on reservations4 All farms

Average acres operated 479* 592 582

Percent of total acres operated 7.7 92.3 100

Percent of farms 9.3 90.7 100

Average value of production ($) 80,415* 167,803 159,682

EQIP=Environmental Quality incentives Program; BF = Beginning farmer; LR = Limited resource farmer. 

*Indicates signifi cant differences between reservation and nonreservation farms based on pairwise two-tailed delete-a-group jackknife tstatistics at the 90-percent confi dence level. See Kott, 2001. 

1Includes contracts in States where there are reservation contracts: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, 

and Wyoming. 

2Includes all contracts in all States from 2006. 

3Calculated using the 2007 Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) Phase III. 

4The comparison group for ARMS is not directly comparable with the EQIP contract data, although ARMS is designed to provide nationally 

representative estimates. Includes farms in the following States: Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, 

Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Source: Economic Research Service.

EQIP Participation on American Indian Reservations
15

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

Nationwide, 641 contracts in 2006 were on a reservation, or about 2 percent of all contracts. We then 

compared these reservation contracts with contracts 

outside American Indian reservation borders.

Contracts on reservations received larger total payments 

from EQIP contracts than contracts off reservations. The 

median total contract payment was between $6,000 and 

$11,000 larger on reservations, even after accounting 

for differences between beginning and limited-resource 

farmers and other farmers. Beginning and limitedresource farmers are eligible for higher cost-share rates, 

which may result in larger payments for the same size 

practice. In this case, the scale of practices may account 

for a portion of the larger payments on reservations. 

Calculating the average sizes of the most common structural practices (e.g., fences and pipelines) confi rm that 

contracts on reservations tend to involve larger structures. Some evidence suggests that larger payments and 

practices may yield greater environmental benefi ts, at 

least when addressing certain environmental concerns 

(Wu et al., 2004). To the extent that this relationship 

holds for EQIP participants, per contract environmental 

benefi ts may be greater for reservation contracts.

Farms on reservations are less likely to be enrolled in 

EQIP than nonreservation farms. Reservations account 

for about 9.3 percent of farms and 7.7 percent of operated farmland in the comparison States, but about 4.2 

percent of EQIP contracts and 6.2 percent of EQIP 

funding in 2006. Participation in EQIP depends on 

a variety of landscape and farm-level factors, so it is 

diffi cult to say if under-representation in this case 

amounts to being underserved. For example, contracts 

on reservations are less likely to be associated with 

cropland that is designated as highly erodible. Underrepresentation in EQIP may refl ect differences in environmental conditions that make participation less likely 

on reservation farms.

Are American Indian reservations less likely to accrue 

benefi ts from participation in EQIP? The results suggest 

a mixed conclusion. Reservation farms appear to be 

under-represented in EQIP, but this fact alone is not 

conclusive. EQIP contracts on reservation farmland are 

more likely to be associated with beginning or limitedresource farmers and to be eligible for higher cost-share 

rates. The higher cost-share rates may encourage participation among farmers who might not otherwise be 

able to participate in EQIP. Also, the typical contracts 

in EQIP are larger and may provide greater environmental benefi ts per contract on reservations. Contracts 

on reservation farmland also appear to address different 

environmental issues, which suggests that the benefi ts 

derived from EQIP contracts are different for reservation communities. Reservation contracts are less likely 

to address soil erosion and water quality problems and 

more likely to address issues related to plant condition 

and domestic animals. Addressing different environmental concerns may also affect the cost and the size 

of practices. A variety of factors, however, infl uence 

the benefi ts derived from conservation practices, and 

further study is needed to examine how these factors 

may be related to the distribution of environmental 

benefi ts from EQIP.
16

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

Another program design difference between working lands and land retirement programs could affect relative participation patterns across programs. 

Applicants in CRP and WRP can bid down the amount of payment they are 

willing to accept to improve their chances of enrollment, but bidding has not 

been allowed in EQIP since 2002 due to perceptions that it favored larger 

or more well off farmers (USDA, 2003). Beginning and limited-resource 

farmers’ participation at similar rates in land retirement programs—programs 

where bidding is allowed—raises questions about whether bidding puts these 

farmers at a competitive disadvantage. Allowing producers to bid down the 

payments can improve program cost effectiveness, when enrollment priority 

is given to producers who could provide environmental benefi ts most cost 

effectively. However, many factors affect decisions about participation in 

working lands and land retirement programs (Lambert et al., 2006), and 

further studies would need to account for these characteristics to determine 

whether bidding options do affect participation rates. 

Targeted farmers across the United States enroll in conservation 

programs, but variation across regions suggests national policies could 

have geographically uneven impacts. In EQIP, beginning farmers held 

nearly 3,300 (8 percent) of the approximately 39,000 total contracts initiated 

in 2006. The Southern Plains and Corn Belt regions have the greatest number 

of EQIP contracts (31 percent of all contracts), but the greatest concentration 

of beginning-farmer contracts (31 percent of beginning-farmer contracts) 

is found in the Delta and Mountain regions. Beginning farmers in the Lake 

States and Southern Plains regions were least likely to participate in EQIP, 

where they represented 20 percent and 27 percent of the farm population 

respectively, but held only 3-5 percent of EQIP contracts (fi g. 6). In Alaska, 

Hawaii, and the outlying areas in the Pacifi c Basin and the Caribbean (U.S. 

Figure 6

Beginning farmers in the farm population and as a share of EQIP contracts, by region

Percent of contracts/farms

* Farm data for Alaska and Hawaii and outlying areas in the Pacific Basin and the Caribbean not available in ARMS. 

EQIP=Environmental Quality Incentives Program.

Sources: ERS calculations based on USDA’s pooled 2005-07 Agricultural Resource Management Survey, Phase III, conducted by the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service and the Economic Research Service (farm population); USDA-NRCS contract data, fiscal 2006 (EQIP contracts). 

Farms operated by beginning farmers EQIP contracts with beginning farmers

All regions

Northeast

Lake States

Corn Belt

Northern Plains

Appalachia

Southeast

Delta

Southern Plains

Mountain

Pacific

Alaska/Hawaii*

Pacific Basin/Caribbean*

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45
17

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

territories), at least 35 percent of the contracts were held by beginning 

farmers. While comprising a large proportion of contracts in these areas, 

relatively few contracts (186 contracts) were written in these regions, so their 

impact on beginning farmer participation nationwide is small. 

The highest concentration of EQIP contracts with limited-resource producers 

is located in the Delta region (310 of 1,373 contracts with limited-resource 

producers initiated in 2006) (fi g. 7). The U.S. territories also play an important role in limited-resource producer contracts, both in terms of numbers and 

as a percentage of contracts in the region. In 2006, 174 contracts were written 

with limited-resource farmers in the Pacifi c Basin and Caribbean, and these 

contracts represent over 50 percent of all contracts held by farmers in the 

U.S. territories.

In CRP and WRP, 18 percent of all contracts were held by beginning farmers 

during the 2005-07 period, and these farmers participated in proportions 

similar to that of the farm population in a few regions (fi g. 8). In the Delta 

region, land retirement programs were popular with beginning farmers. 

These farmers represented 17 percent of the farmer population and operated 

about 14 percent of the acres, but accounted for 23 percent of CRP/WRP 

participants and about 35 percent of acres enrolled in the region. 

In land retirement programs, notable differences also exist in regional participation patterns for limited-resource and socially disadvantaged farmers. 

During 2005-07, these farmers in the Appalachian and Southern Plains 

regions were more likely to be enrolled in CRP/WRP (fi g. 9). About 28 

percent of CRP/WRP participants in these regions are limited-resource or 

socially disadvantaged farmers, but they comprise only 16-22 percent of 

the farmer population. The Southern Plains region includes States with a 

* Farm data for Alaska and Hawaii and outlying areas in the Pacific Basin and the Caribbean not available in ARMS.

LR=Limited-resource farmers; EQIP=Environmental Quality Incentives Program.

Sources: ERS calculations based on USDA’s pooled 2005-07 Agricultural Resource Management Survey, Phase III, conducted by the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service and the Economic Research Service (farm population); USDA-NRCS contract data, fiscal 2006 (EQIP contracts).

Farms operated by LR farmers EQIP contracts with LR farmers

All regions

Northeast

Lake States

Corn Belt

Northern Plains

Appalachia

Southeast

Delta

Southern Plains

Mountain

Pacific

Alaska/Hawaii*

Pacific Basin/Caribbean*

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Figure 7

Limited-resource farmers in the farm population and as a share of EQIP contracts, by region

Percent of contracts/farms
18

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

fair number of CRP contracts, so in addition to a high percentage of enrollments, limited-resource producers are likely to hold a large number of CRP 

contracts in this region (USDA-FSA, 2008).

The geographic distribution of targeted farmers may be most relevant when 

analyzing the impact of nationally specifi ed program requirements. For 

example, the “conservation access” provision of the 2008 Farm Act that 

establishes a 5-percent set aside of EQIP funds for beginning and socially 

disadvantaged farmers is a national threshold, but the provision may have a 

larger impact on enrollment if administered at the regional level. Nationwide, 

beginning farmers received more than 10 percent of EQIP funding over the 

2004-06 period, but within a few regions, payments to beginning farmers fell 

below the 5-percent threshold. 

CRP=Conservation Reserve Program; WRP=Wetlands Reserve Program.

Source: ERS calculations based on USDA’s pooled 2005-07 Agricultural Resource Management Survey, Phase III, conducted by the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service and the Economic Research Service.

Farms operated by beginning farmers Beginning farmers participating in CRP/WRP

Figure 8

Beginning farmers/ranchers as a share of farm population and CRP/WRP participants, by region

Percent of farms/participants

All

regions

NortheastLake

States

Corn

Belt

Northern

Plains

Appalachia SoutheastDelta Southern

Plains

Mountain Pacific

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

* Coefficient of variation is between 25 percent and 50 percent.

LR=Limited-resource farmers; SDA=Socially disadvantaged farmers.

Source: ERS calculations based on USDA’s pooled 2005-07 Agricultural Resource Management Survey, Phase III, conducted by the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service and the Economic Research Service.

Farms operated by LR/SDA farmers LR/SDA participants in CRP/WRP

Figure 9

Limited-resource and socially disadvantaged farmers as a share of farm population 

and CRP/WRP participants, by region

Percent of farms/participants

All

regions

NortheastLake

States

Corn

Belt

Northern

Plains

Appalachia SoutheastDelta Southern

Plains

Mountain Pacific

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

*
19

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

How Do Targeted Farmers Use 

Conservation Programs?

Producers who participate in conservation programs employ a variety of 

practices to mitigate environmental problems that arise as a byproduct of 

agricultural production. Producers will choose the problems they want to 

address and practices they want to implement that best meet their needs, 

provide the greatest fi nancial returns, and are likely to receive funding from 

conservation program managers. Examining natural resource characteristics 

and enrollment data highlight whether targeted farmers participate in 

conservation programs differently than other farmer types. 

EQIP

Do beginning and limited-resource farmers participating in EQIP 

operate more environmentally sensitive land? Some evidence suggests 

“yes.” While precise data on the underlying physical characteristics of land 

receiving treatment through EQIP-funded practices are not available, we can 

characterize two aspects of the land in the general vicinity of EQIP contracts: 

soil erodibility and proximity to quality-impaired waters.9 When examining 

correlations between producer types and highly erodible soils, we limited 

our analysis to four States—Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi (States in the 

Delta region), and Alabama—because of the computational burden involved 

in associating soils data with EQIP contracts. These States were selected 

because they have both a relatively large number of EQIP contracts (each had 

more than 1,000 contracts signed in 2006) and a minimum of about 5 percent 

of contracts each with beginning and limited-resource producers.

When examining the relationship between EQIP contracts and qualityimpaired waters, we used national-level data. We determined proximity of 

farms to streams and water bodies with pollution problems by using hydrologic data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s database on 

waters considered impaired under the Clean Water Act. These distance 

measures were used for all EQIP contracts in the continental United States. 

Using 2006 EQIP contract data, our analysis reveals:10 

• In the Delta region, beginning-farmer contracts were located in areas 

with signifi cantly greater average percentages of highly erodible land 

(54 percent) compared with contracts with other farmer types (47 

percent).

• For limited-resource producers in the Delta region, an average of 50 

percent of nearby land was highly erodible, which was not statistically 

different from the percentage for other farmer types.

• Nationally, both beginning and limited-resource farmer contracts tended 

to be located in areas signifi cantly closer, on average, to impaired waters 

than contracts with other farmer types. 

These analyses suggest that of those with EQIP contracts, beginning farmers 

in the Delta region may be located in areas that are more marginally productive compared with other farmer types, but that limited-resource farmers may 

9Geographic data on the location of 

farms with EQIP contracts, State-level 

estimates of farm size, and Soil Survey 

Geographic (SSURGO) data allow us 

to identify highly erodible soils in the 

“neighborhood” of EQIP contracts. Here, 

we defi ne the neighborhood as the average farm size in the State using ARMS 

data, and we allow this average to vary 

by farmer type if targeted farmers have 

farms signifi cantly larger or smaller than 

other farmer types in the State.

10All tests described here are statistically signifi cant at a 99-percent confi -

dence level using a two-tailed t-test.
20

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

not necessarily operate in areas with more erodible soils. Limited-resource 

farmers may be more likely to occupy more productive land than beginning farmers because a larger percentage of limited-resource farmers report 

farming as their major occupation and thus may seek to farm less highly 

erodible land. Producer characteristics and the underlying qualities of the 

land they operate can vary substantially across regions of the country, so 

additional analysis could determine if the correlations with erodible land in 

the Delta region are representative of the United States. The national analysis 

of a farm’s proximity to impaired waters revealed that both beginning and 

limited-resource farmers may be operating in more environmentally sensitive 

areas than other farmers.

Beginning and limited-resource farmers participating in EQIP have 

different conservation priorities from other participants. When different 

types of producers face different environmental problems, the greatest 

conservation program benefi ts can be reaped when their particular problems 

are treated. The resource concerns treated with EQIP funds depend on the 

producer’s willingness to treat the problem, as well as government priorities. 

Eight broad categories of resource issues are addressed through EQIP: 

1. Air quality. 

2. Domestic animal needs. 

3. Fish and wildlife. 

4. Plant productivity/quality. 

5. Soil condition. 

6. Soil erosion. 

7. Water quality. 

8. Water quantity. 

Of these, the four most frequently addressed issues are domestic animal 

needs, plant productivity/quality, soil erosion, and water quality, which are 

treated by more than 85 percent of all EQIP contracts.

Of the four most commonly addressed resource issues, beginning and limitedresource farmers enrolled in 2006 were more likely to address plant productivity/quality issues and domestic animal forage and health needs compared 

with other participating farmer types (table 3). Limited-resource farmers 

appeared less likely to address water quality problems compared with beginning farmers or other farmer types, even though our analysis revealed that 

they tended to be located closer to quality-impaired waters than other program 

participants. Only 25 percent of limited-resource farmers address water quality, 

while 36-38 percent of beginning and other farmer types do. 

These data suggest that farmer groups have different priorities for treating 

resource problems. They also suggest that a closer look at whether particular 

constraints prevent limited-resource farmers from treating water quality problems may be warranted. A similar proportion of beginning-farmer contracts 

treated water quality problems compared with other farmer types in EQIP, 

even though other farmer types are larger and face more regulatory requirements for reducing water pollution under the Clean Water Act. 
21

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

Beginning farmers had more expensive EQIP contracts compared with 

other participating farmer types, while limited-resource farmers had less 

expensive contracts. Beginning and limited-resource farmers in EQIP have 

somewhat different resource priorities than other participating farmer types, 

and costs differ as well. On average, beginning farmers enrolled in EQIP had 

signifi cantly more costly contracts overall ($33,682 compared with $28,883, 

including both producer and government share of the costs) and received 

larger EQIP payments (the government share of the costs was $26,646 

compared with $18,056) (table 4). Because EQIP funds a larger portion of 

the costs for beginning farmers to install structural practices, such as fences, 

waste-handling facilities, and vegetative buffers, larger payments to these 

producers are not surprising. Beginning farmers, however, are more likely 

to operate residential, retirement, or smaller farms, and a smaller proportion 

specialize in livestock production compared with other farmer types (see 

tables 1 and 2)—all characteristics that could contribute to smaller payment 

sizes. Livestock producers often install more expensive conservation practices to treat animal-related resource problems. 

Unlike beginning farmers, limited-resource farmers in EQIP tend to have less 

costly contracts overall compared with other farmer types. Limited-resource 

farmers also tend to have smaller farms, on average, in addition to being the 

most likely group of farmers to face liquidity constraints (see table 2).

Beginning and limited-resource farmers received smaller per practice 

EQIP payments and implemented smaller scale practices but adopted 

a greater number of practices. Beginning and limited-resource farmers 

differ from other farmer types in terms of the sizes and types of practices 

funded by EQIP. The average incentive payment per management practice 

was signifi cantly smaller for beginning and limited-resource farmers (table 

4), due to implementation of management practices on a smaller scale. For 

example, beginning farmers implemented nutrient management (the most 

Table 3

Resource concerns addressed with EQIP contracts, by farmer status, 2006

Concern1 Beginning Limited-resource Other farmer

 farmer/rancher farmer/rancher types2

 Percent of EQIP contracts addressing concern

Domestic animal forage and health needs 36 32 22

Plant productivity/quality 44 38 34

Soil erosion 34 38 37

Water quality 38 25 36

Resource concerns per contract3 1.98 1.98 1.7

EQIP=Environmental Quality Incentives Program.

1Remaining four resource concerns not listed are air quality, fi sh and wildlife, soil condition, and water quantity. None of these four issues are 

treated by more than 10 percent of contracts for each group.

2Includes all contracts held by farmers who are neither beginning nor limited-resource farmers 

or ranchers.

3Counts are not weighted by the number of practices implemented to treat the resource concern. If treated by multiple practices, the resource 

concern is counted once to eliminate the effect of multiple practice adoption choices.

Source: ERS analysis of USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service contract data, 

fi scal 2006.
22

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

common management practice) on about 60 percent fewer acres, on average, 

compared with other participating farmer types. Beginning farmers also 

appear to implement this practice at a greater cost per acre.

In contrast to incentive payments for management practices, government 

payments for structural (cost-share) practices were larger for beginning 

farmers than for other participating farmer types, even though beginning 

farmers tended to implement these practices on a smaller scale. Beginning 

farmers are paid at higher cost-share rates, so the Federal Government picks 

up a higher portion of the total practice cost (see table 3). An analysis of 

structural practice sizes by farmer type confi rms that, for two of the most 

common structural practices (e.g., fences and pipelines), beginning farmers 

installed signifi cantly fewer feet of the structures. While higher per practice 

payments suggest that beginning farmers may not be treating environmental 

problems cost effectively, they may also signal that beginning farmers face 

more serious problems that need treatment. Both beginning and limitedresource farmers implemented signifi cantly more cost-shared practices within 

a single contract—3.6 and 3.1 cost-shared practices on average, compared 

with 2.7 cost-shared practices by other farmer types. 

A policy designed to pay a larger portion of the costs of structural and vegetative practices for typical targeted farmers could ease fi nancial constraints 

to adopting certain practices. Such a policy, however, may encourage these 

farmers to adopt more structural and vegetative practices than they would 

otherwise, simply because they face a lower out-of-pocket cost per unit of 

practice installed. While the policy could be a contributing factor, a variety 

Table 4

Average EQIP contract and practice costs, by farmer status, 2006

 Beginning Limited-resource

 farmer/rancher farmer/rancher

 Difference Difference 

 from other from other Other farmer

Item Value farmer types Value farmer types types1

All practices:

Total cost of contracted practices (average $)2 33,682 4,799** 23,242 -5,641** 28,883

Total government payments (average $) 26,646 8,590** 19,175 1,119 18,056

Total producer expenditures (average $) 7,035 -3,791** 4,067 -6,759** 10,827

Practices per contract 4.44 1.4** 3.70 0.66** 3.04

Cost-share practices:

Total cost per practice (average $)2 5,865 -1,514** 5,008 -2,370** 7,378

Government payment per practice (average $) 4,545 390** 4,053 -101 4,155

Producer expenditures per practice (average $) 1,320 -1,904** 955 -2,269** 3,224

Practices per contract 3.64 0.95** 3.10 0.41** 2.69

Share rate (average) 0.76 0.19** 0.82 0.25** 0.57

Management practices:

Government payment per practice (average $) 1,022 -856** 971 -907** 1,878

Practices per contract 1.79 0.19** 1.63 0.03 1.60

EQIP=Environmental Quality Incentives Program.

** Column differences that are signifi cant at the 95-percent level using a two-tailed t-test. Practices per contract are calculated for each group by 

dividing the total number of unique practices by the total number of contracts.

1Includes all contracts held by farmers who are neither beginning nor limited-resource farmers or ranchers.

2Includes government payments and producer expenditures for each practice.

Source: ERS analysis of USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service contract data, fi scal 2006.
23

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

of other factors may explain the higher incidence of cost-shared practices in 

beginning and limited-resource farmer contracts. For example, differences in 

production and household characteristics could matter. Previous research has 

found that the number of structural practices installed was positively associated with land ownership (Lambert et al., 2006), and a larger percentage of 

beginning and limited-resource farmers tend to be full owners of the land 

they operate (see table 2). Differences in opportunities to receive funding for 

practice installation through other national and local government programs 

may also affect practice adoption patterns in EQIP (Feng et al., 2006; Feng et 

al., 2005).

Historically, not all States offered higher cost-share rates to beginning and 

limited-resource farmers. For example, Oregon, Missouri, and Iowa did not 

pay higher cost-share rates to beginning or limited-resource producers in 2006. 

However, the 2008 Farm Act provision mandating that all targeted farmers 

receive a cost-share rate at least 25 percent higher than the normal rate in EQIP 

(up to a maximum share rate of 90 percent) may increase their participation, 

particularly in States that previously offered them no cost-share advantage. 

In addition to a greater number of practices, beginning and limited-resource 

farmers have increasingly adopted cost-shared structural practices in combination with management practices. The proportion of beginning farmers 

using combinations of structural and management practices in EQIP 

increased from 43 percent to about 51 percent during 2004-06 (fi g. 10). The 

proportion of beginning farmers implementing strictly cost-share practices 

through EQIP declined from 52 percent to 42 percent over the same period. 

Practice adoption patterns were similar for limited-resource farmers. The 

practice combinations adopted by other participating farmer types, however, 

remained steadier over this period, with about 31 percent adopting a combination of structural and management practices and 50 percent installing 

strictly structural practices. 

Figure 10

Types of practices implemented in EQIP, 

by beginning farmer status, 2006

Percent of contracts

BF=Beginning farmers.

Source: ERS analysis of USDA-NRCS contract data, fiscal 2006.

2004 2005 2006

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

BF - combination of practice types

Other farmers - combination of practice types

BF - structural practices only

Other farmers - structural practices only
24

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

Beginning farmers are more likely to have longer contracts than other 

program participants. Other farmer types participating in EQIP are more 

likely to have single-year contracts (40 percent compared with 27 percent 

for beginning farmers). Over the 2004-06 period, more beginning farmers 

signed EQIP contracts that lasted at least 4 years (up to 27 percent of farmers 

in 2006), whereas only 17 percent of other farmer types had contracts that 

long. Although the 2002 Farm Act legislation reduced the minimum length 

of EQIP contracts from 5 years to 1 year, the reduction in length appears to 

be less important for beginning farmers. Shorter contract length can reduce 

risks from having long-term obligations to fulfi ll, as well as uncertainty about 

farm returns, which could be considered attractive benefi ts to all farmer 

types (USDA, 2003). Spreading implementation of certain practices over 

more contract years, however, may suit farmers who face labor or capital 

constraints that pose diffi culties for rapid adoption. 

Taken together, these fi ndings reveal that beginning and limited-resource 

farmers participate in working-lands programs in different ways than other 

farmer types. Beginning and limited-resource farmers participating in EQIP 

may be located in areas that are more environmentally sensitive and, in the 

Delta region, more marginally productive compared with other program participants, and they address somewhat different resource issues at different costs. 

CRP and WRP

Analysis of environmental problems, resources receiving treatment, and costs 

incurred by participants suggest that farmer participation in land retirement 

may not follow the same pattern as in EQIP. CRP and WRP involve a different 

set of program incentives that may affect the pattern of enrollment choices. 

Targeted farmers participating in CRP/WRP tend to be concentrated 

in counties with the highest average percentage of cropland designated 

as highly erodible. Other program participants are more likely to be located 

in counties with a lower percentage of land that is highly erodible. This 

distribution of farmers is similar to that between beginning farmers and 

other program participants in EQIP in the Delta region. Contract data do not 

identify producer status in land retirement programs, so only general characterizations are possible using ARMS and the 1997 National Resources 

Inventory data on the erodibility of land. 

Targeted farmers who participate in CRP may be more likely to treat 

soil erosion and water quality problems that provide more environmental benefi ts. Targeted farmers participating in CRP tend to be concentrated in counties where participants, in general, were expected to generate 

the highest soil erosion reduction and water quality benefi ts. Approximately 

44 percent of targeted farmers who participate in CRP/WRP are located 

in counties where participants as a whole generate the highest third of 

Environmental Benefi t Index (EBI) scores for average soil erosion reduction 

benefi ts.11 About 33 percent of other participating farmer types are located in 

those counties. Similarly, about 40 percent of targeted participants in CRP/

WRP farm in counties with the highest third of EBI scores for average water 

quality benefi ts, compared with about 29 percent for other farmer types.12 

11CRP contract data contain information on the environmental problems 

that participants agree to treat in that 

program. The EBI score associated with 

each contract provides a relative ranking 

of the anticipated benefi ts (effectiveness 

of retiring land and installing contracted 

practices) in treating resource problems 

(see box, “Major Federal Conservation 

Programs”). Thus, scores vary by participant, depending on the physical characteristics of the participants’ land and the 

effectiveness of practices that participants 

are willing to adopt. Although these data 

do not distinguish participants by farmer 

type and we cannot precisely identify the 

resource issues targeted farmers agree to 

treat in land retirement programs, the EBI 

allows us to characterize average expected 

benefi ts at a county level. For this analysis, 

we focus on variation in average scores for 

two factors that are part of the contract’s 

EBI: the scores associated with soil erosion reduction and water quality benefi ts.

12The difference between farmer 

types’ concentration in high-EBI-score 

counties was statistically tested using a 

binary Pearson’s chi-square test statistic. The frequency of targeted farmers 

in counties with the highest 10 percent, 

20 percent, and 30 percent of soil erosion and water quality EBI scores was 

signifi cantly different from other farmer 

types at a 99-percent confi dence level.
25

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

Contract costs and practices adopted by targeted farmers participating in 

CRP and WRP share some similarities to contracts with other farmer types, 

but differences exist among particular groups. Beginning farmers received 

land retirement payments that were about $1,400 less than payments to other 

farmer types. This payment difference is statistically signifi cant, but the 

number of acres enrolled was not signifi cantly different.13 The opposite holds 

for limited-resource and socially disadvantaged farmers; average payments 

were not signifi cantly different from those of other farmer types, but the 

average total acres enrolled is signifi cantly larger (table 5). Differences in 

payment and enrolled acreage patterns could exist due to differences in characteristics between these groups of farmers (tables 1 and 2). Unlike EQIP, 

differences in CRP/WRP payments across producer types are not a result of 

special treatment, such as the differential cost-share rates offered to targeted 

farmers in EQIP.

On a per acre basis, targeted farmers received signifi cantly lower CRP/WRP 

payments, relative to other participating farmer types (table 5); per acre 

payments were between 25 percent and 30 percent lower for these farmers. 

Several characteristics could contribute to this per acre difference, including 

concentrations of these farmers in the Southern Plains where payment rates 

are typically low (Ahearn and Newton, 2009). The differences could also 

arise due to underlying infl uences on bidding behavior. CRP and WRP allow 

landowners to bid down the rental payment they are willing to accept to 

improve their chances of enrollment. Many targeted farmers do not farm as 

a primary occupation and rely more heavily on off-farm sources of income 

(table 2). These farmers, in particular, may be willing to bid down the rental 

payment more than other farmer types. 

Targeted farmers enrolled a larger portion of their operated acreage in CRP 

or WRP. The average beginning farmer had more than 54 percent of operated 

acreage enrolled in CRP or WRP; the average limited-resource or socially 

disadvantaged farmer enrolled 57 percent (table 5). A greater percentage 

of targeted farmers tended to be full owners and may fi nd it easier to make 

decisions to retire larger amounts of land under CRP/WRP contracts of 10 

13Payments in land retirement programs include rental payments (CRP), 

easement payments (WRP), and costshare payments for practice installation 

(CRP and WRP). Payments in CRP 

also include the Conservation Reserve 

Enhancement Program (CREP). The 

ARMS data on conservation program 

payments do not readily distinguish 

between the three payment types. This 

fi nding is consistent with Ahearn and 

Newton (2009).

Table 5

CRP/WRP payments and acres enrolled, by farmer status, 2005-071

Beginning Limited-resource or socially 

Item farmer/rancher disadvantaged farmer/rancher Other farmer types2

CRP/WRP payments:

 Total payment received (average $) 4,645* 4,734 5,851

 Payment per acre enrolled (average $) 61.1* 61.2* 75.6

CRP/WRP acreage:

 Total acres enrolled (average) 116.5 102.5 125.8

Share of acres operated enrolled in 

 CRP/WRP (average percent) 54.2* 57.1* 35.5

CRP=Conservation Reserve Program. WRP=Wetlands Reserve Program.

* Signifi cant differences compared with “other farmer types” at the 95-percent level. 

1Observations from 2005-07 are pooled to increase sample size. Includes acres and payments from the Conservation Reserve Enhancement 

Program (CREP).

2Includes those who are not targeted farmers or ranchers. Qualitative results do not change when women are included in the defi nition of socially 

disadvantaged.

Source: ERS calculations based on USDA’s pooled 2005-07 Agricultural Resource Management Survey, Phase III version 1, conducted by the 

National Agricultural Statistics Service and the Economic Research Service.
26

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

years or more (Lambert et al., 2007). Indeed, previous research found tenure 

is positively associated with the proportion of farm acreage enrolled in land 

retirement programs (Lambert et al., 2006). Also, many of these farmers are 

retired and may be more likely to enroll land in land retirement programs 

(Wu, 2004).

Targeted farmers do not implement signifi cantly different types or numbers 

of practices in land retirement programs. Whole-fi eld practices were the most 

common practices among all participants in 2001, according to the most 

recent data available that allows analysis of practice adoption by producer 

type. A larger percentage of targeted farmers retired whole fi elds and rehabilitated land for wildlife needs than other farmer types, and a larger percentage 

adopted a greater number of the listed practices, but these differences were 

not statistically signifi cant (table 6).14 14The 2001ARMS questionnaire 

included questions about types of conservation practices applied. These data 

allow some analysis of adoption patterns of CRP-eligible practices funded 

through land retirement programs, 

although the small sample sizes limit 

the reliability of tests for statistically 

signifi cant differences between farmer 

types. Sample size limitations also preclude analyzing each of the three types 

of underenrolled farmers separately.

Table 6

Practice adoption in CRP and WRP, by farmer status, 2001

Targeted farmers Other farmer types Difference

(A) (B) (A - B)

 Percent of farms

Frequency of practice adoption:

Whole-fi eld enrollment 70.5 63.6 6.9

Grass buffers or waterways 43.9 26.8 17.1

Wildlife habitat 41.3 14.5 26.9

Other (riparian tree buffers, 

 wetland restoration) 5.9 12.6 -6.7

Number of practices adopted:

0 17.6 19.3 -1.7

1 35.1 53.5 -18.4

2 15.4 20.2 -4.8

3 31.9 4.4 27.5

4 0.0 2.6 2.6

Notes: No differences are signifi cant at the 95-percent level using the delete-a-group variance 

calculation (Kott, 2001). Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Source: ERS calculations based on USDA’s 2007 Agricultural Resource Management 

Survey, Phase III, conducted by the National Agricultural Statistics Service and the 

Economic Research Service.
27

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

Conclusions and Policy Implications

Since 2002, some Federal conservation programs have included provisions 

aimed at encouraging participation by targeted farmers. Little is known, 

however, about whether changing the participation rates of targeted farmers 

might affect benefi ts generated by, or the cost effectiveness of, conservation 

programs. To improve understanding about the impact on program outcomes 

from improving accessibility for targeted farmers, we analyzed participation 

patterns in EQIP and CRP/WRP to identify whether targeted farmers differ 

from other farmers in the types of conservation benefi ts they provide and the 

costs of doing so. Our analyses suggest that targeted farmers may play an 

important role in conservation, and they participate in conservation programs 

in different ways from other farmers. 

By several measures, beginning and limited-resource farmers appear less 

likely to participate in EQIP relative to their prevalence in the farmer population as a whole. Targeting these farmers for participation could provide 

them with greater access to conservation program funding. In land retirement 

programs, the relationship is less clear. Relative to their proportion in the 

general farm population, a smaller proportion of farms operated by targeted 

farmers participated in CRP and WRP. The proportion of enrolled land 

controlled by these farmers, however, was similar to the proportion of all 

farmland they operate. 

Understanding participation patterns across working lands and land retirement programs is also important, particularly since the 2008 Farm Act 

increased funding for working-lands programs, but reduced the amount of 

land that could be enrolled in the CRP. If socially disadvantaged farmers are 

similar to beginning and limited-resource farmers and are less likely to enroll 

in EQIP, then a shift in conservation support to working-lands programs 

could reduce the overall access targeted farmers have to conservation 

funding. Data on socially disadvantaged farmer participation in EQIP would 

be needed to more defi nitively address this issue. 

Some evidence suggests that targeted farmers participating in conservation 

programs, as a group, may face more pressing environmental problems than 

other farmers. In the Delta region, beginning farmers may be able to provide 

more conservation benefi ts than other farmer types because they are more 

likely to farm more erodible land. Encouraging participation by such farmers 

in regions where this relationship holds could increase the environmental 

benefi ts provided by conservation programs. 

Choices about which environmental problems to address and which practices 

to adopt ultimately determine the benefi ts and costs of program participation. For example, limited-resource farmers are less likely to adopt practices 

in EQIP that address water quality problems, although they are more likely 

to be located in watersheds with impaired water quality. In CRP and WRP 

however, targeted farmers are concentrated in counties with more highly 

erodible cropland, and they are also concentrated in counties that provide the 

greatest expected levels of soil erosion reduction and water quality improvement benefi ts. 
28

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

While targeted farmers may provide more of some benefi ts, it is not clear that 

these farmers can provide benefi ts more cost effectively than other farmers. 

Beginning farmers in EQIP tended to receive larger payments per practice, 

to implement smaller practices, and to incur larger per acre practice costs 

for nutrient management (the most common management practice) relative to other farmers. Yet, beginning and limited-resource farmers adopt 

greater numbers of practices in EQIP, and they have increasingly adopted 

cost-shared structural practices in combination with management practices. 

Research suggests that combinations of practices are more effective at 

providing environmental benefi ts than single practices, implying that, even 

if their treatment costs per acre are higher, beginning and limited-resource 

farmers are not necessarily providing fewer benefi ts than other farmers 

(Lerch et al., 2005; Berry et al., 2003). 

Program costs per enrolled acre in CRP and WRP were smaller for targeted 

farmers. If lower per acre payments in CRP/WRP imply that targeted farmers 

may provide environmental benefi ts more cost effectively, targeting enrollment in land retirement programs to these producers could increase program 

cost effectiveness. Our analysis of costs and the distribution of contracts relative to soil erodibility suggest a closer look at the issue may be warranted. 

Land retirement contract data that included identifi ers of farmer type along 

with benefi ts data could assess whether farmers with low-cost contracts 

generate the same or greater levels of benefi ts.

Designing programs to be broadly accessible can increase the fl exibility program managers have to achieve program goals cost effectively. 

Quantifying the environmental benefi ts generated by participating farmers 

would be needed to determine if targeting farmers (beginning, limited 

resource, or socially disadvantaged) provides benefi ts more cost effectively.15

 This analysis fi nds that these farmers participate in different ways than other 

farmers, leaving open the possibility that encouraging targeted farmers to 

enroll in conservation programs could result in tradeoffs with cost-effective 

provision of environmental benefi ts. These types of farmers, however, tend 

to operate fewer acres, so an important consideration is whether differences 

between these and other farmer types are due more to smaller farm size than 

to farmer type. 

15To measure impacts on program 

effi ciency, data on the opportunity costs 

of enrollment would be necessary.
29

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

References

Ahearn, M., and D. Newton. Beginning Farmers and Ranchers, EIB-53, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, p. 32, May 

2009.

Berry, J.K., J.A. Delgado, R. Khosla, and F.J. Pierce. “Precision conservation 

for environmental sustainability,” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

58(5): p. 332-39, 2003.

Brown, A., Jr., R.D. Christy, and T.G. Gebremedhin. “Structural Changes 

in U.S. Agriculture: Implications for African American Farmers,” The 

Review of Black Political Economy 22(4): p. 51, Spring 1994.

Caswell, M., K. Fuglie, C. Ingram, S. Jans, and C. Kascak. Adoption of 

Agricultural Production Practices: Lessons Learned from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Area Studies Project, AER-792, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2001.

Cattaneo, A., R. Claassen, R. Johansson, and M. Weinberg. Flexible 

Conservation Measures on Working Land: What Challenges Lie Ahead?

ERR-5, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 

2005.

Claassen, R., M. Aillery, and C. Nickerson. Integrating Commodity and 

Conservation Programs: Design Options and Outcomes, ERR-44, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2007.

Dismukes, R., J. L. Harwood, and S. E. Bentley. Characteristics and Risk 

Management Needs of Limited-Resource and Socially Disadvantaged 

Farmers, AIB-733, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service, April 1997a.

Dismukes, R., J. L. Harwood, and R. A. Hoppe. “Limited-Resource Farmers: 

Their Risk Management Needs,” Agricultural Outlook, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, May 1997b.

Feng, H., C. Kling, P. Glassman, M. Jha, and J. Parcel. “The Costs and 

Benefi ts of Conservation Practices in Iowa,” Iowa Agricutural Review 12 

(4):10-13, Fall 2006.

Feng, H., C. Kling, L. Kurkalova, S. Secchi, and P. Gassman. “The 

Conservation Reserve Program in the Presence of a Working Land 

Alternative: Implications for Environmental Quality, Program 

Participation, and Income Transfer,” American Journal of Agricultural 

Economics 87 (5): pp. 1231-38, 2005.

Gundersen, C. “Measuring the extent, depth, and severity of food insecurity: 

an application to American Indians in the USA,” Journal of Population 

Economics 21: pp. 191-215, 2008.
30

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

Hellerstein, D. “USDA Land Retirement Programs,” Agricultural Resources 

and Environmental Indicators, 2006 Edition, K. Wiebe and N. Gollehon 

(eds.), EIB-16, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service, p. 175-83, 2006.

Hoppe, R., P. Korb, E. O’Donoghue, and D. Banker. Structure and Finances 

of U.S. Farms, EIB-24, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service, 2007.

Jolliffe, J.. Rural Poverty at a Glance, Rural Development Research Report 

100, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service No. 

2004, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/RDRR100.

Kott, P. “The Delete-a-Group Jackknife,” Journal of Offi cial Statistics 

17(4): p. 521, 2001.

Lambert, D., P. Sullivan, R. Claassen, and L. Foreman. ConservationCompatible Practices and Programs: Who Participates? ERR-14, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2006.

Lambert, D., P. Sullivan, and R. Claassen. “Working Farm Participation and 

Acreage Enrollment in the Conservation Reserve Program,” Journal of 

Agricultural and Applied Economics 39(1): pp. 151-69, 2007.

Lerch, R.N., N.R. Kitchen, R.J. Kremer, W.W. Donald, E.E. Alberts, E.J. 

Sadler, K.A. Sudduth, D.B. Myers, and F. Ghidey. “Development of a 

conservation-oriented precision agriculture system: Water and soil quality 

assessment,” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 60(6): pp. 411-20, 

2005.

National Atlas of the United States. Federal and Indian Land Areas, 

Redlands, CA: ESRI, 2006, http://nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.html?openCha

pters=chpbound#chpbound.

Newton, D., and M. Ahearn. Management Strategies for Beginning Farmers 

and Ranchers, poster, American Agricultural Economics Association 

Annual Meeting, Portland, OR, 2007, http://purl.umn.edu/7629.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Farm Bill 2002: Conservation 

Opportunities for American Indians and Alaskan Natives, Beginning 

Farmers and Ranchers, and Limited-Resource Farmers and Ranchers,” 

Fact sheet, June 2007, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/farmbill/2002/

pdf/ConOpFS_0905.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and 

Ranchers: Overview, last modifi ed 2006, http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/w

ebapp?area=home&subject=prod&topic=sfl .

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Environmental Quality Incentives Program 

Benefi t Cost Analysis, Final Report, May 21, 2003. 
31

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. Conservation 

Reserve Program: Summary and Enrollment Statistics, fy2007, 2008, 

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/annual_consv_2007.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

FY-2007 Conservation Program Allocations to States by Program, 2007, 

http://nrcs.usda.gov/programs/2007_allocations/FY2007program_allocations_by_states.html.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database, http://soildatamart.nrcs.

usda.gov.

Ward, E., A. Jemal, V. Cokkinides, G.K. Singh, C. Cardinez, A. Ghafoor, 

and M. Thun. “Cancer disparities by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic 

status,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 54(2): pp. 78-93, 2004.

Wu, J. “Slippage Effects in the Conservation Reserve Program,” American 

Journal of Agricultural Economics 82(4): pp. 979-92, 2004.

Wu. J., R.M. Adams, C.L. Kling, and K. Tanaka. “From microlevel decisions 

to landscape changes: an assessment of agricultural conservation policies,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86(1): pp. 26-41, 2004. 
32

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix: Data Sources

This research relies on the observation of farmer and rancher participation 

in conservation programs and on the ability to distinguish between different 

types of farmers and ranchers. We used data from several USDA sources, 

including annual Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS), 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), and Conservation 

Reserve Program (CRP) contract databases. 

ARMS. USDA’s Agricultural Resource Management Survey is the only 

annual source of data for crop and livestock production practices, farm business fi nancial information, and household and operator characteristics for a 

nationally representative sample of farmers and ranchers in the continental 

United States. We primarily used the 2007 ARMS (Phase III) to identify the 

geographic distribution of farms and ranches, their participation in Federal 

land retirement programs, and the characteristics of operators and households. For some analyses, ARMS data from 2005 and 2006 are pooled with 

2007 data to increase sample size and improve the reliability of estimates.1 

Information on practices applied in CRP and Wetlands Reserve Program 

(WRP) uses 2001 ARMS data on conservation practices adopted by corn 

farms (the most recent year available). For a more detailed description of 

ARMS data, see http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefi ng/ARMS.

There are a few limitations to using ARMS data: 

 1. Not all producers surveyed in ARMS receive the same questionnaire, 

so some information – including separate payments received for CRP 

and WRP participation – is available for only part of the surveyed 

population. For some analyses, the limited number of useable observations prevents analyses at regional or subregional scales. 

 2. Operators with certain household characteristics may be undersampled in ARMS. Such undersampling may preclude statistically 

reliable conclusions about targeted farmers and ranchers in some 

cases (data in tables are notated where large coeffi cients of variation 

suggest that reliability is suspect). 

 3. ARMS collects information on CRP/WRP participation, but it does 

not distinguish an operator with one CRP/WRP contract from an 

operator with multiple contracts. As a result, ARMS data will undercount conservation program contracts held by particular farmer types 

if participants hold several CRP or WRP contracts. 

EQIP contract data. Information about each EQIP contract is housed in the 

Protracts database maintained by USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS). Protracts contains information about the conservation 

practices that farmers and ranchers agree to apply to the land, government 

cost-share rates and payment amounts (including incentive payments), the 

resource concerns that practices address, and beginning and limited-resource 

farmer/rancher status. We used EQIP data to review contracts for which 

funds were obligated in fi scal years 2004-06. These data include all EQIP 

practices contracted for these years, regardless of when they were applied or 

1 The ARMS survey asks the year 

that the operator began farming any 

operation. In 2006, this question 

was asked for up to three operators 

in only one version of the survey 

(version 1); previous years included 

the question on all versions of the 

survey. Counts of beginning farmer 

operations are potentially overestimated in 2006 if some farms with 

a less experienced primary operator have second or third operators 

that have more than 10 years of 

farming experience. Analysis of 

2004 and 2005 data, however, show 

that frequency counts do not differ 

signifi cantly if only the primary 

operator’s farming experience is 

considered.
33

Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers / EIB-62

Economic Research Service/USDA

when payment occured. Participants’ status as socially disadvantaged was 

not recorded in the Protracts system over the 2004-06 period.

CRP contract data. CRP contract data is maintained by USDA’s Farm 

Service Agency. These data do not include indicators of targeted farmer 

status, but information on location (county) and Environmental Benefi ts 

Index (EBI) scores are useful for characterizing the geographic distribution of EBI scores relative to the geographic distribution of targeted farmer 

participation data from ARMS.

2007 Census of Agriculture data. The Census of Agriculture is conducted 

by USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service every 5 years. It is a 

complete count of U.S. farms and ranches and farm operators. The census 

contains information on land use and ownership, operator characteristics, 

production practices, income and expenditures, and more. These data are 

useful for summaries at a county or other aggregate level. The data include 

characteristics identifying certain farmer types, including beginning farmers 

and some groups classifi ed as socially disadvantaged farmers. It does not 

allow us to identify all socially disadvantaged groups or farmers defi ned as 

having limited resources. For more information about Census of Agriculture 

data, see http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/. 

National Resources Inventory data. The National Resources Inventory 

(NRI) is a survey conducted by USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation 

Service of natural resource characteristics on non-Federal land in the United 

States. The inventory captures data on land cover and land use, prime 

farmland soils, soil erosion on cropland, wetlands, habitat types, and other 

resource-related attributes. We use these data to characterize the distribution 

of highly erodible cropland relative to the distribution of socially disadvantaged farmers.