A study of nutrient management best practiceadoption by farmers

Cathal Buckley1, Peter Howley2, Phil Jordan3

1Agricultural Catchments Programme, Teagasc, Athenry, Co. Galway.2Environmental Department, University of York.3School of Environmental Sciences, University of Ulster.

Overview

• Introduction

• Background

• Methodology

• Results

• Discussion & Conclusions

Introduction

• Farm/field level nutrient management is one of the mostcost-effective strategies of abating diffuse pollution fromagriculture (Zhang et al., 2012). Source reduction - Preventative principle

• Policymakers often express frustration at the observedlevels of adoption of nutrient management practices Double dividend win-win of increased economic returns to

agricultural production while reducing the risk of nutrient transferto the aquatic environment.

Half of the reduction in N leaching for achievement of WaterFramework Directive objectives in Denmark could be achieve bylow cost win-win good agricultural practices at farm level (Wrightet al., 2011).

Background – Best Practice Adoption in Ag.

• Farmer and Farm structures Age, education, off-farm employment Farm size, production intensity, compatibility with current systems

• Contact with extension or government agents and orparticipation in a farmer network or watershed groups Provision of relevant information needed for nutrient best

management

• Characteristics of the practice complexity, familiarity, trialability, cost effectiveness, uncertainty or

perceived usefulness

• Environmental attitudes have been found to influence bestmanagement practice adoption

Farmer Motivations

• Social scientists have increasingly identified that behaviouris driven by a multiplicity of motives Not just profit maximisation Environmental, productivist or indeed social.

• Expectancy-value theory Theory of planned behaviour (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975)

Attitudes – Motivations / farming objectivesSocial norms – Influential peer, agent or networkControl – Level of constraint in performing an activity

• This paper has the following objectives: examine the effect of different underlying farming motivations on

NMP adoption examine farm structural/peer factors on NMP adoption. Insights for knowledge transfer strategies?

Methodology – Data Collection

• Survey of farmers within twelve river catchments (small scale) locatedthroughout the Republic of Ireland 6 in Agricultural Catchments Programme / 6 non ACP controls Total sample was 402 farmers

Analysis restricted to 271 farmers - generate and store organicmanures.

Survey conducted in 2010Resurveying currently

• A questionnaire instrument was designed to collect: Adoption of a range of nutrient management practices Attitudes to farming and the environment Farm structures and profile Socio-demographics Contact with extension services / information sources

Fealy, R.M., et al. 2010. The Irish AgriculturalCatchments Programme: catchment selection usingspatial multi-criteria decision analysis. Soil Use and

Management, 26, 225-236.

Sample Profile

What practices?

• Planning1. Soil testing*

2. Nutrient management planning*

3. Estimation of N & P content of organic manures (OM)

• Application4. Calibration of OM quantities at field level**

5. Calibration of chemical fertilisers at field level**

6. Liming**

7. Majority application of OM in springtime

8. Method – Trailing shoe, band or injection

• Recording9. Recording of OM quantities at field level

10. Recording of chemical fertilisers at field level

*Compulsory element

**Reference to a soil test or NMP

Modelling Approach

• Count data model Predicts the number of times an event occurs

NMP Practices (0 to 10)

• Explanatory variables Farm structural variables

Age (categories)

Off-farm employment

Stocking density (Organic N Ha-1)

Farm size (hectares)

Slurry Vs. Farm yard manures (FYM) storage system

Peer / network influence Contact with agricultural advisor

Contact with agricultural advisor + discussion group membership

Farmer Motivations Attitude scales – Attitudes to farming and the environment

Principal Component Analysis – Latent constructs

Farmer Motivations

• Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

Agreed or disagreed with these set of statements on a scale from 1(completely disagree) to 8 (completely agree) as recommended byGarforth et al., (2006).

PCA employed to extract underlying latent motivational constructs

PCA involves transforming a set of correlated variables into a smallernumber of uncorrelated factors (motivational constructs)

Farmer Motivations

NM PracticesNutrient Management Practice Numbers

Adopting

Percent

Adopting

Chemical fertiliser recording 201 74%

Springtime organic manure application 191 70%

Soil testing 180 66%

Chemical fertiliser field calibration 170 63%

Organic manure recording 156 58%

Liming 140 52%

Organic manure field calibration 130 48%

Estimation of nutrient content of organic manures 128 47%

Nutrient management plan 72 27%

Organic manure application – Trailing shoe, band or injection. 14 5%

Intensity of NM Practice Adoption

Number of

practices

Number of farmers

undertaking practice(s)

Per cent of farmers

undertaking practices

0 3 1%

1 14 5%

2 21 8%

3 29 11%

4 41 15%

5 43 16%

6 30 11%

7 23 8%

8 47 17%

9 18 7%

10 3 1%

Mean

S. Deviation

5.3

2.4

Results of Poisson regression for nutrientmanagement practice adoption

Conclusions• Mean number of practices adopted 5.26 out of 10

Adoption rates ranged 74-27%

• Age and off-farm employment were found to constrain NMbest practice adoption. Recent initiatives – CAP reform and farm partnership tax credits

Time to implement practices if employed off-farm?

• Farm yard manure systems Less fluid systems, older housing facilities?

Do not lend themselves as readily to the practices examined

Significant capital investment required to convert to slurry system

• Farmer network and advisor contact – Social norm / peers Contact with an agricultural advisor + farmer discussion group

BTAP, STAP, AEOS / GLAS

Conclusions – Farmer Motivations

• Results indicate a range of motives influence NMP adoption Majority of NM Practices have win-win potential

Promoting multi-functional benefit of these practices among farmerswith farm stewardship, ecocentric or productivist motivations couldincrease adoption rates and embed into farmer routines.

Anthropocentric motivations - likely to adopt a lower number ofpractices and are less likely to be open to this message.

• Research in other jurisdictions Low cost win-win type nutrient management practices can greatly

assist in achieving environmental policy objectives in the area ofwater quality (Wright et al., 2011).

“Buckley, C., Howley, P. and Jordan, P., 2015. The role of differing farming

motivations on the adoption of nutrient management practices. InternationalJournal of Agricultural Management, 4(4), 152-162.”

www.teagasc.ie/agcatchments