Citation
Beneath the bottom line: agricultural approaches to reduce agrichemical contamination of groundwater

Material Information

Title:
Beneath the bottom line: agricultural approaches to reduce agrichemical contamination of groundwater
Creator:
Paddgit, Steven
Publisher:
U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
268 pages.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Agricultural chemicals -- Environmental aspects -- United States ( LCSH )
Groundwater -- Pollution -- United States ( LCSH )
Agricultural innovations -- United States ( LCSH )
water quality ( KWD )
pesticides ( KWD )
Genre:
federal government publication ( marcgt )

Notes

General Note:
This report descriptively reviews findings from recent sample surveys of farmer attitudes about agricultural chemicals and groundwater quality; their practices and motivations related to chemical management; and their responses to public policy alternatives addressing this issue.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of North Texas
Holding Location:
University of North Texas
Rights Management:
This item is a work of the U.S. federal government and not subject to copyright pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §105.
Classification:
Y 3.T 22/2:2 B 43/ v.2/Pt.E/Farmer ( sudocs )

Aggregation Information

IUF:
University of Florida
OTA:
Office of Technology Assessment

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

BENF~TH THE BOTTOM LINE: AGRICULTURAL APPROACHES TO REDUCE AGRICHEMICAL CONTAMINATION OF GROUNDWATER Volume 11--Contract Papers Part E: Farmer Decisionm.aking 1. Farmers' Views on Groundwater Quality: Concerns, Practices, and Policy Preferences --Steven Padgitt 2. Farmer Adoption of Conservation Practices: Lessons for Groundwater Protection -Ted L. Napier 3. Local Agricultural Information and Assistance Networks Relative to Ground Water ProtectionPeter J. Nowak 4. Extension Education for Agrichemical Dealers Groundwater Protection: An Extension Perspective --K. A Kelling, J. L. Wedberg 5. Computer-Based Decision Support Systems for Farmers: Applications for Groundwater Protection --Bernard Knezek, J. Roy Black These contractor documents were repared for the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) assessment entitled B n a h B t m Line A I ral A r ach to Reduce Airichemical Contamination of Groundwater, OTA-F-418 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1990). They are being made available because they contain useful information beyond that used in the OTA report. However, they are not endorsed by OTA, nor have they been reviewed by the Technology Assessment Board. References to them should cite the contractor, not E>T~ as the author. Suggested reference style is shown on the title page of each contractor document. December 1990

PAGE 2

. Volume 11--Contract Papers Table of Contents Part A: The Federal Role 1. Federal Agencies and the Pursuit of Groundwater Protection --Terry L. Nipp 2. The Federal Role in Reducing Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater: Appendices A-I --Laura A Dye Part B: Management Approaches 1. Pesticides and Nitrates in Ground Water: An Introductory Overview --Stuart Z. Cohen 2. Mapping Groundwater Vulnerability to Agricultural Uses on a National Scale in a Geographic Information System --Margaret Maize!, Kelly Chan 3. Agricultural Best Management Practices: Implications for Groundwater Protection -Terry J. Logan 4. Farmstead Assessments: A Means to Manage Farm Sources of Groundwater Contamination of Groundwater --Gary Jackson, Susan A Jones, Bruce Webendorfer Part C: Nutrient Management 1. Legumes as a Nitrogen Source: Implications for Nitrate Contamination of Groundwater -G. H. Heichel 2. 3. 4. Improving Livestock and Poultry Management Practi~es to Reduce Nutrient Contamination of Groundwater --John M. Sweeten A Waste of Productivity: Avenues for Improved Mclnagement and Application of Waste to Agricultural Lands --James A Moore The Role of Retail Fertilizer Dealers in Reducing Groundwater Contamination: A Focus on Educational Needs --Ronald J. Williams and James M. Ransom Part D: Pest and Pesticide Management 1. Improving Pesticide Management Practices --Franklin R. Hall 2. Integrated Pest Management: Potential for Reducing Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater --Frank G. Zalom, Michael W. Stimmann, Janet M. Smilanick Irrigation/Chemigation: Implications for Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater -E. Dale Threadgill 3. 4. Agrichemical Application Technology: Potentials To Reduce Groundwater Contamination --Maurice R. Gebhardt Part E: Farmer Decisionmaking 1. Farmers' Views on Groundwater Quality: Concerns, Practices, and Policy Preferences -2. 3. 4. 5. Steven Padgitt Farmer Adoption of Conservation Practices: Lessons for Groundwater Protection --Ted L. Napier Local Agricultural Information and Assistance Networks Relative to Ground Water Protection --Peter J. Nowak Extension Education for Agrichemical Dealers Groundwater Protection: An Extension Perspective --K. A Kelling, J. L. Wedberg Computer-Based Decision Support Systems for Farmers: Applications for Groundwater Protection --Bernard Knezek, J. Roy Black Part F: Research and Education 1. Systems Approaches in Agricultural Research: Applications for Groundwater Protection -A Dale Whittaker 2. 3. 4. Disciplinary lnte$ration in Agricultural Research --H.O. Kunkel Low-Input/Sustamable Agriculture Research and Education: A Review of Selected Private Organizations' Activities --Mary C. Turck, Ronald Kroese Integrating Agricultural and Environmental Studies in Colleges of Agriculture and Natural Resources --Richard H. Merritt \

PAGE 3

FARMERS' VIEWS ON GROUNDWATER QUALl1Y: CONCERNS, PRAcrJCESAND POUCY PREFERENCES by Steven Padgitt Associate Professor of Sociology and Anthropology Iowa State University Ames, IA Condensed and edited by Susan J. Wintsch Writer/Editor for the OTA assessment of "Agricultural Approaches to Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater" March 1989 This contractor document was prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) assessment entitled Beneath the Bottom Line: At:ricultural Approaches to Reduce At:richemical Contamination of Groundwater. It is being made available because they contain useful information beyond that used in the OTA report. However, they are not endorsed by OTA, nor have they been reviewed by the Technology Assessment Board. References to them should cite the contractor, not OTA, as the author; a suggested citation format follows: Author(s) name(s), Contract paper title, prepared for the U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater OTA-F-418 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1990) \ \ \

PAGE 4

ABSTRACT This report descriptively reviews findings from recent sample surveys of farmer attitudes about agricultural chemicals and groundwater quality; their practices and motivations related to chemical management; and their responses to public policy alternatives addressing this issue. The studies were assembled from a review of current journals, computerized bibliographic searches, and personal contacts. Except for one national magazine subscriber survey and a national survey of adults, studies are state or sub-state based. Substantive findings from surveys in 14 states are cited. Data could not be aggregated to draw statistical conclusions or make generalizations to the national population of farmers. The reviewed studies document that the issue of groundwater quality is high on the public agenda of farmers. Often it was rated lower than farm profitability but generally equal to soil conservation. In the reviewed studies, farmers perceived agricultural chemicals to be a major contributor to current groundwater problems. Concerns over health and safety implications appear to equal or surpass concern for the environment. Although levels of "concern" were found to be high, farmers' perceptions about the "seriousness," of the problem, especially on their own farms, were lower. More concern was expressed over pesticide than nitrate pollution. The studies indicate that farmers have not rigorously followed recommended nitrogen practices; nor given full credit to noncommercial fertilizer sources. Adoption of Integrated Pest Management (1PM), a program designed to more efficiently use chemical pesticides and natural controls,. was found to be motivated as much, or more, by economic and health reasons as by environmental concerns. Gaps were found in farmers' knowledge of existing low-input chemical alternatives. Those adopting low-input practices have done so for several reasons. There appears to be wide spread interest in low-input alternatives if those alternatives did not significantly alter profits. More support was found for policies that enlarge the technological choices of farmers than for those that control farm practices. No decisive geographic patterns emerged from the reviewed studies. However, farmers with larger scale operations tended to be somewhat less interested in low-input alternatives and also indicated less support/more opposition to regulatory policy alternatives. Ideology and belief systems have been hypothesized as significant factors contributing to farmer opposition to regulation of agricultural chemicals. \V E-~

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 ATTITUDES TOW ARD AG RI CULTURAL CHEMICALS AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY ISSUES 4 Importance of water quality as a social issue 4 The perceptual link between agricultural and groundwater quality 5 Proximity of problem and attitudes toward agricultural chemicals and groundwater quality 7 Cost-benefit and environmental risk attitudes.. 8 Relationships between attitudes and independent variables. 10 Implications for policy 11 SURVEY FINDINGS ON FARMERS' PRACTICES THAT MAY AFFECT GROUNDWATER QUALITY 13 Awareness and adherence to recommended practices regarding nitrogen management in corn production 13 Integrated Pest Management 15 Practice adoption and the alternative agriculture movement 16 Implications for Policy 18 SURVEY FINDINGS ON FARMERS' PREFERRED POLICY RESPONSES TO THE ISSUE OF AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY 20 Enlarging the technological choices open to farmers 21 Incentives and disincentives 22 Regulation 23 Variation in policy preferences in relation to independent variables 24 Implications for policy 24 SUMMARY. 26 FOOTNOTES 28 REFERENCES 29 TABLES 33 APPENDIX 43 \/

PAGE 6

INTRODUCTION This report focuses on the interests and attitudes of farm and ranch operators toward agricultural chemicals and groundwater quality. This segment of the population is most likely to drink groundwater should it become contaminated. Because the concentration of contaminants is greatest near the source of the pollution, they are most likely to suffer any associated health risks. Farmers and ranchers are also the ones who will be directly affected by the consequences of manag~ment decisions and public policies relatt:d to the use of agricultural chemical products. Although this review is about farmers, threats to groundwater quality from agricultural chemicals is not just a farmer issue. Drinking water for an estim~ted 50 million people in the United States comes from groundwater that has the potential to be contaminated from agricultural chemicals (Nielsen and Lee, 1988). The objective of this project was to review emerging literature on the topic by assembling recent surveys of farm populations on the use of agricultural chemicals and groundwater quality. Three major areas of inquiry arc reviewed: general attitudes toward the issue, adoption of selected technologies different from high-input chemical agriculture, and pref crences expressed for policy responses to the issue. This project began with a systematic review of relevant journals and publications. A keyword search of several established bibliographic databases was then conducted to assure inclusion of more recent publications, professional papers, and agency reports. Finally, personal contacts were made by the author. The first two efforts yielded a fairly limited body of research about the issue. Personal contacts were more productive but were likely to have been less than exhaustive. The recent emergence of the issue and perhaps its narrowness accounts in part for the scarcity of published literature. Most relevant studies were conducted or reported within the last two years. None of the major studies specific to groundwater quality was more than five years old. Substantive data from surveys in 14 states (California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, M?issachuscLtS, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin) CODL&ibute to this review (Table 1). There is considerable variation among these states in the extensiveness of survey data. 1

PAGE 7

The available studies do not cover all areas that are vulnerable to groundwater problems. Presently, more surveys appear to have been completed in cash grain producing regions of the Midwest than elsewhere. One notable gap is research from western range lands. Also, few studies were found for the southern regions. The South is an area where major potential exists for groundwater contamination and where climatic conditions heighten insect pest problems. Several of the study sites were selected because groundwater quality had become an issue of concern and public debate in the those areas. This limits interpretations for national policy. Two studies of national scope were included. One was a study of the U.S. adult population (Center for Communication Dynamics, 1985). The other was a survey of subscribers to New Farm magazine (Data Probe, Inc., 1988); hence, its generalizability is limited to the magazine's subscriber list. Neither of the national studies had samples of sufficient size to document geographical distinctions. The Center for Communication Dynamics study did target one state (Wisconsin) where water quality has been an issue in the press and the state legislature. This provides some insight into the effect that active local debate may have on public responses. In general, the Wisconsin sample did not vary substantially from the national sample in terms of national pollution concerns. However, Wisconsin residents were more likely to see groundwater pollution as well as sewage disposal into rivers as major national problems (58 percent versus 48 percent for the nation; 70 percent versus 59 percent for the nation, respectively). In Iowa studies of farm operators, similar discrepancies in level of concern were found between the intensively scrutinized Big Spring Basin ll.nd other regions in the state (Padgitt, 1987). These findings suggest media attention contributes to or is a reflection of heightened awareness and concern. Four sections follow. The first is a summary of farm population attitudes with occasional references to non-farm populations. Most farm studies used the "farm operator" as the respondent. This often results in the respondent being an adult male. The second section examines selected farm practices and alternative approaciles to the use of agricultural chemicals. This section also summarizes reasons farmers give for adopting these practices. The third section examines reactions, obtained from the survey literature., to selected policy options. The report concludes with a short summary and discussion section. 2

PAGE 8

An appendix has been compiled to summarize findings from the diverse studies in a straightforward manner. Information about study populations, dates, sample size, and data collection methods arc included. Also, a brief statement of findings and comments on generalizing from them is presented. 3

PAGE 9

SURVEY FINDINGS ON ATTITUDES TOWARD AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY ISSUES Many studies identified for this review focus on local situations or problems. Often the studies were descriptiv~ in nature rather than. strictly hypothesis -.:esting. As a result, it is Qeither appropriate nor possible to aggregate these local and regional studies into a larger framework. One exception is a coordinated data set by Esseks (1988a, 1988b). It has identical measures from five counties in five states. Those study sites were geographically dispersed and agriculturally varied. Specific locations were selected because agricultural chemicals had been documented in local groundwater. Fortunately, a few investigators have shared survey instruments. In those cases, some comparisons can be made for descriptive purposes, and certain findings are remarkably similar. Statistical procedures have varied. In this review the use of the term "significance" will be restricted to occasions where more rigorous statistical probabilities were used to draw conclusions about relationships. In reviewing the attitude studies it is important to keep in mind that the findings represent subjective assessments of respondents, not objective indications of environmental risk. The extent to which perceptions reflect actual contamination or threats to the environment is largely undetermined. Partially, this is because of an absence of objective data. Concentration standards exist for some compounds, but certainly not for all about which the public has concern. Variations in natural environmental conditions, farming activities, and other factors also affect risk. Importance of water quality as a social Issue Several surveys of farm populations as well as of th~ general public have documented the importance given water quality. One procedure has been to ask respondents to rate or rank a serie~ of issues. Rather than begin with questions about groundwater and ,._ agricultural chemicals 1 several researchers first introduced broader issues of water quality and then narrowed the focus to groundwater and finally to the issue of agricultural chemicals. 4

PAGE 10

Findings from farm population studies in Iowa (Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 1986; Lasley, 1988; Padgitt, 1987,1988a, 1988c), as well as Minnesota (Downing et al., 1988) and Virginia (Halstead et al., 1988a), provide clear evidence that surveyed farmers in those locations attach a great deal of importance to drinking water quality (Table 2). The general, but not exclusj.ve, pattern has been for water quality to be rated as slightly less important than profitability or economic well being. Often, the importance assigned to water quality and soil ero~i,,~ issues has been similar. Lasley's (1988) study illustrates how critical question wording can be in research attempting to rank the importance of different issues. His list did not include "water quality," but more specifically "presence of pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals in drinking water,"'. and "contamination of underground water supplies." On his 7-point scale, the drinking water item had a mean of 6.1 and ranked third among 19 issues. The groundwater contamination item had a mean of S.7 and ranked ninth on the list. The difference between th~ two was statisdc~,!ly significant (additional analysis by author). Data from several studies, including Lasley's and Anderson's (1988) of North Carolina farmers suggest that agricultural chcmicais and groundwater quality receive greater importance when posed as health issues rather than environmental ones. A recent four state survey (Iowa, Washington, New York, and North Carolina) by Donham (1988) focusing on broad issues of agricultural health found high priority assigned to agricultural chemicals in drinking water. Padgitt (1988c) reports from his Iowa studies that attitudinal relationships between water quality and agrfoultural health arc quite strong, more so than correlations between water quality and other environmental issues such as soil conservation. The Perceptual link between Agricultural Chemicals and Groundwater Ouality Although some of the studies cited above did not highlight agriculture, or agricultural chemicals in particular, as a threat to water/drinking water quality, others have firmly established that pesticides and fertilizers are perceived as such by both farmers and the general public. 5 E -(o

PAGE 11

In a statewide survey by the Des Moines Register (Pins, 1986) just over half of the adult population in Iowa (S2 percent) identified farm chemicals as the greatest threat to drinking water in the state. Industrial waste was cited by 38 percent. Another survey of the same population (Iowa Department of Na~ural Resources, 1986) asked what they felt were the main sources of most groundwater pollution in the state--an open-ended question. Sixty-three percent of all respondents and 67 percent of farmer respondents answered agricultural chemicals. Industrial and manufacturing sources were the second most frequently mentioned category, but were identified by a mere 16 percent of all respondents and 18 percent of farmers. In subsequent questioning, perceptions about 10 alleged sources of groundwater contamination were systematically collected. Again, farm pesticides were the source identified most frequently as contributing "a great deal of pollution." Sixty-seven percent of all respondents and 52 percent of farm respondents gave this respruse (Table 3). Among all respondents, including the farmer subset, farm fertilizers ranked second. Hazardous waste ranked third among all respondents and fourth among the farm household subset. Among farmer respondents, landfills and abandoned dumps and hazardous waste disposal were viewed as having about equal importance as farm fertilizers as a pollution source. 2 In several other studies, agricultural chemicals were identified, at least indirectly, as a major contributor to groundwater problems. For example, studies in Virginia (Halstead ct al., 1988), Minnesota (Downing ct al., 1988), Iowa (Padgitt, 1987) and Oklahoma (Moore, 1988b) solicited responses to one or both of the following two statements: a. So little pesticide residue ever enters the groundwater that it could never pose a health risk for humans. b. Water quality is more of an issue for the future, today the threat from agricultural chemicals is quite small. By large percentages, respondents disagreed with these statements. In the four farmer samples, "disagree" answers to the first statement ranged from 80 to 89 percent. In the three farmer samples given the second statement, "disagree" answers ranged from 69 to 72 percent. Interestingly, if a bias exists in the question wording it would tend to solicit less not more concern. Both statements provide a rationale for downplaying the importance of the concern. 6 E l l

PAGE 12

Greater health concerns have been expressed for pesticides than for nitrates (Padgitt, 1988a), especially when farmers were asked to rank one over the other. In one study (Padgitt, 1988a) the ratio was 30 (pesticides) to one (nitrates). Where ratings were soiicitcd for several categories of agricultural chemicals, the same pattern emerged, but less distinctly. There has been slightly greater concern expressed over insecticides than herbicides. Proximity or problem and attitudes toward agricultural chemicals and groundwater quality F1a1dings reviewed thus far quite consistently suggest that farmers consider on-farm use of agricultural chemicals to be a major contributor to groundwater pollution. Upwards of 80 percent of farmers in the Downing et al. ( 1988), Halstead ct al. (1988a), Moore (1988b), and Padgitt (1987) studies responded that they "worry" about the purity of drinking water. However, belief that one's own water supply was not unhealthful has persisted in the farming and general population. This was explicitly shown in Pins' (1986) study of the general population in Iowa, and is consistent with an earlier statewide Iowa farmer study (Lasley, 1984). In both of those studies the tendency was to view drinking water problems as more serious for the "other guy"--people in other communities or states. Similarly, Iowa farmers assigned greater seriousness to water problems problems in the nation and state than they did to those in their own county or on their own farms (Padgitt, 1988b). The difference was fairly dramatic. The "very serious" rating was 40 percent for "in the nation" and eight percent on "one's own farm." (Conversely, the "not at all serious" rating was two percent for "in the nation" and 37 percent for on "one's own farm.") Recent evidenc~ by Esseks (1988a) lends credence to the proximity pattern in environmental assessments. Although Esseks asked different questions about national, county and on-farm settings, problems were judged less serious as proximity increased. Esseks found this pattern in five diverse areas: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania; Jackson County, Florida; Portage County, Wisconsin; Cherokee County, J\',wa; and Stanislaus County, California. The tendency to deny a problem exists close to home has been documented in numerous other contexts. Farmers tend, for example, to deny soil erosion on their own land. On the other hand perception of health risks from agricultural chemicals seem not to follow this pattern. Four separate Iowa studies a~ well as the Minnesota and Virginia studies asked 7

PAGE 13

respondents how concerned they were that the "use of agricultural chemicals (fertilizers and pesticides) posed a health risk to people." Four referent categories (in the nation, in one's state, in one's county or region, and on one's own farm) were used with minor variations. In none of the studies was a significant,y lower level of concern expressed as proximity increased. Quite high and consistent levels of concern were expressed in each of the studies (Table 4). "Concern" rather than "serious1&ess" was the keyword in these studies, and it is not clear whether the difference in the answer pattern strms from this distinction or from the direct focus on health versus the indirect environmental implications of the other studies. One interpretation is that "concern" elicits a higher affirmative response than "seriousness", and the health link accounts for sustained concern with increased proximity. Cost-Benefit and Enviroi.;nental Risk Attitudes Although recent attitude studies document that farm populations perceive agricultural chemicals with much concern, chemical use remains widespread (Lockeretz and Wernick, 1980; Nielsen and Lee, 1987; U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1983). This would appear to indicate conflict in the private lives of farmers. Several lines of questioning have been used to document this condition. There is evidence many farmers--upwards of 80 percent of those polled in two Iowa studies (Padgitt, 1988a, 1988c)--would like viable alternatives to farm chemicals. This was also a major message from a statewide study of New York farmers (Buttel and Gillespie, 1988). On the other hand, there is little evidence that the conventional agricultural community is ready to abandon chemicals on short notice. Indeed, studies among largely row crop grain farmers have found the majority believe pesticides are their best current alternative to control weeds, pests and plant diseases. In Wisconsin, an agriculturally diversified state, the reason farmers most often identified for not reducing chemicals was their belief they had already reduced them as much as they could (Wisconsin Rural Development Center, 1989).3 Esseks (1988a), likewise, found between twoand three-fifths of farmers believed they had already found economical ways to reduce chemicals. Esseks, the Wisconsin Rural Deve,opment Center, and Padgitt all found a perception among most farmers that their enterprises would be less profitable if they used fewer commercial chemicals. In Esseks' fiv~ county /five state study, this ranged from a low of 8 E-tJ

PAGE 14

65 and 66 percent in Iowa and Wisconsin to a high of 80 percent in Florida. Between one-fifth and one-third of surveyed farmers f cit profitability would not be reduced. In the statewide study of Wisconsin farmers (Wisconsin Rural Development Center, 1989), 71 percent of the respondents felt their yields would drop if chemical inputs were reduced. When a hypothetical framework of a herbicide ban was posed to Iowa's corn farmers, there was nearly a universal belief that yields would decline (Padgitt, 1988c). Additionally, half of the farmer respondents felt input costs associated with increased tillage, labor, and machinery would more than offset savings from herbicide reductions. The differences among the Esseks, Wisconsin Rural Development Center and Padgitt findings were likely due to differences in question format, context, and in the dominant kinds of agriculture practiced by respondents. Padgitt's context was a herbicide ban while Esscks and the Wisconsin study sought responses to an incremental "use of fewer chemicals." More polarized attitudes emerged, however, when Padgitt (1987, 1988a), Halstead et al. (1988a), Downing ct al. (1988), and Moore (1988b) sought agree/disagree responses to the following: "I am confident that agricultural pesticides, if used as directed, arc not a threat to the environment." Generally, fairly even splits were found between those agreeing and those disagreeing. Divided opinions also emerged over several items in a random sample of New York farmers (Buttel and Gillespie, 1988): a. The pollution effects of nitrate fertilizers arc quite unimportant compared to all their benefits (agree 23 percent, neutral/uncertain 32 percent, disagree = 45 percent). b. There is too much talk about all the harmful effects of pesticides and not enough about their benefits (agree 40 percent, neutral/uncertain 22 percent, disagree 38 percent). c. Environmentalists have greatly exaggerated the dangers of nitrate fertilizer pollution (agree 30 percent, neutral/uncertain 42 percent, disagree 28 percent). In summary, farmers seem to approach and justify their use of chemicals from an economic decision making framework. When doing so, rather strong endorsements arc found. When asked to consider health and environment issues as part of chemical use, a more divided response pattern emerges. 9

PAGE 15

Relationships between Attitudes and Independent Variables Most, but not all, of the studies cited have attempted to relate attitudes to personal and farm operation characteristics, or have used other comparative groups to help understand and account for differences in attitudes. In general, personal characteristics such as age and education were found not to be strong predictors of how farmers answered attitude questions about agricultural chemicals. This was reported by Buttel et al. (1981) in a study of New York and Michigan farmers. More recently, Esseks (1988a and b) found just two significant relationships in 10 comparisons between farmers' perceptions of the need to have water tested and education. In Iowa studies (Padgitt, 1988a) found two weak, but persistent, patterns: older farmers and farmers with less education expressed slightly more concern about groundwater issues; and farmers with larger acreages in the Iowa studies tended to express slightly less concern about groundwater quality issues. The latter finding is consistent with, but perhaps the relationships not quite as strong as, the generally inverse relationship Buttel et al. (1981) found between agricultural scale/wealth indicators and environmental concerns. Anderson ( 1988) categorized farmers by the intensity of their synthetic-chemical use. In a sample of North Carolina farmers, she found significantly different responses to only three of 18 concerns 4 about using agricultural chemicals: whether the product might be harmful to birds or other wildlife; cost of the product; and whether the agricultural extension agent recommended the product. Full-time farmers with more synthetic-chemical intensive operations expressed less concern about wildlife than farmers with less chemically intensive operations but more concern about cost and whether a product was recommended by an agricultural extension agent. Both farmer groups shared similar concerns over the effect.s of agricultural chemicals on personal and family health and groundwater quality. In a similar vein, Halstead et al. (1988b) explored differences in attitudes between farmers with high and low levels of nitrogen fertilizer use. Their analysis included both inorganic and organic sources of nitrogen. Statistical tests revealed that high appliers were less concerned about contamination on their own farms than were low appliers. The pattern held for both Rockingham County, Virginia and the Big Spring Basin in Iowa. Significant differences also emerged in several attitudinal measures (five of 14 in Virginia and three of five in Iowa). These revealed that high appliers coosistently saw agricultural chemicals as less of an environmental problem than low appliers. 10

PAGE 16

Comparisons between farm and nonfarm segments of the population have also been made and these invariably show that attitudes of nonfarm respondents reflect more environmental concern. This is consistent with previous studies about other environmental issues. In contrast to their nonfarm and urban counterparts, farmers have tended to be less aware of and less concerned about environmental issues (Buttel ct al., 1981; Trembly and Dunlap, 1978; Van Liere and Dunlap, 1980). Buttel ct al. (1986) go so far as to conclude that U.S. farmers are in the aggregate, among the most anti-environmental of major occupational groups. This may be a bit strong given the kinds of evidence produced in the cited studies. Persons with vested interests in the status quo seldom advocate change; consequently, the major surprise may be the extent of concern about groundwater quality by farmers, not the extent to which they differ from nonfarmcrs (Padgitt and Hoyer, 1987). The more direct health implications of this issue, in spite of denial or nonrecognition of problems on one's own farm, may be a factor distinguishing it from other environmental issues. Implications for policy These findings of farm operator views about agricultural chemicals and groundwater quality contain several implications for public policy. If a problem is unrecognized, corrective changes cannot be expected with mere passage of time. If a problem is recognized, then its consequences arc likely to be interpreted in several contexts before possible corrective action occurs. In the case of groundwater quality, such factors as consequences for the health of one's self and family, beliefs about general environmental degradation, and assessment of farming practice alternatives (including their availability, impacts on agricultural operations, and profitability) would be important. Additionally, the power, control, or freedom that farmers have to make changes would affect the likelihood of c~angc. Several of the studies reported upon here were conducted because of some previous attention to a problem or potential problem, and the evidence suggests that farmers have not been surprised by presence of agricultural chemicals in groundwater. In short, there is general awareness of a problem, and farmers express concern about health effects. They also recognize other sources of groundwater contamination, but this has not displaced general concerns about farm chemicals in groundwater. 11 e -t(a

PAGE 17

There seems to be a lack of motivation for personal action, in part, perhaps, because farmers do not acknowledge a serious problem on their own farms. This may be denial or it may be genuine nonrecognition. Whichever, in the absence of specific knowledge about one's own drinking water or documented health problems attributable to groundwater contamination, voluntary change is not likely to occur quickly or on a widescale basis. On the other hand, if the problem is genuine nonrecognition, education and interpretation could have an important impact. Farmers have reported such evidence would be motivation for them to change. Many private wells are not regularly tested, especially for pesticides. A policy of monitoring would seem to be in the public interest, and if findings warrant, perhaps sufficient to prompt attitude and behavior change. Another impediment to voluntary change may be beliefs or knowledge about alternatives. Survey evidence indicates that farmers have an open mind about the use of agricultural chemicals, i.e. they would consider alternatives. At present, however, they believe pesticides are their best allies against insects, weeds, and plant disease; and that they have already reduced their chemical inputs as much as they rationally can. Monitoring attitudes is important if we are to anticipate reaction to policy alternatives. By fostering attitude change it may be possible to encourage change in farming practices and this is a policy alternative. There are implications in the surveys that general attitudinal orientations are important precursors to behavior. Farmers appear to be open minded, but are not fully convinced of the true seriousness of the problem or of the viability of current solutions. There does not appear to be a groundswell among conventional farmers for labor intensive or confining alternatives. Farmers are suspicious, but uncertain, about the true health risks associated with agrfoultural chemicals. More definitive evidence in either direction will likely have considerable impact on attitudes and voluntary approaches to farming. This is a reason for public policy to support increased research. The validity of differences between perceptions about nitrates and pesticides may need additional attention. "Mere" traces of compounds in groundwater has not become a major motivator for change among large scale conventional f2rm operators. 12

PAGE 18

SURVEY FINDINGS ON FARMERS' PRACTICES THAT MAY AFFECT GROUNDWATER QUALITY Because a full inventory of agricultural practices is beyond the scope of this review, the focus will be on a few selected practices, particularly those related to row crop production. The section relics mostly on studies reviewed in either the preceding section on ~ttitudes or the following section on policy. Any findings related to motivational reasons for adopting or not adopting a certain practice are included here. A national impact evaluation of Integrated Pest Management (1PM) programs commissioned by the Extension Service (USDA) and conducted by the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service (Rajottc ct al., 1987) is also drawn upon, as arc selected surveys of farm operators who consider themselves, or who have been labeled by others, "organic" or "alternative agriculture" farmcrs 5 Awareness of and adherence to recommended practices regarding nitrogen managemen t in corn production Nitrogen is an essential and naturally occurring plant nutrient, but its use in inorganic form has played a major role in increased yields of grain. The use of commercial nitrogen fertilizer is nearly universal in U.S. corn production (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1983). Although there is growing controversy about the amounts of nitrogen farmers need and over whether levels currently recommended by land grant universities will be the recommended levels of the future, a more immediate issue may be the extent to which current recommendations arc followed. Of three recommended management practices to minimize leaching (basing nitrogen application rates on realistic yield goals, crediting nitrogen contribution from sources other than commercial nitrogen, and applying nitrogen at times when plant needs arc greatest) survey findings in Iowa indicate none arc being stringently followed. The Iowa studies indicate farmers do have yield goals and use multiple criteria for establishing them. On average, yield goals were about 10 percent higher than harvested yields. Highest historical yield is the most widespread criterion for setting yield goals (56 13 E-/(j-

PAGE 19

percent). Corn suitability ratings (CSR), a scientific criterion generated from soil surveys and agriculture research, and germ potential of seed stock were each cited by about one-fourth of the farmers. Yield goal is one of several factors farmers use in determining nitrogen rates. Its use (61 percent of farmers) was less than on-farm experiments (80 percent of farmers), but slightly more than fertilizer dealer recommendations (50 percent of farmers). When nitrogen rates were checked against reported average yields and compared with the state's land grant college's recommended rates, one-fourth of the farmers were exceeding the reco.mmendation by 25 pounds of nitrogen of acre or more (Padgitt, 1988b). There was also evidence that farmers did not fully adjust for nitrogen available in animal waste, nor for nitrogen residuals in rotation from legumes or soybeans to corn (Halstead ct al., 1988, and Kaap, 1987). The Iowa studies have shown that up to 40 percent of livestock farmers took no nutrient credits at all for manure, and over half took no nitrogen credits. Kaap (1987) found that when farmers take nitrogen credits in rotating fields from alfalfa to corn, they generally take less than recommended levels. Kaap's (1987) analysis for the Big Spring Basin, a fairly intensive livestock and grain area, found that if best manure management practices were followed and full credit was given to organic sources of fertilizer (including phosphate and potash as well as nitrogen) these sources yielded an economic value of approximately $3,500 per farm. (This was emphasized in Extension programs in the basin; two years later a follow-up study found 40 percent of farmers cutting back on nitrogen applications.) Recommendations about the timing of nitrogen applications arc also made. Fall nitrogen applications arc discouraged because of increased probability of leaching into groundwater before plant uptake in the next growing season. The extent to which nitrogen is applied in the fall is thought to vary widely. Studies in three regions of Iowa found this practice was not widespread (12 percent or less of farmers). sidedrcssing" is a practice that brings nitrogen to plant roots at a time of rapid growth, and other things being equal" it helps to minimize leaching. But, sidedressing requires another equipment pass across the field. The recent Iowa studies have shown infrequent use of sidedressing (generally less than 10 percent of (;\rmers). When used, it has sometimes been a remedial rather than a planned practice. 14 E f7

PAGE 20

Integrated Pest Management 1PM is a system of pest control encompassing a variety of techniques and methods that are both environmentally sound and compatible with farmers' existing practices (Rajotte et al., 1987). A basic principle of 1PM is monitoring pest populations, or "scouting". Corrective actions are based on economic threshold analysis. These include chemicals, biological agents, cultural practices, resistant host plants, trapping techniques, etc. 1PM has the potential to reduce the amounts of harmful compounds introduced into the environment (Hallberg, 1987). For example, if insecticides are applied when insects arc most vulnerable, smaller amounts or chemicals may be needed. Also, by selecting crop varieties resistant to pests, rotating crops, adjusting planting dates, and maintaining habitat for beneficial species, fewer synthetic materials should be required to control pests. Others believe, at least for certain crops and at initial levels of adoption, 1PM could increase the use of chemicals, especially insecticides (Grundman, 1988). Through scoutings, for example, farmers may learn about and treat infestations they otherwise would not notice. As background to their major national study of 1PM adoption, Rajotte et al. ( 1987) reviewed empirical studies showing that, in general, 1PM reduces pesticide use, increases yields, increases net returns, and decreases economic risk. They cite findings from 35 studies involving 10 crops that showed 1PM lowered pesticide use and/or cost of production. Because some of these studies used research plot or demonstration project data to make projections and draw conclusions, there may be variances at the farmer level of adoption. Rajotte et al. (1987) conducted case study surveys in 16 states involving nine agricultural commodities. 6 Scouting was found to be the most pervasively adopted 1PM technique, although a large percentage of respondents reported other crop-specific 1PM practices. The investigators used scouting as the major criterion to distinguish 1PM users and nonusers. Like the other studies they cited, their impact study found, in general, higher gross revenues and net returns among 1PM users (Table 5). Actual levels of pesticides use were not reported. This is understandable given the difficulty and expense of collecting reliable on-farm chemical use data. However, indirect indicators suggest 1PM did not universally lead to less pesticide use when scouting was the criterion for 1PM adoption. For example, the national assessment's study of Indiana corn producers found 1PM users made more insecticide and herbicide applications per year than did nonusers. They may have used lower application rates because of timing or other 15 E -c'l)

PAGE 21

factors, but this is questionable because total pesticid.e costs for 1PM users were also higher. A similar but less distinct pattern was found among Virginia soybean producers. Cotton producers using 1PM in both Texas and Mississippi reported on average, considerably higher insecticide costs than did nonusers. Similarly, almond producers in California identified as 1PM users appeared to be more dependent upon chemicals than nonusers based on amount of spraying, fumigation, and use of herbicides. On the other hand, apple producers in New York and Massachusetts using 1PM reported lower total pesticide costs. Peanut growers from Georgia using 1PM had lower pesticide costs per acre. Tobacco growers in North Carolina using 1PM made fewer applications per year, although their costs were not l,.,wer than nonusers. Farmers in the multistate study strongly endorsed 1PM whether or not they used it. In general, the most important "selling points" cited were improved pest control, increased crop yields and quality, increased returns to management, protection of personal and public health, and reduced environmental damage (Table 6). IPM users assigned slightly more importanre to all of these selling points than nonusers. Comparisons of users and nonusers suggest that 1PM follows a somewhat traditional model of adoption. That is, u~~rs were likely to be more educated and younger; to have larger farming operations; and to depend more on technical sources of information. Without question, 1PM has major potential r or strengthening environmentally sound practices. A number of measures are already available and new knowledge promises additional alternatives. For now, however, 1PM adoption may carry some of the same limitations that conservation tillage has experienced as a solution to soil erosion problems. Just as discontinuance of the moldboard plow did not end soil erosion, systematic scouting for pests may not always translate into increased groundwater protection through reduced pesticide inputs. In both situations farmers may utilize some features of alternative technologies to reap economic benefits, but decline to pursue the more detailed and perhaps more managerial difficult refinements needed to more fully protect the environment. Practice Adoption and the Alternative Agriculture Movement For at least a decade, a grass roots movement ambiguously referred to as "alternative agriculture", sustainable agriculture, organic agriculture", and tow input agriculture" has developed (Youngberg, 1978). As with all beginning movements, it has been somewhat amorphous, and there is not a complet~ ideological consensus among its adherents. Many of 16

PAGE 22

those who identify with the movement experiment with and seek new ways to reduce chemical inputs. This prompts occasional scoffs from conventional farmers, who caution such approaches would be unprofitable if widely adopted in today's market system and would not produce the needed supply of food. This section does not address the economic or production issues; rather, it explores findings from surveys that compare the characteristics of persons identifying with alternative agriculture with profiles of the general farm population. Recent publications by Buttel and Gillespie (1988), Data Probe, Inc. (1988), and Anderson (1988) provide important insights. Like previous sociological studies (Contant, 1988; Dalecki and Bealer, 1983; Foster and Miley, !983; Harris ct al., Lockcretz and Wernick, 1978; Vail and Rozync, 1980), Data Probe's New Farm survey tends to debunk stereotypes of adherents to this movement (Table 7). It found highly educated farmers with substantial investments and commercial enterprises among the magazine's subscribers. Although very few (five percent) identified their operations as chemically intensive, only about one-fourth had eliminated use of chemicals. Like other studies of the low input adherents, the New Farm study found that its subscribers were farmers who had used more chemical inputs in the past. Of those who had recently cut back on chemicals, 66 percent reported no change in _income, and 27 percent reported an increase. Answering why they were cutting back, they cited environmental concern, health and safety reasons (68 and 67 percent, respectively), and production cost reduction (Table 8). In fact, among mostly cash grain producers, cutting production costs was a more dominant reason (81 percent) than either environmental concern (64 percent) or health and safety (S6 percent). This is consistent with findings by Buttel et al. (1986), Gersh (1988), and Anderson (1988) that organic and reduced-input farming was more often adopted to solve particular production, livestock, or human health problems, than for ideological reasons. Buttel and Gillespie's (1988) more recent study of New York farmers suggests that large numbers of conventional and commercial farmers may have interest in adopting more resource conserving, environmentally sound and reduced-input practices than has heretofore been recognized. They presented a sample of New York farmers with dichotomous alternatives for eight phases of crop production. Before being asked which they preferred, farmers were told to assume that the alternatives described would yield ... about the same net profit 17

PAGE 23

Preference for the lower input/more environmentally sound alternatives (Table 9) varied from 86 percent (seed varieties with moderate yield, high pest resistance) to 36 percent (more labor, less purchased products). In a comparison between small and commercial farmers (determined by gross farm sales and a $40,000 break point), statistically significant differences were found in four of the eight areas of production covered. For three of these (weed control, crop rotation, lower purchased inputs) small farmers were more likely to select the lower input option. For one (as few tillage operations as possible), commercial farmers more often chose the low-input option. Although the Buttel and Gillespie study unmistakably documents widespread interest in the lower input and more environmentally sound alternatives, it is important to keep in mind that farmers responded under the assumption of no impact on yields or net prof its. Experiences of New Farm respondents adopting reduced chemical inputs tend to validate the credibility of this assumption; however, other research (Esseks, 1988a; Padgitt, 1988c; and Wisconsin Rural Development Center, 1989) casts doubt on whether most farmers would accept this premise. Perhaps, the more important message, as is emphasized by Buttel and Gillespie, is that potential and substantial interest exists among a broad population of farmers. They also highlight a need to reconsider the current research agenda so that these technologies can be developed or refined as viable alternatives. Implications for policy Survey findings indicate farmer interest in alternatives to chemically intensive agriculture, but suggest that a number of farmers are not taking full advantage of existing recommendations and technologies to alleviate groundwater problems, particularly those associated with nitrogr---anagement. The potential of educational programs to reduce nitrogen application in corn production deserves greater attention. Despite controversy over crop needs and recommended rates, there appears to be some opportunity for many farm operators to simultaneously increase profit and improve groundwater quality. Whether rigid adherence to recommended rates and crediting noncommercial sources of nitrogen would be sufficient to protect groundwater from excessive nitrate is undetermined. Evidence has been gathered that farmers are already rethinking nitrogen practices in areas receiving attention. Educational programs and on-farm demonstx-ations would further nurture voluntary reduction in nitrogen. 18 E-'93

PAGE 24

The impact of 1PM on levels of chemical use is speculative. For some crops (most notably apples in the reviewed surveys), it seems 1PM has resulted in decreased dependence upon chemicals, but conclusions are less convincing for some of the other crops. There are, however, some important factors favoring support of 1PM if voluntary change is an objective of public policy. 1PM adoption, at least at the first level, is already occurring among large scale conventional farmers. These arc farmers who, traditionally, have been more dependent upon pesticides. Because this group comprises a large proportion of the farm population and is responsible for most of the pesticides applied, gaining their confidence and interest is critical. 1PM appears to have accomplished this, and now aspects of it other than scouting have potential for adoption. The recent documentation of widespread interest among conventional farmers in low-input alternatives suggests that investments in research and education to foster adoption of more environmentally sound practices has promise. The strength of this interest among conventional farmers strongly challenges assumptions that farmers prefer high-input chemical agriculture. 19 E -(" ( ., ,It ()' -i

PAGE 25

SURVEY FINDINGS ON FARMERS' PREFERRED POLICY RESPONSES TO THE ISSUE OF AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY As public awareness of groundwater vulnerability has increased, so have concerns that government "do something." Previously, water policies have focused more on drinking water standards, surface water, point sources, industrial contaminants, etc. The realm of agricultural chemicals and groundwater policy is relatively new, but the policy options are many. Abdalla (1987) identified several that are being pursued at state levels: strong regulatory roles (e.g., California and Wisconsin), public expenditures (e.g., Massachusetts), and research, education and demonstration (e.g., Iowa). Esseks (1988b) suggests viewing agricultural chemical and groundwater policy as a continuum of options. One end is defined as enlarging the technological choices open to farmers and the other by controlling farmer behaviors. Along the continuum exist such policy alternatives as basic research to create new alternatives, applied on-farm research, education programs, monitoring programs, economic incentives and disincentives, and regulatory control and enforcement. Although a full array of data are not available, farmers tend to support policies that increase technological choices more than options that control farmers' behaviors. These findings come mostly from those studies discussed earlier which report various policy preferences. In the paragraphs that follow, survey findings are organized under several policy options used as topical headings. With the exception of Esseks' study (1988b), most surveys appear to have included policy items for secondary, descriptive, or exploratory reasons rather than for systematic policy analysis. Care must be exercised in interpreting responses to hypothetical policy items. At best, they are a pulse of initial reactions. Levels of support and opposition can shift dramatically as proposed policy becomes articulated and social action starts to intensify. Likewise, the manner in which policy is implemented can affect the public's rec_eption of a policy. Cross compliance aspects of the 1985 Food Security Act are a case in point. Lasley (1984, 1988) has monitored Iowa fa.-mers' reactions to requirement for approved conservation plans on erodible land as a prerequisite for eligibility in federal farm 20

PAGE 26

programs. As this policy has become law and dates for compliance have neared (along with some lessening of compliance criteria) farmer support for the policy has dropped, at least somewhat. Enlarging the technological choices through research and education Public agencies are criticized at times for not giving sufficient priority to research and educational programs geared toward developing and demonstrating viable alternatives to chemically in,ense farming practices. Additionally, the credibility of alternatives emerging from on-farm research is questioned. Buttel and Gillespie (1988) have round widespread interest in low-input environme~tally sound technologies, at least when presented to farmers in an equal profit framework. The Wisconsin Rural Development Center (1989) found a majority of farmers unsure how to apply alternative practices to their farms. In direct questioning, Esseks found federal funding for research and education in low-input technologies to be a popular policy option. Across his five county /five state sites, support for research ranged from 72 percent in California to 91 percent in Florida. Technical support to farmers to reduce the use of chemicals, received equal or slightly more support from 80 percent in California to 92 percent in Florida. In posing the question, Esseks explicitly stated an optimistic consequence of funding the research (e.g., it should help reduce the possibility of contaminating groundwater as well as benefit farmers financially by lowering their costs of production). When Esseks' respondents were asked whether farmers would use free technic:al assistance, there was a meaningful, but not precipitous, drop in interest. Between !,,7 percent (Wisconsin) and 64 percent (Iowa, California) said farmers would "likely" or "ver)' likely" actually use Cree technical assistance. The "very likely" component ranged from 23 to 3S percent. The Wisconsin Rural Development Center asked ~bout on-farm technical expertise as well as local demonstrations and educational workshops. For all three, a majority or respondents said these aids would "likely" or "very likely" increase the chance farmers would reduce chemical use. In similar questioning, Padgitt (1987) posed the context of wholesale taxes on fertilizers and pesticides ratherthan federal funding to pay for research and education. He found levels of support similar to the Esseks study when proceeds were to be earmarked 21

PAGE 27

for agricultural research. Fewer, but still a majority, supported taxes to be used for educational programs. Less than half of the farmers supported taxes on pesticides if the revenue was earmarked for enforcement purposes. Incentives and Disincentives Research and educational programs that emphasize less chemical use arc, essentially, an incentive policy. (Alternatively if existing educational programs promote greater rather than less use, this could be viewed as a disincentive for change.) More traditionally, however, incentives arc identified in an economic context. Reactions to several kinds of incentives have been obtained in recent surveys. For example, in the Wisconsin Rural Development Center's study a majority of respondents said cost-sharing compensation for losses related to redu.cing chemicals would "likely" or "very likely" increase the chance they would reduce chemical usage. Similarly, a majority said if mark~t premiums existed for commodities produced with less chemicals they would likely cut chemical use. Not as much support (about one-third indicating interest) was found for short-term loans to help cover costs of new equipment. Some have suggested that current farm policy encourages greater use of chemicals (Duffy, 1987 and Fleming 1987). One issue is loss of base acreages for certain crops if rotational cropping is practiced. Esscks found that farmers consider this to be an important disincentive, especially in his Iowa and Wisconsin samples. In larger statewide samples, Padgitt obtained similar results in Iowa, but the Wisconsin Rural Development Center found less negative sentiment in Wisconsin than Esseks. Thus, concern over base acreage as a disincentive may be greater in the corn belt than elsewhere. Iowa farmers were also asked about a policy whereby farmers could lower chemical application rather than idle a portion of their base acreage in order to qualify for federal program benefits. Although considerable interest was expressed, sliglttly more opposition (SS percent) than support (45 percent) was found. Other unconventional (and perhaps nonfeasible) policies were posed in the Iowa survey in order to obtain a sense of whether farmers were open to and interested in new approaches. One proposal was a kind of "reverse-drought" insurance. It was based on an assumption that high nitrogen rates arc cheap insurance if excessive rainfall causes leaching and reduced yields. The ratio ~f opposition to support was about two to one. 22

PAGE 28

Several surveys have asked about taxing as a disincentive. Farmers have expressed support for modest taxes, but strong and widespread opposition to taxing at levels high enough to discourage chemical use. Esseks (1988b) reported between five to 33 percent supported such an approach, depending on the state, and Padgitt (1988c) found 15 percent support. Regulation Regulation is rarely popular public policy, and perhaps this is especially the case for agriculture. Independence is strongly imbcdded in the American creed and agrarian values. Work by Hoiberg and Bultena (1981), however, found farmers distinguished among combinations of regulatory practices and did not universally reject regulation. For example, they found different orientations toward regulation related to soil conservation/land use; agriculture safety /production; and f ecd additives/pesticides. Likewise, Gillespie and But.tel ( 1989) challenge earlier conclusions that opposition to regulation universally exists across all segments of the farm population. There is some suggestion that farmers have moderated their opposition to chemical regulation over the past decade. Of the Iowa farmers Hoiberg and Bultena studied in 1977, 42 percent said there was too much governmental involvement in pesticides and their application. That is almost double what was found within the same population ten years later (Padgitt, 1988c). Although earlier baseline data were not available, recent studies in Virginia (Halstead et al., 1988a) and Minnesota (Downing et al., 1988) revealed levels of opposition to regulation similar to those of the recent Iowa study. More divided responses came, however, to questions about whether more regulation was needed. The policy implications of such responses arc difficult to gauge, partially because respondents have not always been provided clear referents. One factor that might lead to over estimated support for regulation is a feeling that regulations would affect "the other guy". Drudik (1988) reported that initial support for a nitrogen management project in Nebraska was based upon farmers' beliefs that their neighbors not themselves were mismanaging. Such a response bias reveals itself in answers to Esscks' question about required training, testing and licensing of applicators of chemicals something that would personally affect the respondent. Modest but not majority support was found for increasing these standards. 23

PAGE 29

Esseks gave situational information in questioning about regulation. For example, he asked about bans on fertilizers and chemicals near wells in areas or watersheds that might be especially threatened. There was majority support in three of five states (Florida, 69 percent; Iowa, 67 percent; and Wisconsin, S6 percent); less than majority in two (California, 47 percent; and Pennsylvania, 39 percent). Restricting the timing and amounts of manure that could be applied in such a area, however, did not receive majority support in any of the five samples. A majority of respondents in four of the five samples (the exception being Pennsylvania) supported restrictions on pesticide applications on vulnerable land. Variation in policy preferences in relation to independent variables In a forthcoming publication, Gillespie and Buttel (1989) explore the issue of farm operator opposition to government regulation of agricultural chemicals. Their analysis and empirical research challenges the widely held position that farmers arc almost universally opposed to government regulation of agricultural chemicals, and lead them to conclude that such opposition is, in substantial measure, ideological rather than based on material interests in the use of particular chemicals or pharmaceuticals. Gillespie and Buttel also explored the relationships between opposition to government regulation and selected social class and farm operation characteristics of respondents. They found, as have others, that opposition to regulation tended to come from larger farms, but was unrelated or only weakly related to such personal characteristics as age and education. Gillespie and Buttel stress farmer ideology as the root base for farmer's opposition to regulation. A number of factors, such as sociopolitical attitudes and denial of product side effects, were identified as contributing to this ideology, and the former may have contributed to the weak relationship found between agrarian social class (including income variables) and opposition to regulation. Implications for policy Although the findings in this section largely document reactions to hypothetical policy proposals, responses give some indication of how farmers might view similar legislative proposals. Not surprisingly, widespread support was found for options that would increase farmers' repertoire of alternatives. This is a policy farmers arc familiar with and like. 24 E-J:9

PAGE 30

Their survey responses go beyond interest, and indicate a willingness to actively evaluate new technologies for their own farms. Farmers are interested in removal of disincentives they believe to exist. Voluntary approaches have greater appeal than regulation. Two critical questions remain: to what extent can voluntary approaches prompt change; and what kinds of regulation would be acceptable policy? The studies provide some, although not a strong, basis for speculation. Whether voluntary efforts would be sufficient to alleviate a problem would depend upon the extent of change needed and the extent alternatives do not disrupt farming profitability and established practices. For example, if only modest reductions in nitrogen rates would be sufficient to bring nitrates in groundwater to acceptable levels, there may be a high potential for this to occur with a voluntary approach. On the other hand, if major reductions arc necessary, policies may need to move along Esseks' continuum toward controlling behavior. But ~f major changes arc needed, communicated to, and understood by farmers, control policies may be quite acceptable, provided they are perceived as fairly implemented. 25 J;:,. ?~ C. ..,J. J

PAGE 31

SUMMARY The locality-specific nature of past surveys involving farmers' attitudes toward agricultural chemicals and groundwater quality makes it difficult to offer a national perspective. Although the contribution of a nationally based study of the farm population would be desirable, this would be a major undertaking. The study would need to consider major geological and agricultural systems variations that were not as problematic in the state and substate survey regions. In spite of limitations of the existing literature, a number of recurrent messages are evident. Farmers are nware of the groundwater issue and recognize, at least minimally, their own farming systems' contribution to the problem. Farmers expressed a strong desire for measures to avoid further degradation of water resources. Farmers also expressed concern about impacts on health. This makes public intervention acceptable if not desirable for many. Farmers expect government to protect and if necessary intervene in order to protect groundwater resources. The findings about how farmers perceive risks oil their own farms are somewhat ambiguous. Considerable "concern" and "worry" exist, but extensive direction for action is absent. The lack of action may be a result of their perceived lack of viable options. Although the experience of low-input agriculture adherents is mostly to the contrary, the general population of farmers thought that reducing chemical inputs would result in lower yields and lower profits. They also saw disincentives for rotational options in existing farm programs. Farmers appear to be less hostile to governmental intervention in the area of pesticide regulation than they were a decade ago. Farmers expressed more support for policies that would increase their repertoire of options than for disincentives or regulatory options. Taxation of agriculture if used to support research and education received support. Farmers also indicated interest in products of research. Farmers were opposed, however, to taxing farm chemicals at levels designed to discourage chemical use. 26 E-~, .. I

PAGE 32

Except for larger row-crop farmers who tended to be more opposed to policies limiting the use of chemicals, many of the attitudes cut across age and educational groups. Age and education are not strong predictors of agricultural chemical and groundwater attitudes. Only a few studies have reported gender differences u a variable. A recent hypothesis has. been offered that opposition to regulation of agricultural chemicals may be as strongly related to farmer ideology, or a farmer subcultural belief system, as it is to actual use or dependence upon cliemicals in farming operations. 27 t-22.

PAGE 33

Footnotes 1 In any discussion of agricultural chemicals and groundwater quality, at least two classes of chemicals need to be distinguished: fertilizers and pesticides. All three major plant nutrients, nitrogen, phosphorous, and potash, contribute to nutrient over-load and subsequent ecological imbalances in surface water. In groundwater, however, the environmental concern is primarily limited to nitrate-nitrogen. Nitrate-nitrogen is highly water soluble and is mobile in the soil. High levels of nitrate-nitrogen in the drinking water arc linked with the sometimes fatal health condition, methemoglobincmia. Although findings arc generally regarded as inconclusive, some studies have suggested prolonged ingestion of drinking water with elevated rates of nitrogen may also be associated with certain cancers. -Although the distinction between fertilizers and pesticides is critical, to aggregate all synthetic agricultural pesticides into one category is overly simplistic. It docs not take into account variation in products and what the differential impacts of individual compounds may be on groundwater quality. There arc at least four major classes of agricultural pesticides: herbicides, insecticides, ncmatocidcs and fungicides. Of these, herbicides constitute the greatest introduction of synthetic compounds into the environment in terms of total pounds of active ingredients. Herbicides account for 82 percent of pesticides used in production of major field and forage crops (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1983). Because herbicide products vary in terms of their toxicity, solubility, and persistence, the risk various products pose to the environment varies. 2 This study was conducted prior to legislative debate about the state's groundwater protection act, but at a time when the presence of agricultural chemicals in groundwater was receiving considerable media attention. However, there was publicity at the same time about industrial chemical residues the in public drinking water of the state's largest city. 3 statcmcnts and percent agreeing were: I have already reduced my chemicals as much as I can, 74%; my farm is too large for me to reduce my chemicals without adding more labor, 44%; I would need to purchase new equipment, 46%; I would be misunderstood or criticized by neighbors, 14%; I would lack access to reliable information on alternative management techniques for this farm, 28%; I'm not sure how to apply alternative practices to this farm, 52%; I would have to reduce my base acreage for government programs, 13%; Doing so would be less profitable than my present system, 68%; I would have more difficulty obtaining operating credit, 24%; insect and weed pests are too severe on my farm to depend on alternatives to chemicals, 46%. 4 Thc nine most prevalent concerns were: whether the product might be harmful to my health or my family's health; whether the product might affect groundwater quality; whether the product is good for the soil; whether I have had success with the product before; whether the product might be harmful to birds or other wildlife on my farm; whether the product might affect my livestock's health in a negative way; whether the product makes my crops healthier; cost of the product; and whether the agricultural extension agent recommends the product. 5 various terms arc used, sometimes synonymously, but more often ambiguously. This includes alternative agriculture, organic farming, and regenerative agriculture. Buttel et al. (1986) preferred the term "reduced-input agricultural systems." U.S.D.A. uses the acronym LISA (Low input sustainable agriculture). 6 studies from nine states arc used in the analysis. Urban 1PM and the Kentucky stored grain surveys were purposely omitted. The Washington alfalfa study was unavailable to the author. 28

PAGE 34

REFERENCES Abdalla, Charles W. 1987. "The Institutional and behavioral roots of groundwater contamination." Paper prepared for Extension Policy Working Group as Groundwater Quality. Berkley, California (December). Anderson, M.D. 1988. "Motivations and practices of North Carolina farmers with reduced chemical inputs." Poster session. Conference on Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Columbus, Ohio, Sept. 19-23. Buttel, Frederick H., and Gilbert W. Gillespie, Jr. 1988. "Preferences for crop production practices among conventional and alternative farmers. 1988. American Journal of / .lternative Agriculture 3(1) 11-18. Buttel, Frederick H., Gilbert W. Gillespie, Jr., Rhonda Janke, Brian Caldwell, and Marianne Sarrentonio. 1986. "Reduced-input agricultural systems: Rationale and prospects.: American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 1(2):58-64. Buttel, Frederick H., Gilbert W. Gillespie, Jr., Oscar W. Larson III, and Craig K. Harris. 1981. "The social bases of agrarian environmentalism: A comparative analysis of Michigan and New York farm operators." Rural Sociology 46 (Fall): 391-410. Center for Communication Dynamics. 198S. "Groundwater contamination: the measure of public concern." Washington, D.C. (Permission to use granted from National Agricultural Chemical Association.) Contan~ Cheryl. 1988. Use of information sources about groundwater and environmental issues." Panel presentation. Freshwater Foundation Conference on Groundwater Policy. St. Paul (November). Dalecki, Michael G. and Bob Bealer. 1983. "Who is the organic farmer?" The Rural Sociologist 4( 1) 11-18. Data Probe, Inc. 1988. The New Farm subscriber survey. Rodale Press. Emmas, Pennsylvania. Donham, Kelly J., 1988. Institute of Agricultural and Occupational Health. University of Iowa. Iowa City, Iowa. Perlonal Communication. November 22, 1988. Downing, Kevin, Lyle Schutte, Ron Shelito, and Robert Zerr. 1987. "Report of the Water Management Task Force." Countryside Council. Marshall, Minnesota. Drudick, Tom. "Hall County, Nebraska nitrogen management project." Grand Island, Nebraska. Personal Communication, November 28, 1988. Duffy, Michael. "Impacts of the 1985 Food Security Act. 1987. Iowa State University Cooperative Extension Service. Ames, Iowa (Unpublished paper). Esseks, J. Dixon. 1988a. "Farmers' perceptions of ground water problems." Center for Government Studies. DeKalb, Illinois. University of Northern Illinois. (forthcoming, Agricultural Land and Policy Institute, Washington, D.C.) 29

PAGE 35

----1988b. "Farmers' reactions to proposed policies for copying with ground water contamination problems." Center for Government Studies. Northern Illinois University. (forthcoming, Agricultural Land and Policy Institute, Washington, D.C.) Fleming, Malcolm H. 1987. "Agricultural chemicals in ground water: Preventing contamination by removing barriers against low-input farm management." American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 2(3):124-130. Foster, Gary S. and James D. Miley. 1983. "Organic farmers and organic non-farmers: The social context of organic agl'iculture." The Rural Sociologist 3(1):16-22. Freshwater Foundation. 1988. "Agricultural chemicals and groundwater protection: Suggested Directions for Consideration and Action." Freshwater Foundation, St. Paul, Minnesota. Gcrsh, Jeff. 1988. "Why some Wisconsin farmers choose farm sustainability; a question of circumstances, values, and validation." Poster session abstract. Conference on sustainable agricultural systems. Columbus, Ohio. September 19-23. Gillespie, Gilbert W., Jr. and Frederick H. Buttel. 1989. "Und~rstanding farm operator apposition to government regulation of agricultural chemical and pharmaceutjcals: The role of social class, objective interests and ideology." American Journal of Alternative Agriculture (forthcoming). Grundman, Dean. 1988. Coordinator of Integrated Pest Management, Iowa State University. Ames, Iowa. Personal Communication (December). Hallberg, George R. 1987. "Facing the dilemma: Where do we go from here?" Proceedings from Conference on Agricultural Chemicals and Groundwater Protection: Emerging Management and Policy. Freshwater Foundation. St. Paul, Minnesota (October). Halstead, John M., Sandra S. Batie and Randall A. Kramer. 1988. "Agricultural practices and environmental attitudes of Rockingham County, Virginia dairy farmers: Results of a survey. Department of Agricultural Economics. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Blacksburg, Virginia. Halstead, John M., Steven Padgitt, and Sandra S. Batie. 1988b. "Ground water contamination from agricultural sources: Voluntary policy implications from Iowa and Virginia farmers' attitudes. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociological Society. Athens, Georgia. Harris, Craig K., Sharon E. Powers, and Frederick H. Buttel. 1980. Myth and reality in organic Farming: A profile of conventional and organic farmers in Michigan. Newsline 8(4):33-43. Hoiberg, Eric 0., and Gordon L. Bultena. 1981. Farm operator attitudes toward government involvement in agriculture." Rural Sociology 46(3):381-390. Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 1986. "Opinion survey." Des Moines, Iowa. Unpublished staff report. Kaa,p, James D. "Implementing best management practices to reduce nitrate levels in Northeast Iowa groundwater." 1986. Proceedings of the Agricultural Impacts on Groundwater. Conference. National Water Well Association. Omaha, Nebraska. 30

PAGE 36

Lasley, Paul. 1988. "Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll: 1988 summary." Cooperative Extension Service. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. Pm-1298. ----1984. "Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll: Iowa farmers' opinions about water." Cooperative Extension Service. Iowa State University. Ames, Iowa. Pm-1157. 1983. "Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll: Opinions about farm policy." Cooperative Extension Service. Iowa State University. Ames, Iowa. Pm-1095. Lockeretz, William and Sarah Wernick. 1978. Commercial Organic Farming in the Corn Belt in Comparison to Conventional Practices. Rural Sociology 45(4) 708-722. Moore, Keith M. 1988. "Water Quality concerns and the Public Policy Context." Paper presented at annual meetings of Rural Sociological Association. Athens, Georgia Personal communication. November 29, 1988. ----Nielson, Elizabeth G., and Linda K. Lee. 1987. "The magnitude and costs of Groundwater Contamination from Agricultural Chemicals." Resources and Technology Division, Economic Research Service. United States Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Economic Report No. 576. Padgitt, Steven. 1987. "Agriculture and Groundwater Issues in Big Spring Basin and Winneshiek County, Iowa." Cooperative Extension Service. Iowa State University. Ames, Iowa. CRD-229A. 1988a. "Monitoring Audience Response to Demonstration Projects: Baseline report (Audubon County)." Cooperative Extension Service. Iowa State University. Ames, Iowa. CRD 273. 1988b. "1988 Interim Report: Monitoring Audience Response Component of Integrated Farm Management Demonstration Project." Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State University. Ames, Iowa. Pm-1345. 1988c~ "Farm Practices and attitudes toward groundwater policies." Cooperative Extension Service. Iowa State University. Ames, Iowa (forthcoming). Padgitt, Steven and Bernard Hoyer. 1987. "Agriculture and groundwater quality: farmers versus non-farmers in a new environmental battleground." Paper presented at annual meetings of Rural Sociological Society. Madison, WI. Pins, Kenneth. 1986. "Poll: Iowans want limits to ag chemicals." The Des Moines Sunday Register. Section A. (November 11):1. Rajotte, Edwin G., Richard F. Kazmierczak, Jr., George W. Norton, Michael T. Lambur, and William A. Allen. 1987. The National Evaluation of Extension's Integrated Pest Management Program (Main report and appendices). Virginia Cooperative Extension Service. Virginia Polytechnic and State University: Blacksburg, Va. VCES Publications: Main report, 491-010; Appendix 2 (California almond), 491-013; Appendix 3 (Massachusetts apple) 491-014; Appendix 4 (New York apple) 491-01S; Appendix 5 (Indiana corn), 491-016; Appendix 6 (Texas cotton), 491-017; Appendix 7 (Mississippi cotton), 491-018; Appendix 8 (Georgia peanut), 491-019; Appendix 9 (Virginia soybean), 491-020; Appendix 11 (North Carolina tobacco), 491-022. Trembly and Dunlap. 1978. "Rural-Urban Residence and Concern with Environmental Quality: A Replication and Extension." Rural Sociology 43(Fall) 474-491. 31

PAGE 37

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1983. Economic Research Service. Inputs and Outlook Situation. IOS-2 (October). Vail, David, and Michael Rozyne. 1980. "The image and the reality of small organic farms: evidence from Maine." In Dietrich Knorr (ed.) New Principles of Food and Agriculture. Westport, Connecticut: AV Publishing. Van Liere, Kent, and Riley E. Dunlap. 1980. "The Social bases of environmental concern: A review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence." Public Opinion Quarterly 44:(Summer ): 181-197. Wisconsin Rural Development Center, 1989. "Wisconsin farmers' constraints to reducing agricultural chemicals." Black Earth, Wisconsin. (Report in preparation.) Youngberg, Garth. 1978. "The alternative agricultural movement." Policy Studies Journal 6:(Summer ):524-30. 32 E-37

PAGE 38

TABLES 33

PAGE 39

Table 1. States Jrom which farmer survey findings are quoted. State California Florida Georgia Indiana Iowa Massachusetts Minnesota w .,:i. Mississippi New York North Carolina Oklahoma Pennsylvania Virginia Wisconsin Reference Esseks, 1988a, 1988b Esseks, 1988a, 1988b Rajotte et al., 1987 Rajotte et al., 1987 Esseks, 1988a, 1988b; Lasley, 1983, 1984, 1988; Padgitt, 1987, 1988a, 1988b, 1988c Halstead et al., 1988 Rajotte et al., 1987 Downing, 1988 Rajotte et al., 1987 Buttel and Gillespie, 1988 Gillespie and Buttel, 1989 Rajotte et al., 1987 Anderson, 1988 Rajotte et al., 1987 Moore, 1988 Esseks, 1988a, 1988b Rajotte, 1987 Halstead et al., 1988a Halstead et al., 1988b Esseks, 1988a, 1988b Wisconsin Rural Development Center, 1989 Geographical base Single county Single county Statewide Statewide Single county Statewide Statewide/County Comparative county Statewide Regional Statewide Statewide Statewide Statewide Statewide Statewide Not defined Single county Statewide Single county Comparative county Single county Statewide Topic areas Attitudes, policy Attitudes, policy Farm practices Farm practices Attitudes, policy Attitudes, policy, farm practices Attitudes, policy, farm practices Attitudes, policy, farm practices Policy, farm practices Policy, farm practices Farm practices Attitudes, practice adoption Farm practices Attitudes, policy Attitudes, policy Farm practices Attitudes, farm practices Attitudes, policy, farm practices Attitudes, policy Attitudes, policy, farm practices

PAGE 40

Table 2. Ranking of issues and position of drinking water as an issue. Study Padgitt (1987) Padgitt (1988:) Padgitt (1988 ) Halstead ct al. (1988) Lasley (1988) Downing ct al. (1988) Iowa DNR ( 1986) Center for Comm Dynamics 4-point scale 5-point scale 7-poin t scale Sample/ Sample Segment Farm operators Farm operators Rural non-farm Rural non-farm Farm operators Farm operators Farm operators Farm operators General household General household Farm subset Adult U.S. population Selection of top issue only 35 o/o assigning Rank/total highest rating issues ranked to water quality 2.5 of 6 61 2 of 6 61 1 of 6 73 1.5 of 6 76 3 of 6 64 2 of 7 51 1 of 6 76 3 & 9 of 19 56/4s 1 of 6 34 3 of 6 24 1 of 6 30 S of 8 s5 .r..:. ''-1, '---... i..

PAGE 41

Table 3. Iowans' perceptions of groundwater pollution sources. Percent responding "A Great Deal" Source All respondents Farm households N 400 N 78 Farm pesticides Farm fertilizers Hazardous waste disposal Landfills and abandoned dumps Accidental spills of hazardous materials Leaking underground storage tanks Use of pesticides and r ertilizers inside of cities and towns Application of animal manure, sewage and industrial waste on land Agricultural drainage wells, sinkholes and abandoned wells Septic tanks 67 58 39 34 28 28 21 21 20 8 Items were asked in random order during interviewing. Source: Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 1986. 36 52 35 30 35 20 19 6 12 15 2 [ -t!, If

PAGE 42

Table 4. Summary of studies Inventorying concern about agricultural chemicals (fertilizers and pesticides) posing a health threat. Big Spring Northeast Iowa Southwest Mlmesota VA Dairy Southwest Northwest Location/Response f!J:JJJa Non-farm Non-fann Rural Non-fannb I!Mlb fmlb Farmerc lowad lowae -----------------------Percent responding-----------------------In the nation Very concerned S2 74 63 67 64 89 80 46 50 45 Somewhat concerned 42 25 46 29 47 39 44 Not at all concerned 2 0 0 0 1 3 4 Not sure s l l 4 7 8 2 In your state Very concerned 64 81 63 82 73 89 86 52 64 58 Somewhat concerned 32 18 37 18 43 28 37 Not at all concerned 0 1 0 0 1 3 2 Not sure 2 0 0 0 4 s 2 In your county (region) Very concerned 72 84 59 71 73 92 8S S1 6S 63 Somewhat concerned 2S 15 39 17 39 28 33 Not at all concerned 0 0 l 0 1 2 2 Not sure 2 1 1 12 3 s 2 On your own farm Very concerned 71 X 57 X X X X 56 63 69 Somewhat concerned 2S X 31 X 36 2S 26 Not at all concerned 2 X 9 X 3 7 2 Not sure 2 X 1 X s s 2 X = Not asked. aFrom Padgitt, 1987 bFrom Downing et al., 1988 ~From Halstead et al., 1988 From Padgitt, 1988a eFrom Padgitt, 1988c ... 37

PAGE 43

Table 5. Selected fh,dings fraa a national study on adoption of Integrated Pest Management (1PM). Level of 1PM Use Crop/Location Low-level 1PM User High-level Non-users Y!!!:! ~Level not sgrated2 !!ill! Com/Indiana Numer of respondents 123 108 166 Average yield (bu/acre) 104.4 112.5 115.0 Pesticide applications (#/yr) Herbicide 1.01 1.20 1.29 Insecticide 0.16 0.33 0.39 Total pesticide costs (S/acre) 17.41 23.46 25.30 Cotton/Texas Numer of respondents 139 633 Average yield (#/acre) 430.4 588.7 Pesticide costs (S/acre) Herbicide 10.35 9.28 Insecticide 14.60 26.20 COttan/Mississippi Nurt>er of respondents 39 261 Average yf eld (dryland) (#/acre) 629.6 749.9 Pesticide costs (S/acre) Herbicide 20.74 30.90 Insecticide 39.91 47.83 Pein.Its/Georgia Nu1t,er of respondents 78 74 224 Average yield (#/acre> 3155.5 3285.8 3504.1 Pesticide applications (#/yr) Herbicide 2.01 2.04 2.30 lnsecticfde 1.67 2.07 1.70 Feqfcfde 4.28 5.19 4.82 Total pesticide costs (S/acre) 48.93 38. 11 43.79 Tobacco/North carolfna Numer of respondents 47 77 222 Average yield (#/acre) 2265.0 2265.0 2271.7 Pesticide applications (#/yr) 3.7 3.2 3. 1 Pesticide costs (S/acre) 56.58 53.97 56.71 Apples/New York Numer of respondents 42 160 16 Average yield (bu/acre> 449 518 545 Average price (S/fresh bushel) 3.68 3.83 3.80 Pesticide applications (#/yr) 11.5 11.3 13.2 Pesticide costs (S/acre) 169.25 156.17 143.64 Apples/Massachusetts Numer of respondents 43 45 Average yield (bu/acre) 344.5 386.5 Average price (S/fresh bushel) 8.00 7.43 Pesticide applications (#/yr) Herbicide 1.2 1.0 Insecticide 9.6 8.2 Fu,gicide 11.4 12.4 Miticlde 2. 1 1.8 Pesticide costs (S/acre) 226.93 161.85 Almonc:1/Celifornia Nurt,er of respc111dents 82 39 117 Percent of total proct,ctlon rejected (1984) 2.5 1.2 1.9 Pestfcfde aement
PAGE 44

Table 6. Perceived selling points for Integrated Pest Management: Comparison of non-users and high level users. Level of IPM use Virginia Indiana Georgia North Carolina Massachusetts New York Texas Mississippi Soybean Corn Peanut Tobacco Apple Apple Cotton Cotton Selling point Growers Growers Growers Growers Growers Growers Growers Growers Non High Non High Non High Non High Non Non High Non Non High Y!!t Y!!C Y!!t Y!!C User User Y!!C M!!!. Ym Y!!t Y!!C Y!!t Y!!.t Ym Y!!C Y!!C Increased farm profits 100 97 86 89 88 94 94 94 76 9S 92 8S 77 90 94 97 Increased crop yield and quality 94 94 83 91 93 98 83 94 67 9S 92 92 81 91 92 96 Reduces personal health hazard 80 93 90 82 73 82 83 89 NRNR NRNR NR NR NR NR Reduces family health hazard NR NR 84 84 NR NR 83 88 NR NR NR NR NR NR NRNR Safe use of pesticides 100 94 84 82 70 87 94 90 87 98 92 8S 77 82 76 86 -~ Protects public health 80 92 82 80 NR NR 94 84 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR Increases knowledge of pest and control options 90 90 83 79 88 93 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR Promotes less toxic and small quantities of pesticides 90 90 73 76 NR NR 88 92 NR NR NR NR 61 77 72 88 Reduces environmental damage 44 91 75 1S 77 91 88 92 92 100 88 92 63 73 80 82 Increases peace of mind 80 8S 76 74 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRNR Better way of pest control 89 94 68 72 94 9S 77 94 NR NR NR NR 76 87 92 94 on a rating scale of 1 to 4, with 1 being not important and 4 being very important, values represent sum of respondents answering either 3 or 4. NR = Not reported Source: Rajotte et al., 1987. '1 39 --

PAGE 45

Table 7. Profile of New Farm subscribers. Characteristic Average value of total assets (farm and home) Total farm sales in 1987 Cash grain major en tcrprise Graduation from 4-ycar college Chemical weed control current Non-chemicals In emergencies Moderate use Intensive use In past five years, quit/reduced: Using herbicides Using insecticides Impact on income of quit/reduced using chemicals (N = 312) Increased income No change Decreased income *N = Number of respondents Fyll-lim, f1ti-iim, N* 294 N* 199 $408,150 $228,280 $119,810 $23,700 38% 24% 36 26 10 28 13 24 70 46 7 2 NR NR. **All respondents in the study were farm operators; however, a portion identified occupations or statuses other than farmer. Hence, full-time and part-time do not sum to total respondents. I2111** N*= 661 $301,210 $67,350 30% 34 23 18 S4 s 33 26 27 66 7 Source: Data Probe, Inc. (1988) (Permission to quote granted to author from Rodale Press, November, 1988). 40

PAGE 46

Table 8. Reasons for having reduced or quit using chemicals. Total Mostly Mostly Mostly Mostly S1m121, D1iu liJ2&t Ci~h grain Reason X of 312 X of 45 X of 39 X of 46 X of 99 Environmental concern 68 78 68 S9 64 Personal/family health safety 67 1S 60 64 S6 Cut production costs 63 70 71 43 81 Reduce liability risk 11 18 s 16 9 Increasing gove,;nment regulations s s 2 2 7 Receive market premiums s 2 0 2 4 Source: Data Pr9be, Inc., 1988. Permission to quite granted to author from Rodale Press, November, 1988. 41

PAGE 47

Table 9. Degree of preference among random sample of New York farmers for low input alternative for eight crop production practices. Phase of Crop Production Seed varieties with moderate yield, high pest resistance On-farm fertility sources Cultured practices for weed control Natural controls for insects Natural control r or diseases As f cw tillage operations as necessary Several crops, regular rotation More labor, less purchased products Source: Buttel and Gillespie ( 1988). Percent N 309 86 66 4S 44 74 49 40 36 Note: For each of the eight phases, respondents were presented with paired descriptive alternatives. Answers were to be based on preference under the assumption that both practices described would yield about the same net profit. 42

PAGE 48

APPENDIX Annotation of Selected Empirical Studies This appendix presents a brief summary of several studies cited in the main text. The annotation of findings was not necessarily designed to be a summary of the entire study. Rather entries are limited to those findings bearing the most directly on issues/policies/practices relevant to agricultural chemicals and groundwater quality. 43 : .. ( /(',, ._ ( I

PAGE 49

Stu:ly Anderson (1988) Buttel & Gillespie (1988) Topic Area Adoption of practices substituting for high chemical l~ts l11ue attitudes/ Adoption motivation l!!!!! 1988 1987 Population/ Sanple Size (N) North Carolina farmers a) Nalternative11 production sanple (N) b) "convent tonal 11 sanple (N=303) a) Conventional farm operators, state of New York (N=317) b) Ment>ers of Natural Organic Farmers A88oc. New York (NOFANY) (N) Maior Ftrdfngs a) Alternative farmers coapared with conventional farmers had significantly less acreage In cultivation, lower rentedtoowned land ratios, lower fara Incomes, and slightly higher educational levels. b) For both gr0t.p reasons for decldh11 to uae particular chemicals were personal health, awtronnental consequences and previous succeaa. c) lq:,ortance assigned to environmental consequences of chemicals distinguished among alternative, part-time, and full-time conventional farmers. Alternative farmers were IIIOSt concerned about nonhunan effects. d) Cost of chemical prodJcts was 1110re a concem of full-time conventional farmers than It was of parttlme conventional farmers. a) Conventional farmers gave divided opinions on statements related to agricultural chemicals and environnent: 1) The pollution effects of nitrate fertilizers are quite Lntq,ortant conp1red to all their benefits (451 disagree, 321 neutral, 231 agree). 2) "There 11 too auch talk about all the harmful effect of pesttcldea and not enough about their benefits" (381 disagree, 221 neutral, 40X agree). 3) "Envtronmentall1t1 have greatly exaggerated the dangers of nitrate ferti l lzer pollution" (281 disagree, 421 neutral, 30X agree). b) Nearly uilversal disagreement to the above three Items (961) existed among NOFANY respondents. c) Mithln the conventl0r11l sanple 11111ller farmers expressed greater environnental concern. d) On eight forced-choice i terns, conventional farmers more often chose the low input alternative for eight separate phases of crop procl.lction. Methods/External validity/ Generalization limits Mail questiomaire. Response rate for 11alternattve sanple was 791; response rate for Nconventlonal" sanple was 531. Sanples were pooled and three clusters of tanners distinguished. Sub-grouping should be basts for any general tzationa. Separate random sanplea were developed. Malled questlomaire was used to collect data. Conventional sanple generalizable to New York fann operator population. Organic sanple restricted to farmers with ment>ershtp tn New York State chapter of the Natural Organic Farmers Association.

PAGE 50

Center for COIIIIUlication Dynamics (1985) Data Probe, Inc. (1988) Topic Area 1985 Practice adoption, 1988 motivation for adoption Population/ Sanple Size (N) 8) U.S. acl.alt (N=401) b) Wisconsin adult population (N=-200) 5'acrlbers to New Farm magazine (N 661) Methods/External validity/ Maior Findtn9s Generalization limits e) Among conventional farmers, small farmers more often chose the low Input alternatives for weed control, tillage, crop mfx, and purchased 111)1.Jts. Comnerctal farmers tended to prefer less tillage. No differences were fOl.rld for seed selection, fertility, Insect control and disease control. f) Authors conclude there nay be great mtapped potential for agricultural researchers and pollcymkers to Increase the ability of the vast rank-and-file of nonorganlc farmers to eq,loy resource conserving, more envlronnentally sOlni, red.Iced-Input practices. 8) All Identifiable social trends point to Increased pu:,l lc concern and regulation Interest In both surface and grcudwater contamination. b) Water related Issues received somelllat less concern than air pollution and RJClear wastes. c) Wisconsin sanple nuch l Ike national sanple except for more Wisconsin respondents were more likely to view uidergrOU'ld water pollution and sewage disposal Into rivers as national problems (58X vs. 48X and 70X va. 59X respectively). d) Attitudes were generally mrelated to social characteristic variables. Concerns were remarkably pervasive throughout the population. a) Profiles of farmers do not confona to stereotapes of or ganic fanners In terms of education and size of farms. b) Among respondents reclJclng or (f'lttlng use of chemicals, three major and fairly equally distributed reasons were cited: environmental concern (68X), personal/family health and safety concerns (67X), and cut production costs (63X). c) Among most cash grain farmers, reasons for reducing chemicals were cutting production costs (81X), environnental concern (64X), and heal th and safety (56X). Telephone Interviews, randam digit dialing. Sanpl i ng error at 95X confidence level: +/-7X for Wisconsin sanple, +/SX for national saq,le. Random s-.,le of farm operators of sl.bscriber population. Mall (f.leStionnalre. Sanple likely to be hanogeneous on sustainable agriculture values promoted in the publication. Generalization is to subscriber population.

PAGE 51

BLANK PAGE

PAGE 52

Downing, et al. (1987) Toptc Area Attitudes toward f ssue/pol Icy preferences 1986 Population/ Sanple Size (N) Households in 19 CCUlty area of Southwestern Mfmesota (N=630) Methods/External validity/ Malor Ftndt09s Generalization limits d) Of the aanple respondents, chqes In fanning operations In the peat 5-yeara Included: Cf,lft/reduced herbicides, 33X; quit/reduced uae of fertfl lzera, 26X; qult/recllced lnsec tlcldea, 26X; Increased herbicides, 41; Increased fertll fzera, 131; Increased Insecticides, 31. a) Protecting water quality rated higher than five other Issues. b) Farmers, In conparlaon to their nonfann and town cou,terparta, were more likely to agree: 1) that agricultural chfcala If used as directed are not a threat to the envlronnent11 (48X vs. 151 vs. 221); 2) there 11 too IUCh regulation on pesticide use" (20X VI. 7X VS. 81); 3) current progr-and regulations are Inadequate to protect grotniwlter" (371 YI. 141 vs. 151); 4) Npetroleua apt llage accou,ts for aore contlnatlon than agrtcul tural chlcala (30I vs. 151 vs. 161); 5) groudfater cantlnatlan 11 re of a concern In urban areas than In rural (291 YI. 151 vs. 20X). c) Faraer1, In caaparlsan to their non-fal'II and town catnter part1, were lea, likely to agree: 1) -Current procl.lctlon level could be mlntatned with less use of fertilizer" (531 vs. 671 vs. 641) 2) "protecting the envtronnent 11 10 llll)Ortant that r8(f.lfrementa camot be too high (611 vs. 931 vs. 82X). d) Al though IIIOSt respondents were very worried" that agricultural chemicals pose a health rfak to people locally, farmers were leas worried than their rural non-farm and toll'l cou,terparts (73X vs. 90X vs. 85X) Slnple random sanple from conmerctal mail list developed frm telephone di rectories. Mai led ques tlonnalrea to a sanple of 3,000 resulting In 211 response rate. No second follow-up matt Ing used. Original aanple general fzable to population. No analyst, provided to assess bias of non respondent,. Care should be exerclaed In general lzlng to population of region due to low response rate.

PAGE 53

Esseks, (1988a, 1988b) Freshwater FOU'ldat ion (1987) Topic Area Attl tude1 toward Issue/ 1988 Policy preferences Policy preferences 1987 Population/ Sanple stze Five parallel 1tudfes Randal 1anples of fara operators Lancaster Co., PA (N) Jackson Co., FL (N) Portage Co., WI (N) Cherokee co. IA (N) Stanislaus Co., CA (N) MaJoc FtQdtnss e) State govemnent was clear preference over federal or local/ccx.nty governnent to enforce exf1tlng (or future) water CJ,llllty policies. > Perception that prcbl ag chlcal1 In grouidwater was nearly w,lveraal (90+ percent In all 1tudles). b) Those lllo 1ald they were worried about agrlcul tural chemical, fertilizer or..,.... being In their drinking water ranged froa 45 percent In Stanislaus Cow,ty, CA to 64 percent In Jack1on Cot.nty, Florida. c) Strong 1LflPC)rt (70+ percent) fouid for pol lcle1 supporting research and eci,catlon to recb:e depeudeuce on ag chlcel1. Less Sl4)PC)rt for anticipated use of technical slstance. d) Majorl ty In each 1tudy 1ald that profits would be recllced for themselves if fewer chlcals used. > Fre11 twoftfth1 to thrftfth1 bel I eve they have already fou,d economic ways to reduce chlc1l1. f) Fanner (Jllte divided about regulation pol Icy 11 .... In all five states aore opposition fcu,d for restricting 111n.1re appl I cat tons than for restricting pestlctc:IH and ferttl lzers, or blmlng ag chlcals near wells. self selected attendees > Three of five attendees felt the ecormlca of staying In at national conference: bualneu w the driving forces behind agrtchelllcal uae. 271 agency eaployeea, Thi raon 1111 choe., IIUCh re f.....-tly than adver 211 u,lver1tty, tlslng (111), tradition (111), governnent policies (81), 81 faraers, other or rket pricing (3). categories 7X or less (N 212) b) Three factors felt to be Jor canatralnt1 to effective naa-ent of agrfchlcals and protection of 1rOU'1dwater were: 1 > lack of Incentives to change current practices, 2) Inadequate lnfo1'118tlon, and 3) potential loss of Income. c) Responsibfltty for protecting gr0la1dwater frm agrlchemlcal contamination was a11lgned most frequently (30X) to a part nershlp among governnent agencies, farmers, farmer organizations, the chemical lnclastry, and society as a whole. Methods/External validity/ Generalization limits Telephone Interviews, Reapanae rate ranged fram 68 percent to 83 percent. Single 1tudies general tzable to n.1ltl-township sites within the respective COl.l'lties. Aggregation among states self edlllnlstered ques tlonnelrn filled out and returned c*.rlng thrff day conference. Two-thirds of attendee coapleted for11. Generalization not Justified beyond the aanple Itself.

PAGE 54

Population/ Methods/External validity/ ll!!b: Topic Area Ii!!! !!!!l!le Sjze ,N2 Malor Flndtnss Qeneralizasjon limits Nineteen percent thought responatbll tty lhould be with fannera/uaera/growera, 10X assigned responsibility to fed eral agencies, 10X asstgl'll!d It to partnership of users producers, and 8X tdenttffed the agriculture Industry. Gt llespfe Ind Policy preferences, 1982 New York fann operators I) Social class, wtlltngness to assune risk, and llll)Ortance Mall queattomaf re. Buttel correlates of regu (Na456) placed on profit king were directly related to Response ratio was 691 latton opposition opposition to govemnent regulation. Generalizable to active fana operators In New York b) Farm..,,. offfar11 work, cynlcl toward agrtbuatneaa, noneconanlc orientation towards agriculture, perceptions of potential aide side-effects of agricultural chlcals Ind drugs, and liberal political attitudes were Inversely related to opposition to regulation. C) Conclusion ta drawn that opposition to governnent regulation of agrtcul tural chtcala fa prtmrt ly due to fanner Ideology Ind hu little to do with whether farmers actually use the chelltcats. Halstead et al. Attitude toward Issue/ 1987 Grade A Dairy I) Two of five fannera follow fertl llzer recoamendatlona Matted questionnaire with (19888) practice adoption operations In wt thout regard to .,..re appllcattona. Thirty follow-up. Full 1-.,le Rocklnsah Ccu,ty, percent did not know r-..trtent value of ..... e. was coaplete m1n1r1tfon VA (N) of population. Response b) Of atx pJ,l lc 1111,111, thrN received nearly equal rate 1111 50I. Study rating (protecting water quality, preventing aotl erosion, generalizable to dairy attaining profitability In agriculture). farmers In Rocklnah Co. C) Relf)Ondenta conalatently dt19reed with position that degradation of grc:udwater and .wlroraent ... acceptable trade-off for laproved profltabll lty. Holberg and Policy preferences 1977 Iowa far11 operator, a) Fanner were generally split on Wlether governantal Area probability ,-.,le. Bultena (1981) (N-940) lnvolveaent In pesticides and their application .. too Statistical generalization IILICh (40X) or about rl.-.t lll0U"lt (411). Few (131) felt Is to Iowa fara operator there was too little Involvement. with 1976 grosa aales of S2,500 or -,re. b) Tendency to answer Ntoo IILICh Involvement was mre prevalent among older respondents, respondent with larger farm, and farmers having less trust In governnent. Educational attainnent and pol itlcal efficacy were u,related to positions on peetlcides. L/rY

PAGE 55

,, Iowa Department of Natural Resources (1986) (Also Padgitt and Hoyer, 1987) ICaap (1986) (also Padgttt, 1987) Lasley (1988) Topic Area Policy preferences Attitudes/practice adoption 11aue attitude I!!!!! 1986 1984, 1986 1988 Population/ Sanpl~ Size Adult Iowans (N=400) Big Spring Basin (N and 229) Active Iowa farm operator (N) Ma lor Findings a) Eighty-three percent of respondent want more done to solve grauidwater pollution problem In the state, 10 percent 11ld enough Is already being done. b) Eighty-four percent el ther favored or strongly favored 110re 1trlnr,ent regulations on uae of pesticides, Tl percent favored tighter re1trlctlona on fertilizers. Among farmer (N) 65 percent favored tighter re1trlctlona on pesticides and 52 percent backed aore controls on fert ll I zers. c) Ftftyaeven percent of all respondent said taxes lhould be lqx,sed to dt1courage excessive pesticide and fertilizer use; 391 were opposed. Among fanner1, 431 favored and SOX qlpo&ed such taxing policy. (Remainder were U'ldeclded.) a) Availability of nitrogen greatly exceeded crop needs. b) Fanner not ....,_tely crediting ...... and rotating crops. c) Forty percent of far111ra recb:ed nitrogen rate1 between 1984-86. d) Concern about l1sue high. Majority of far111ra willing to 1upport tax Increases If reveru used for r-erch and education. > Far1111r1 cppoled relaxing 1tandardl to 1tl1Ulete econamlc growth. a) water (f,18llty end agricultural chelllcal l11UtS rated high on pol Icy agenda. Nineteen rural l1aues rated. Preaence of pesticides, herblcldel and other chlcela In drl'*lna waterrated third behind prtcea for fara product and federal budget deficit. Over half (561) used hlghe1t category on 7polnt 1cale In rating pe1tlclde It. b) Other 111111-related It-and percent ualng hlgheat category In answering Included: adver1e health effects frcn e,cposure to agrlcul tural chlcala, 481; re1lcbts such es peattctdee end herbicide In food products, 46X; contlnatlon of undlergrc:uld water s"IJl)ltes, 45X; use of food additives and preaervattves, 27X. Methods/External validity/ Generalization limits Telephone Interview with statistical probability of households in the state. Personal Interviews. Response rate 90+ percent. Sanple 11 pop.llatf on for for ba1ln. No general izatton beyond basin. Randall >l e. Ma I l eurvey by state agrl cultural atatlatlcal reporting eervtce. Response rate approxtmtely 60 percent. Findings generalizable to Iowa fann operators.

PAGE 56

Lasley (1984) Moore (1988a) Padgitt, 1988a Topic Area Issue attitudes Issues attitudes/ Policy Time 1984 1987 Attitudes toward Issue/ 1987 practice adoption/ policy preferences Population/ Sanple Size (Nl Active Iowa fana operators (N=2000) Rural Oklahoma opinion leaders (N=-56) Active fara operators In AucU>on CCM.nty, IA (N 203) Malor Findings a) Most respondents (SOX) felt problem of drinking water quality on their OIi\ farm did not exist or were slight. b) Estiamtes of probl .. were progressively greater as estimtes mved to one' town, the state and the nation. c) Of five &Oll'cn of water pollutlcn In Iowa, pesticides and fertflizer rLn off and Industrial wastes ranked higher than sot l erosion sediment,, 1111lcipal sewage, and anil waste. No difference in ratings existed between the top two sources. a) On 5-polnt scale 18 percent were strongly concerned" about water "'81llty, 48 percent tended to be concerned, 32 percent waa t.neertaln"; and 2 percent tended to be LnConcerned. b) Expression of general envlronnental concern was atatlar but slightly greater than for water quality. c) Strq association existed (r .86) between water quality and general envlronnental concerna. d) Respondents with gross flly incaaea of S30,000 or leas expressed greater concern for water cpillty th., did respondents frcn higher lnco111 levels. > No differences were fcu,d about concern for water cp1l tty based on levels of ecl,catlonal attal,-,t. a) Protecting water quality of high llll)Ortance, essentially equal to profitability in agriculture and aofl erostcn. Protecting water qual f ty aore a priority than diversifying agrl culture. b) Respondents equally concerned about health risk of agrl cultural chlcala on own fan111 In the cCM.nty and In the cCM.nty and In the state. Le11 concem expressed for problem In the nation c) Pesticides chosen 1110re often as posing a greater health risk than fertilizers (651 vs. 21). Methods/External validity/ Generalfzatfon limits Randal a1111>l e. Mat l survey by state agri cultural statistical reporting service. Findings generalizable to Iowa farm operators. Sanple (N) drawn fran attendees at three confer ences. Sanple divided between fulltt111 tanners (N), perttl111 f1nner1 (N), and nonfannera (N). Generalizability llalted to >le Itself. Stratified rancbl 111ple. Personal Interviews. Stuc:t, generalizable to Aldbcn COLl'lty, a western cou,ty of the 1tate, with prl 111rlly corn and soybeans aa row crops and swine as livestock enterprises

PAGE 57

Padgttt (1988c) Joplc Area Attitude toward l1Ut/ 1988 pr act Ice adopt IOI\/ policy preferencea Pop.1latton/ sanple stze Active fara operator, tn Iowa (Na593) Methods/External validity/ Malor Ftndtngs Generalization limits d) Equal concern fouid for realcl,e In drinking water and risks In handling agrlcult&.ral chemlcal1. Much lns perceived risk fra11 exposure to food realm,es, air pollutlcn, and bethlng/1wl111I~. e) Of four grOl.lldwlter pol Icy goela, non-degradation was rated feasible 1110&t often (691). Othen, In order of preference, were restoration to purity (461), preaet atandard (421), variable atandardl bued on aquifer uae (371), and aelf regulatlcn (321) f) Respondent dl1agreed that too IIUCh regulation of .lncllatry exl1t1 (641), or that atandarda lhould be relaxed (731). 11> Moat faraera (IOI) Indicated en lntereat In W119111111t alternatlv to current reliance on agricultural peatlcldea, but a Jori ty (551) 1l10 Nld chllllcala are their beat al ternatlve to control crop weedl, peat and plant dl1ea1ea. h) Coaercl1l nitrogen and herbicide appl lc1tlon1 were nearly "'lveraal (95+1). Herbicide applications IIDltly CClll)lfed with label lnatru:tlona. I) Coallerclal fertilizer rates on corn were generally within the land grant col legea recmammd level,, but other on f 1n1 1aurcea were not fully tak Into accou,t. J> Yield goal were often beaecl, on criteria auch hlgheat hl1torlcal yield (561), or pot1ntl1l of leed gera pl-(251). Scltfflc crlterlan of eoll CSR value wa uaed by 28X. a) Of ,even priority l11UN, profltabll lty In agrlcul ture ranked first, ""8l lty of the state' drl'*lna water 1econd, and agricultural health and Mfety third. (Other l11ue1 en ltat were controlll111 soil erosion, educational ayat In the atate, econoalc develOfll*'lt, and lntalntng and llll)rovfng highway and road 1yate11. b) Grcuo,ater pollution was seen 1 lesa serious problem on respondents' own farms (531 somewhat or very serious) than tn their cou,ty (78X), tn the state (90X) and In the nation (82X>. Nallecl queatlomatre frm ccaaerclally p.rchaed 1111pll111 frame. Response rate 641. F tndt ngs generalizable to Iowa farm operators.

PAGE 58

Topfc Area Padgitt and Hoyer Attitudes toward Issue/ 1986 (1987) pol fey preferences Population/ Sanple Size (N) Malor Findings c) Few differentiations were made~ nitrogen fertilizer, insecticides and herbicides relative to the extent they threaten grot.rd,ater quality In the state. d) A mJorlty of respondents opposed the following pollcln: tighter restrictions on use of fann pesticides and fertll izers, taxes set at levels to discourage fertilizer and pesticide use, sw,stltutlng chemicals rather than fdl Ing land as production reduction strategy, and restricting chemicals but developing Insurance programs titaen weather interferes with perfornance. e) Of seven factors 1uggested as detractors to protection and sOl.lld 1111n1gement of agrlcul t1.ral chlcala, the two anost frequently Identified were lack of 111rket Incentives to change and belief that existing problems are not very serious. f) Farmers estlted com ytelda would decl lne an average of 251 lftier herbicide bin and lna contlruatlon of existing tillage practices. under alternative tillage a mJorlty (52X) estimated prociJctfon coats would Increase and yields woold fall 20X below existing levels. Aci.llt households, a) Of stx statewide Issues, quality of drinking water ranked State of Iowa (N 400) tMrdo1 behind schools, and economic developnent. Guel tty of drinking water ranted higher than sot l erosion, mafntalnfng highway syat, and recreational facilities. No difference waa fou,d fn ranking between fan11 and non fam households for cpaltty of drinking water. Farmers ranked the laportance of sot l erosion higher than c,.aal tty of drinking water. b) Of 10 sources of grou-dfater pol lutlon In Iowa, both farmer and non-farmer householders ranked far11 pesticides first and fan1 ferttl lzers second. .In the ratings, non-farm householders assigned greater seriousness to these aources th., did farmer householders. Methods/External validity/ Generalfzatton limits Randoll digit dial of Iowa households. Telephone lnterv!aws. S&bsanple of f ana households, N 78. Generalizable to Iowa heada of household. Slb sanple of farm households subject to saq:,ling error.

PAGE 59

Topic Area Pins (1986) Attitudes toward Issue/ 1986 Policy preferenca Rajotte et al. Practice Adoption 1985(7) (1987, appendix 2) \ :~ Population/ Sanple Size Adult households In Iowa (N 801) Fanaer1 producing almnda In Cal tforn11 (N) Methods/External validity/ Malor Flndtnps Generalization l imf ts c) Of five hypothetical pol lcle1, mre eupport thm, opposition was fau,d for each. Strongest ~rt wu for research on safe use of fertilizers and pesticides (941)'. Slbatm,tlal support was also feud for tighter restrictions on 1) fann pesticides (841), 2) urban use of fertll lzer and pesticides (801), 3) use of fara fertll lzer1 (771). Respondents were mst divided on taxing fertilizers at levels to discourage usage (571114JPOrt). Among fanner households mre opposl tton than support was fOU'ld. For alt five policies, farmer householders were 1tgnlflcantly mre opposed/less support Ive. a) Fifty-two percent of the aclllt f)OF.llatlon Identified farm chfcet111 biggest threat to water they drink; 38 percent ldentff led fnci.lltrlat waste. b) Three out of four Iowa ac:lllt1 believe their drinking water 11 safe for now, but 121 are concerned about pollution of their water. C) Threefcu-th1 of respondents said use of fara and Incl.II trial chlc1l1 .,.t be reel.Iced now because hal'llful effects will show Lf) later when ft will be too late. d) a. In five support lntalnlng the tatus quo 111tfl harmful effects are better Wlderstood. > Greatest concern for Issue fOll"ld 8110111 residents of IMlt tOll'II. a) 1PM uaers had mre eclJcatton, were aore likely to be full tlm fanners. b) 1PM uaer1 In 1984 had less of their total production rejected. Lesa difference between users and nan-users was fau,d In 1982 and 1983. C) 1PM users reported more spraying and fuafgatfon. Also n>re apt to use herbicides as only means of weed control. Telephone Interview with Iowans 18 years and older. Random household selec tfon. Findings general fzable to Iowa aclllts. Randcn s...,te of procllcers for state census records. Study generalizable to procllcers of ccmnodl ty In the state.

PAGE 60

1t!a Rajotte et al. (1987, appendix 3) Topic Area Practice Adoption Rajotte et al. Pr~tlce Adoption (1987, appendix 4) 'ajotte et al. Practice Adoption (1987, appendix~, Population/ I!a Sanple Size 1985(?) Extension agents lling list to growera in Massachusetts (Nz88) 1984-85 Apple population growers In New York (N) 1985 lndf ana com grower, (N) Melor Findings a) 1PM user, had hf.-.er yields and received slightly less price for fresh produce. b) Little difference between usera and nonuaera In rut>er of pesticide appllcatlcna per year (herbicides, lnsec tlctdes, fu,gfclde and altlclde) but usera had algnffl cantly lower total pesticide coata. c) Users and non-users alallar In ecl.lcatlon and acres of apples grown. Users were ycK.nger. a) 1PM user, reported higher yields. b) 1PM users reported lower pest I cf de costs. c) Uaera were Y0lalller, apples more dallhw,t lncane aource. d) Usera aore often ldenttf led use of natural ene11les for pest control a1 selling point of 1PM. Nonusera more often Identified lncreued fara prof I ta u aell Ing point a) High 1PM users we yow191r and had COll)leted mre fonnal education th., had low uaera. Low uaen tended to be yo1.nger and had CGll)leted mre fon11l ecb:atlon th., non-uaera. HI._ usera fanned the IDSt land and had the 1101t acres of com, followed by low uaera and laatly, non-users. b) No difference waa fou,d 111101111 the three uae levels In percentage of total acreage trted (97>. Non-uaera were less likely to treat for lnaecta (231) then were low users (37X) or high user (41X). Hldl 1PM usera Incurred the greatest pesticide coat per acre (S25.30) followed by low users ($23.46 and non-users of IPN ($17.41). c) High users reported the hf.-.est per acre yield (115) fol lowed by low users (112) end nonuaera (104). d) Respondents gave n.1ltiple selling points" for 1PM. Profits, yields, and health were the most frequa,tly mentioned. e) "Sell Ing points" of 1PM generally cut across use levels. A slight tendency was fat.net for users to identify economic advantages, and non-users to Identify health reasons. Methods/External validity/ Generalization ltmtts Randal a-.:,le frcn Extenalon agent's fl Ing lists to apple growers. Telephone Interviews. Generalizability limited to representativeness of aanplt ng frame which is llldeterained. Randall s-.:,le frcn state crap reporting aervlce. Telephone Interviews fr011 4 regtcna. Findings generalizable to Nw York apple growera. Randall lllll)l Ing, f r011 atate crop reporting aervlce list, telephone interviewing. Findings generalizable to Indiana com growers.

PAGE 61

Population/ Methods/External validity/ Joete &en 11B l!f!l!l IIH iN2 Malor Ftrdlngs Genera&t1a11on lfmtis Rajotte et l. Practice Adoption 1985 Cotton procu:era in a a) 1PM users reported higher yields. Proportionate ranc.tan (1987, appendix 7) Texas cou,ties (N) ample fr011 ASCS lists. b) Herbicide coats of users was 1cnewhat le11 than non-users Telephone Interviews (S9.28 vs. S10.35) but users Insecticide costs were generalizable to areas substantially higher (S26.20 va. $14.60). In 1tudy. C) 1PM user tended to have 110reecllcatlon and operate larger fanning u-alta. RaJotte et el. Practice Adoption 1986 Nl1al11lppl cotton > High-level 1PM users reported hlS,.er yields than low-level. Random 1-.,le fran state (1987, appendix 7) growers (N) census ll1ta, telephone b) HiS,.level 1PM users reported hlS,.er herbicide and lnaecInterviews, generalizable tlcide costs. to 1tate11 cotton growers. C) HIS,.level 1PM users tended to be you-ager, more eclJcated and to operate larger "'lta. d) Both high-and low-level user highly rated aell Ing point of 1PM. RaJotte et al. Practice Adoption 1985 Fanner, growing peanat1 > Level of 1PM adoption wa1 relatld to higher education, Randall 1-.,le frcn (1987, appendix 8) In Georgia (N 376) you,ger age, aore acret fanned and Oll'led (but not Departant of Agriculture, neceuarlly rumer of acret of p11n1t1 grown), end higher telep1one Interviews. gros1 value of fan1 procl.lcta. Study generalizable to pelftlt growers in b) Poattlve relationship between pen,t yield and extent of Georgia. JPN use. C) 1PM users (In contra1t to non-users) reported lower per acre lnaectlclde costs, ..-l to herbicide costs, greater neatode and lower fu,giclde costa. d) Multiple reasons given to participating In 1PM. Crop quality, better put control and Increased profits Mntloned al lghtly 1110re often than envlrcnaental and safety reasons. Rajotte et al. Practice Adoption 1985 Virginia soybean a) 1PM user were ycu,ger and had CClll)leted more formal Telephone interviews with (1987, appendix 9) grower (N 267) education end operated larger faralng &.nits. A direct randcn 111~le. findings relationship was feud between average gross value of all generalizable to Virginia farm procl.K:ta sold and level of 1PM use. soybean growers, within margin of error of saq,le ;J --So

PAGE 62

Joete aca RaJotte et al. Practice Adoption (1987, appendix 11) Wisconsin Center Inventory of pest for Rural control practlcea, Developnent sourc of nitrogen perceived barriers to to rectaced chI cal use 1985(?) 1988 Population/ IMP\ st ze North Clroltna tobacco growers (N) Wlsconaln fara operators (excluding vegetable and frul t tanners (N> Mf foe Ftrdtnas b) High 1PM users had the hlgheat total pesticide cost, and IIIICle the .,.t pesticide appllcatlona per year, but also had the htgheat yield, and reported higher prlc received for their crop. c) Red,clng envtrcnnental danage waa cited as a sell Ing point of 1PM more frequently IID0l'l9 high users (91X) and low users (84X) than non-users (44X). a) Little difference between non-users, low-level users and and high-level users In yields and coats. b) 1PM user lllde fewer pesticide applicatlcna per year. C) iligh user were older,had less fonnal ec:llcatlon. a) Moat lq,ortant reason faraera do not further recb:e chlcal1 11 bel lef they have already r~ IIIUCh possible; leas profitability was second 110st cited reason. b) Majority of farmers believe their current uae of chlcals does not seriously or pe....,..tly ha111 the envlronnant. C) Fan11r1 generally lack accurate lnfor111tlon regarding the extent of envlrOl"IWltal/health rlskl fora their practices. d) Fara chlcals In local grCUG11ter would 1Dtlvate many faraer1 to consider red.Icing chealcals on their fal'IIII. e) Availability of lndlvlcllal a1st1tance IJf expert, In an 1-.,ortant factor In considering reel.Iced chlcal use. Methods/External validity/ GenecIJzatton limits she. Geographically statlfied randoll >le of Extension Service census records, telephone interviewing, generalizable to state' tobacco growers. Mall queatloniai re; 52X response rate. Findings generalizable to Wisconsin f1111 operators excluding exclualvely vegetable/ fruit fanners.

PAGE 63

FARMERADOPTION OF SOIL CONSERVATION PRAC11CES: LESSONS FOR GROUNDWATER PROTECFION by Ted L Napier Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology The Ohio State University Columbus, OH January 1989 This contractor document was prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) assessment entitled B ne h h B"'"",,'""' in A r h R ce A~richemical Contamination of Groundwater. It is being ma e available because they contain useful information beyond that used in the OT A report. However, they are not endorsed by OT A, nor have they been reviewed by the Technology Assessment Board. References to them should cite the contractor, not OTA, as the author; a suggested citation format follows: Author(s) name(s), Contract paper title, prepared for the U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater OT A-F-418 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1990). BEST COPY AVAILABLE

PAGE 64

Table of Contents Executive Summary ........ Introduction Similarities and Differences Between Soil Erosion and Ground Water problems .... Factors Affecting Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices ........ Theoretical Models Used to Explain Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices ... Conclus;ons ........................................ Bibliography .................. Appendix 1: Definition of Terms ... ~ Appendix 2: Suggestions for Implementing Groundwater Protection Programs In the U.S ...... Appendix 3: Summary of Similarities Between Soil Erosion and Groundwater Contamination ....... Appendix 4: Summary of Differences Between Soil Erosion and Groundwater Contamination .......... Appendix 5: Sumary of Factors Affecting Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices ... Appendix 5: Sunmary of Necessary But Not Sufficient Conditions for Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices ...

PAGE 65

1 Executive Summary The purpose of this paper is to discuss research findings focused on the identification of factors affecting the adoption of soil conservation pract~ces and to apply this body of knowledge to the amelioration of groundwater contamination problems. The goal of the paper is to use knowledge generated from soil erosion studies to make suggestions for the development of a program designed to reduce the incidence of groundwater contamination. A number of factors which have been examined in the context of adoption of soil conservation practices are discussed. Individual characteristics of potential adopters, farm structure variables, psychosocial factors and institutional constraints are the types of variables examined. It is argued that the best predictors of adoption of soil conservation practices are farm structure and institutional variables. Similarities and differences between soil erosion and groundwater contamination produced by agricultural sources are outlinEd. It is concluded that the two types of envi ronmenta 1 degradat 1 on are the product of s i mi 1 ar causa 1 factors. It is argued that resolution of both types of pollution will require changes 1 n human behavior. It is further argued that findings derived from research focused on the adoption of soi 1 conservation pract ~-ces have ut i 1 i ty for understanding the adoption of groundwater protection practices. Two theoret i ca 1 perspectives which have beEn used to exp 1 a in adoption behaviors are examined in the context of their utility for understanding.adoption of soil conservation practices. The two theoretical orientations examined are diffusion theory and the farm structure-institutional constraint perspective. The diffusion concepts examined are as follows: awareness, relative advantage, compatibility and complexity. The farm structure-institutional constraints concepts discussed are as follows: characteristics of the farm enterprise, financial conditions of the potential adopter, land tenure, past and present investments in technologies, national and international production and marketing systems, and government fann and conservation policies. Suggestions are made regarding strategies for implementing a groundwater protection program. It is argued that such a program should be formulated using elements of the diffusion and the farm structure-institutional constraints theories. It is suggested that a combination of strategies should be employed to encourage adoption of groundwater prevention practices. It is argued that both voluntary and coercive approaches should be used to encourage adoption. c 6' E-~u

PAGE 66

2 Introduction Groundwater contamination is a socio-environmental issue of concern in the U.S. While the amount of degraded groundwater is relatively small in proportion to the total resources available (Henderson, 1987; Page, 19874), it is frequently located near densely populated comunities which use these sources for drinking water. It has been estimated that 95 percent of rural households and at least 50 percent of the total U.S. population rely on groundwater for household use (Page, 19874). As mqre groundwater becomes contaminated, the threat to health in both urban and rural areas will increase. While groundwater contamination poses a problem for urban people, it is particularly problematic for rural residents. Most nonmetropolitan people are dependent on groundwater for household use and altern~tive sources of drinking water are not readily available. If wells become contaminated with pesticides, nitrate (N03 ) or annnonium (NH4), which are the most frequent chemical contaminants in rural areas (Anderson, 1987), rural people are often forced to use bottled water for drinking. Reliance on bottle water creates an additional economic cost for rural people and is an inconvenience. Ultimately, society has two options for addressing groundwater contamination. Degraded groundwater resources must be reclaimed or efforts must be initiated to prevent contamination from occurring. Given the high cost of reclamation (Christensen, 1983; Christensen and Norris, 1983; Clark, 1987), it is highly unlikely that decontamination will be a cost-effective approach in the near future for some toxic substances (Page, 19871). The most prudent alternative, at least in the short-run, is to protect critical groundwater resources from being degraded.

PAGE 67

3 While it is easy to conclude that prevention is the most rational approach for protecting important and highly sensitive groundwater supplies, the imp 1 ementat ion of a strategy to protect groundwater resources is extreme 1 y difficult. Potential polluters must be motivated to change behavioral patterns to reduce degradation. Contrary to popular belief, human behavior is not easily modified unless there are significant personal rewards associated with changing behavior (Bandura, 1977; Rogers, 1983; Turner, 1974). Individuals are often reluctant to adopt new behaviors even w~en adoption will generate rewards f~r them because they value established modes of behavior more than the benefits received. Another reason for resistance to behavioral change is lack of awareness on the part of polluters. Oft~n people are not aware that they are contributing to environmental degradation. If land operators are made aware of their contribution to the problem, they may become more willing to change behaviors. This assumes that the behavioral change does not result in significant costs for the potential adopter. It must be recognized that increased awareness of groundwater contamination problems may not result in the adoption of groundwater prevention practices. Polluters are often business persons who are motivated to maximize short-run profits and profit-making may take precedence over environmental concerns. It is very difficult to motivate business persons to adopt water conservation behaviors which have the potential to reduce profits. rhe problems noted above are not unique to groundwater contamination. Similar problems have been observed for pollution caused by soil erosion, ~. however, much more is known about pollution caused by soil erosion than about groundwater pollution. Subseque~tly, the literature focused on soil erosion I { I, { /. \...... .. '-(_ \",-'

PAGE 68

4 will be examined to gain insight to potential solutions to groundwater problems. Similarities and Differences Between Soil Erosion and Groundwater Problems Similarities The most significant similarity between surface pollution caused by soil erosion and groundwater contamination from agricultural sources is that both are strongly influenced by human activity. While there is natural contamination of surface and subsurface water resources, much of the contemporary concern about degradation of soil and water resources is the product of human intervention. Human beings control land resources and make decisions about agricultural practices used on the land which significantly affect the level of environmental degradation. Another similarity between both types of environmental degradation is that they are the result of nonpoint pollution. Identification of specific polluters is problematic, given the multiple sources of contamination. The difficulty of identifying polluters makes it problematic to employ nuisance laws to stop degradation or to force offenders to compensate people who have been damaged (Henderson, 1987). The result of the inability to effectively monitor soil erosion and groundwater contamination is that farmers can treat both types of pollution as an externality of production with very low probability of being penalized by society. Socially acceptable levels of soil erosion and groundwater contamination have not been clearly established. It is very difficult to define what is.an h acceptable level of soil erosion and groundwater pollution, since society has not established criteria for asse~sing the problem. The issue is compounded by '\ I .. ; ', _. L I -7 E:-~

PAGE 69

5 the fact that society has multiple objectives. Maintenance of high levels of agricultural productivity frequently takes precedence over environmental concerns. In some situations, higher levels of soil erosion and groundwater pollution may be defined as being acceptable to mainta,n high levels of food and fiber production. A goal of zero soil erosion and groundwater contamination is not realistic in a complex society such as the U.S. (Anderson, 1987). Soil and groundwater resources can be degraded to the point that future use is greatly impaired. Soil resources can become so depleted that food and fiber production are adversely affected even with the addition of chemicals and the application of mechanical technologies (Pimental, et al., 1976). Groundwater may become so contaminated that it is not useful for any purpose without remedial treatment (Page, 1987). Loss of future use of land and water resources should be considered in ~he assessment of present value. Soi 1 and groundwater resources which are relatively. low in value at the present time may become extremely valuable in the f4ture. Public investments in water and soil conservation greater than the present value of the resources perhaps may be justified on the basis of protecting options to use the resource in the future. The incidence of soil erosion and groundwater contamination is affected by regional variability in climate, topography, geology, population characteristics and occupational activities. Physical characteristics of farm land and climate affect rates of soil displacement and rapidity of water movement into aquifers (Page, 1987a). These factors influence the types of crops produced, methods of production employed, and the types of chemicals applied. The impact of social factors on environmental degradation must also be considered because they influence the distribution of population and occupations. Less densely populated areas in certai~ regions of the country tend to have greater /I I ') \.' __

PAGE 70

6 feed grain and food grain production which means that agriculturally-related soil erosion and groundwater contamination will be greater. Both soil erosion and groundwater contamination contribute to off-site damages. Members of society are affected who do not contribute directly to these problems. Contamination of groundwater from agricultural sources may result in loss of access to local water supplies by nonfarm people. These individuals may also be denied use of surface water due to contamination by soil erosion from cultivated farmland (Easter, et al., 1983; Miranowski, 1983; Napier, 1987; Napier, et al. 1983; Swanson, et al., 1986). Rural highways, road ditches, lakes and waterways may become silted by displaced topsoil and.must be cleared using public resources (Halcrow, et al., 1982; Napier, et al., 1988b; Napier, et !l. 1983). Urban residents are also affected by environmental degradation created by agriculture. All of the off-site costs discussed above affect urban people to some extent. Urbanites must also assume additional costs associated with investments made in public water treatment facilities. Residents of all largt cities must allocate extensive resources to construct facilities to make contaminated groundwater and surface water potable. Another problem associated with both soil erosion and groundwater contamination is that the social, economic and environmental costs of soil erosion and groundwater pollution are difficult to quantify. Data seldom exist to link degradation of water quality with specific socio-economic costs. For ex amp 1 e, 1 oss of aesthetic qua 1 i ty of surf ace water resources due to soi 1 erasion of farmland has been recognized (Lovejoy and Napier, 1986; Napier, et al. 1983; Napier, 1988a; Swanson, et al., 1986) but data to assess costs have not been collected. Information about the economic costs associated with water purification (Forster, 1987; Clark, 1987) have been collected, however, better : \ \

PAGE 71

measurement will be required before all costs can be quantified. 7 Many of the adverse consequences of soi 1 erosion and groundwater po 11 ut ion are not visible. Harmful chemicals in streams and reservoirs cannot be seen {Pimentel, 1987). People ingest well water containing toxic substances without being aware contamination is present. A significant proportion of urbanites are so far removed from the natura 1 environment that they are not aware of po 11 ut ion (Schnaiberg, 1980). Both soil erosion and groundwater pollution can contribute to human health problems. Even though the effects of some inorganic and organic compounds are not well known at the present time (Page, 19871), it is acknowledged that toxic substances in surface and ground water supplies are harmful to human health. Fortunately, the concentrations of toxic substances in most water supplies are seldom high enough to create health problems. Nitrates from agricultural sources occas i ona 11 y reach 1 eve 1 s in urban water supp 1 i es to cause concern. Loca 1 officials have issued warnings to parents of small children to refrain from feeding infants contaminated water. Pesticides and nitrates in rural well water pose a potentially serious health problem in. some areas of the country. Adoption of soil conservation and groundwater protection practices may result in the loss of income for land operators. Modern farmers frequently use highly erosive tillage practices and apply large quantities of fertilizers to maintain high levels of productivity. Large-scale agricultural systems require extensive use of pesticides to control weeds, insects and fungi to achieve the highest level of output (Schnaiberg, 1980). Reduction of soil erosion and groundwater pollution may require use of less disruptive tillage systems and fewer chemical in-puts which may result in lower food and fiber output. Loss of productivity per acre may not be off-set by reduced costs of in-puts and the

PAGE 72

8 net effect may be reduced income for farmers. Since most farmers are business persons who wish to maximize short-run profits (English and Heady, 1980; Kraft, 1978; Miller, 1982; Napier and Foster, 1982; Swanson, et al., 1986), it is highly likely they will resist adoption of farm practices which may reduce their income. Soil erosion and groundwater pollution can result in the loss of resale value of land resources. Soil erosion which significantly reduces productivity or adversely affects the aesthetic quality of land holdings can result in loss of resale value (Swanson, et al., 1986). Groundwater contamination can also result in loss of resale value, if.the land is to be used for housing purposes and wells are required for household water supplies. It is highly unlikely that potential buyers will pay market prices for homesites which do not have safe drinking water available. Differences One of the major differences between groundwater contamination and soil erosion is that techniques used to solve one problem may not be compatible with resolution of the other. Conservation practices designed to reduce soil erosion may exacerbate degradation of groundwater resources. Soil conservation practices which reduce the rapidity of surface water run-off will retard soil displacement ( El -Swa i fy, et a 1 1985; Mo 1 denhauer and Hudson, 1988) but such practices frequently increase water percolation through chemical-rich soils (Moldenhauer, 1987; El-Swaify, et al., 1985). Farm chemicals captured by water passing through soil may eventually contaminate groundwater resources (Anderson, 1987). Ultimately, land operators may be required to balance soil conservation with protection of groundwater resources. r::7t

PAGE 73

9 Methods used to implement soil erosion control and groundwater protection programs have traditionally been somewhat different. While soil erosion programs have tended to be vo 1 untary in nature, use of severa 1 toxic chemi ca 1 s by agriculturalists has been controlled via regulation. Traditionally, efforts to bring about the adoption of soil conservation practices have relied heavily on education, technical assistance and monetary subsidies by the federal government {Napier, 1987; Napier, 1989; Napier and Forster, 1982). While more recent government-sponsored, soil conservation programs have become more coercive in nature (Napier, 1987; Napier, 1989), they still place great emphasis on voluntary participation. Given the adverse consequences of certain farm chemicals on groundwater resources, regul at i ans have been imposed to ban use of specific chemicals. Other regulatory approaches used to control application of farm chemicals are certification programs, restricted use of certain pesticides and controls on-application in specific geographical areas. The problems associated with assessing liability for soil erosion and groundwater contamination are different. While nuisance laws are the primary means of legally approaching the problem of off-site damages caused by both types of pollution {Henderson, 1987), the difficulty associated with identification of specific sources of agriculturally-induced, groundwater pollution is more difficult than isolating damages caused by soil erosion. Given the state of knowledge of site-specific groundwater movement and hydrologic processes {Anderson, 1987),. it is very difficult to prove that a specific individual is contributing to the degradation of groundwater resources. I dent if i cation of contributors to soil erosion is difficult and expensive using in-stream monitoring devices and remote sensing but the difficulties of assessing groundwater contamination are more problematic. ', J,

PAGE 74

10 The primary responsibility for reducing soil erosion and groundwater pollution varies by political jurisdiction. The off-site damages of soil erosion are often interstate, while most groundwater prob 1 ems are more 1 oca 1 i zed (Henderson, 1987). Federal agencies have primary responsibility for soil erosion due to the interstate nature of the problem. However, state and local jurisdictions have a major role to play in groundwater protection, since the problem tends to be confined to local areas within states. The incidence of soil ero~ion and groundwater pollution varies by geographic region. Some cultivated land in the U.S. has a high rate of erosion but the greatest majority has relatively little. It has been estimated that from 80 to 90 percent of all water-related, soil erosion occurs on about 10 to 15 percent of the cultivated land in the U.S. (Gardner, 1985,. In like manner, groundwater contamination tends to be differentially distributed throughout the U.S. Frequently areas of high vulnerability to soil erosion are different from those subject to groundwater contamination. Agricultural regions which have relati~ely high levels of soil erosion export farm chemicals to people living downstream, while farming areas with little displacement of topsoil tend to contribute to groundwater contamination in the local area. Knowledge of the factors affecting adoption of management practices to prevent soil erosion and groundwater contamination differs considerably. Extensive research has been conducted during the past 10 years which has been focused on the identification of variables which facilitate or impede adoption of soil conservation practices (Halcrow, et al., 1982; Lovejoy and Napier, 1986; Napier, et al. 1983; Moldenhauer and Hudson, 1988). Unfortunately, relatively -little research attention has been focused on factors which affect adoption of groundwater prevention practices. 'f .7 1 t.. ,., ...,

PAGE 75

11 Summary of Comparisons Review of similarities and differences between pollution created by soil erosion and groundwater contamination produced by agricultural sources revealed numerous important similarities and several significant differences. The most important similarity between the two types of pollution is that human intervention is the principle cause of both. The behavior of land operators is the primary determinant of soil erosion and groundwater pollution which suggests that reduction of both types of pollution requires modification of human behavior. It must be recognized, however, that motivating people to change behaviors is frequently very difficult, especially when existing behavioral patterns have been shown to produce desired rewards (Bandura, 1977; Ekeh, 1974; Rogers, 1983; Turner, 1974). To effectively modify human behavior requires extensive knowledge of the factors affecting acceptance of behaviors to be adopted. Unfortunate 1 y, research focused on the factors affecting the adoption of groundwater protection practices does not exist. This lack of knowledge makes it very difficult to develop groundwater protection programs. While very little information exists concerning the relationship of human behavioral factors and groundwater contamination, a very good research base exists to predict adoption of soil conservation practices. Given that soil erosion and groundwater contamination are caused by use of certain types of farming practices, it is argued that research findings focused on the adoption of soil conservation practices will provide insight to theoretical perspectives and variables which may be useful in understanding problems associated with ~groundwater protection. While information obtained from soil erosion research I ft \

PAGE 76

12 is not directly transferable to groundwater protection problems, it should provide a starting point for future research and policy endeavors. Factors Affecting Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices Numerous variables have been shown to be significantly related to the adoption of soil conservation practices. These factors can be subsumed under several broad categories for discussion purposes: individual characteristics, farm structure factors, psychosoci a 1 factors and inst i tut i ona 1 constraints factors. Individual characteristics have been repeatedly used to predict voluntary adoption of soil erosion control practices in the U.S. Numerous studies have been conducted using persona 1 characteristics of 1 and operators in hopes of identifying individuals who have a propensity to voluntarily adopt soil conservation practices. The goa 1 of these efforts has been to design soil conservation programs for specific aadiences. Unfortunately, existing findings indicate that individual characteristics have very limited utility for predicting adoption of soil conservation practices. Contrary to social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), farmers who are younger, better educated, more aware of erosion problems, have greater access to information systems and have been exposed to more information about soil conservation do not consistently adopt soil conservation practices (Lovejoy and Napier, 1986; Napier and Forster, 1982; Swanson, et al., 1986). Social learning theory basically argues that individuals who are exposed to learning experiences which demonstrate the merits of new ideas or practices BEST COPY AVAILABLE L ., 15

PAGE 77

13 will have a higher probability of adopting. Social learning theory suggests that younger people with higher levels of education and knowledge of soil conservation problems will have a higher probability of adopting soil erosion control practices because they are more aware of benefits associated with adoption. Unfortunately, empirical evidence does not support such conclusions. Of particular interest to action agencies are the findings focused on awareness variables. Proponents of the educational approach (social learning perspective) argue that the best strategy for facilitating the adoption of soil conservation practices is through the provision of information to make land operators aware of erosion problems and how erosion can be reduced. Several studies have included measures of awareness and access to information about soil erosion problems {Napier, et al., 1984; Napier, et al., 1988a, Korsching and Nowak, 1980; Lovejoy and Napier, 1988; Swanson, et al., 1986) and have demonstrated that these factors are poor predictors of adoption behaviors. The findings suggest that access to information and awareness of erosion problems are necessary but not sufficient conditions for voluntary adoption of soil conservation practices to occur. It is highly likely that educational programs alone will have relatively little effect in bringing about greater adoption of soil conservation practices in the U.S. A variety of other persona 1 characteristics have been examined in the context of adoption of soil conservation practices and a number of factors have been shown to be significantly related with adoption behavior. Unfortunately, the amount of explained variance using such factors has also been relatively low. This means that the utility of these types of variables for predicting adoption of soil conservation practices is limited (Lovejoy and Napier, 1986; Napier and Forster, 1982; Swanson, et al., 1~86). 71 BEST COPY AVAILABLE ...., .' 1.... / ,,,..., l.l.,

PAGE 78

14 Research findings focused on personal characteristics strongly suggest that attempts to design soil conservation programs for specific audiences on the basis of personal characteristics is probably not appropriate. Land owners who adopt soi 1 conservation practices tend to be heterogenous as a group in terms of personal characteristics (Napier and Lovejoy, 1988). Primary reliance on an educational strategy to bring about adoption of soil conservation practices will probably produce only marginal success. Farm structure factors have been shown to be significant variables in the prediction of voluntary adoption of soil conservation practices (Hal crow, et al., 1982; Lovejoy and Napier, 1986; Napier and Forster, 1982; Napier and Lovejoy, 1988; Swanson, et al., 1986). Variables such as gross farm income, acres farmed, acres owned, acres rented, access to farm technologies, farm specialization, debt to equity ratio, past investments in technologies, farm tenure and other farmrelated factors affect decision-making about tillage practices used at the farm level. Access to economic resources is often necessary to adopt soil conservation practices. Farmers who do not have the capital to invest will be prevented from adopting soil conservation practices even though they may have a strong desire to do so {Camboni, 1984; Hooks, et al., 1983; Napier, 1988c; Swanson, et al., 1986). Many land operators do not have sufficient economic resources to invest in conservation practices even with government cost-sharing. Past investments in farm technologies can prevent farmers from adopting conservation tillage systems (Carlson and Dillman, 1986; Miller, 1982). Presently owned farm technologies will continue to be used until they must be replaced unless adoption of new ~echnologies will significantly increase farm BEST COPY AVAILABLE

PAGE 79

15 income. Adoption of new technologies will occur, if the short-run return to investment is very high. However, it is highly unlikely that land operators will shift to new tillage practices which require purchase of costly technologies while equipment purchased in the past are still serviceable. This is especially true for farmers with cash-flow problems (Napier, 1988c). Financial hardsh~p can act as a barrier to the adoption of soil conservation practices (Napier, 1988c). Farmers with high debt to equity ratios will probably be more reluctant to adopt alternative tillage systems, since they cannot afford to increase the uncertainty attached to use of different farming practices. This is especially true for adopti~n of soil conservation practices, because many of these practices wi 11 not produce fi nanc i a 1 rewards for the individual adopter in the short-run and may not do so even in the long-run (Ervin and Washburn, 1981; Miller, 1982; Mueller, et al., 1985; Pu~man and Alt, 1987). Farmers are often aware that adoption of many soil conservation.practices will not increase farm income (Miller, 1982). They can frequently secure much higher returns through a 1 tern at i ve investment options. Investment in convent i ona 1 farming practices and technologies is often the most secure option because such agricultural approaches tend to maximize production. Conventional practices are al so more 1 ikely to be approved by agricultural lenders which is another disincentive for adoption of conservation practices. Farm specialization can affect adoption of specific soil conservation practices (Napier and Lovejoy, 1988). Some soil conservation practices are inappropriate for certain types of farming activities. Adoption of grass waterways, for example, by dairy farmers is not a significant event, since such farmers a 1 ready produce hay and grass on a portion of their 1 and. However, grain producers may be reluctant to imp~ement any type of land diversion program d~e BEST COPY AVAILABLE

PAGE 80

16 to increased cost of tilling around retired land. Grain farmers may be more willing to adopt conservation tillage systems, since such approaches are more consistent with existing practices. Land tenure has been posited to be significantly associated with adoption of soil conservation practices (Batie, 1986; Ervin, 1986). It has been argued that one of the greatest impediments to adoption of soil conservation practices by tenants has been the inability of renters to "capture" the benefits of investments in soil conservation practices. It has been posited that farmers will not adopt soil conservation practices unless they can derive direct benefits from the conservation investments. Ervin (1986) suggests that long-term agreements may encourage renters to implement soil conservation practices because such contracts assure the tenant access to land resources for long periods of time. Such agreements would make it possible for-tenants to benefit from the implementation of soil conservation programs. While these arguments have considerable merit, research by Napier and Camboni (1988a) suggest that concern for land tenure may be over-stated in Ohio. They observed that land tenure was not significantly related to the adoption of several types of soil conservation practices assessed in the study. They reported that over 90 percent of all farmers interviewed used the same practices on rented and owned land. Psychosocial factors have been argued to be significantly related to the adoption of soil conservation practices. Perceived profi tabi 1 i ty of conservation practices, stewardship orientations, attitudes toward government involvement in agriculture, attitudes toward efficiency in decision-making, perceptions of relevance of conservati~n practices, perceptions of soil erosion as a problem, commitment to environmentalism a~d many other attitudes have been examined in

PAGE 81

17 the context of predicting adoption of soil conservation practices (Bultena and Hoiberg, 1986; Carlson and Dillman, 1986; Hansen, et al., 1987; Halcrow, et al., 1982; Miranowski, 1982; Napier, 1987; Napier and Forster, 1982; Napier, et al., 1986; Napier and Camboni, 1988a). Existing research findings reveal that psychosocial attitudes have some utility for predicting adoption of soil conservation practices. Land operators who are more concerned about the environment, perceive adoption of soil conservation practices to be profitable, are more favorable toward government involvement in farming, perceive themselves to be stewards of the land, perceive their land to be eroding, perceive soil conservation practices to be relevant to their farming operation and perceive soil conservation practices to be beneficial tend to adopt soil conservation practices more often. These findings are consistent with research expectations, however, the amount of exp 1 a i ned variance in the computed models is relatively low. An important consideration in the adoption process is perceived profitability. Research has shown that many farmers perceive that adoption of soil erosion control practices can produce profits for people who use them (Napier, et al., 1988a; Napier and Lovejoy, 1988). However, land operators holding such perceptions are frequently aware that adoption of soil conservation practices would not be profitable for them because they would have to invest in new technologies, retire valuable land from production, change tillage systems, and develop new faming skills. Such investments to implement a soil conservation program would outweigh the benefits derived from the adoption. Land operators holding such perceptions may also elect not to adopt soil conservation practices because they have more profi tab 1 e investment a 1 tern at i ves. ,/ 7 1J Thus,

PAGE 82

18 creation of a positive orientation toward profitability of soil erosion control practices will not guarantee adoption. The psychosocial findings suggest that positive attitudes toward soil conservation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for adoption to occur. Evidence to date indicates that many land operators have developed very positive attitudes toward soil conservation practices but have not adopted recommended practices. These finding suggest that action programs designed to facilitate the adoption of soil conservation practices cannot rely solely on strategies to make land operators positive toward conservation issues. Institutional constraint factors is an area of soil conservation research which has emerged recent 1 y. Severa 1 researchers (Berardi 1987; Butte 1 and Swanson, 1986; Lovejoy and Napier, 1988; Napier, 1988c; Osteen, 1987; Swanson, _et al., 1986) have argued that institutional factors, such as government farm programs, federal conservation programs and general economic conditions in the society and the world, affect adoption of soil conservation practices at the farm level. Proponents of the inst i tut i ona 1 constraints perspective suggest that government agricultural programs designed to maintain farm income act as impediments to adoption of soil conservation practices. It is suggested that farm programs act as incentives to maximize production. Government payments are calculated on the basis of output per acre and maximization of production will produce the 1 argest government payment. Hi story suggests that the most productive farming system in the U.S. is often the most erosive and that farmers are willing to accept higher rates of land degradation to maintain high productivityt While these proble~s will be partially corrected by the linkage

PAGE 83

19 of commodity and soil conservation legislation in the Food Security Act of 1985, it is highly likely that commodity programs will continue to act as incentives for farmers to maintain the highest levels of production possible. Federal conservation policies can affect the adoption of erosion control practices. Subsidies allocated to land owners who adopt soil control practices have been shown to motivate farmers to participate in soil conservation efforts (Napier and Forster, 1982; Napier, 1989). For example, the Conservation Reserve Program included in the Conservation Title of the Food Security Act of 1985 has successfully removed more than 20 mi 11 ion acres of highly erosive 1 and from production and more than 20 million additional acres has been authorized for retirement (Napier, 1989). The structure of the present agricultural system impedes voluntary adoption of soil conservation practices (Buttel and Swanson, 1986; Napier, 1988a; Swanson, et al., 1986). The present farming system is highly c-0mpetitive and farmers who survive must maintain high levels of production (Miller, 1982). Technologyintensive practices combined with row-crop production tend to maximize food and fiber production but they also exacerbate erosion. Also, the competitive nature of the present agricultural system encourages the cultivation of marginal land which is often highly erosive and should never be brought into production. It is highly probable that a significant amount of marginal land in production today would not have been farmed, if pressure on farmers to maximize production had not been so great (American Farmland Trust, 1984; Berardi, 1987; Batie, 1982; Ogg, 1983; Osteen, 1987; Reichelderfer, 1984; USDA, 1982). Research findings from a recent study in Ohio revealed that institutional factors influenced voluntary adoption of soil conservation practices (Camboni, et al., 1989; Napier and Lovejoy, 1988). Dat~ collected from farmers operating 71

PAGE 84

20 land.in a highly erosive watershed revealed that participation in government farm programs affected adoption of soi 1 conservation practices and kn owl edge of government soil conservation programs. This finding was exp 1 a i ned in the context of greater awareness by farmers who participated in such programs (Camboni, et al., 1989). It is highly likely that future research using institutional factors will substantially increase the explained variance in adoption of soil conservation practices. The -primary implication of the institutional findings for design and implementation of soil conservation programs is that new conservation initiatives must take into consideration existing government policies and programs which can negate the benefits of conservation efforts (Lovejoy and Napier, 1988). It is highly likely that federal policies designed to maximize food and fiber production contribute to soil erosion problems. Summary of Factors Affecting Adoption The research findings reviewed for this paper suggest that farm structure and attitude factors are the best predictors of adoption of soil conservation practices at the farm level. The best predictors of adoption behaviors are farm speciality variables. Evidence suggests that the development of positive attitudes toward conservation and environmental issues is a necessary but not sufficient condition for adoption to occur. Individual characteristics have been shown to be poor predictors of voluntary adoption of soil conservation practices. Social learning variables have been demonstrated to have little utility in explaining voluntary adoption -of soi 1 conservation practices. ... 0? l: t.;;

PAGE 85

21 Preliminary evidence suggests that institutional constraints are useful predictors of conservaticn behaviors at the farm level. Inclusion of institutional factors in future research may significantly improve the amount of explained variance in statistical models used to predict voluntary adoption of soil conservation practices. Institutional factors frequently impede adoption of soil conservation practices because land operators are not able to influence macro-level variables (Buttel and Swanson, 1986; Swanson, et al., 1986). Theoretical Models Used to Explain Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices The Traditional Diffusion Model The theoretical orientation most frequently used to guide research focused on the adoption of soil conservation practices is the diffusion of innovations perspective (Brown, 1981; Rogers, 1983; Taylor and Miller, 1978). The traditional diffusion perspective basically asserts that adoption behavior is strongly influenced by access to information and learning experiences. Primary reliance is placed on communication in the diffusion process. It is argued that when people are exposed to innovations which will produce desired benefits, they will adopt. The diffusion model suggests that several necessary but not sufficient conditions must be satisfied before adoption can occur. The perspective posits that a potential adopter must be made aware that a problem exists before he/she will consider changing behaviors. The potential adopter must also perceive that a socially acceptable solution exists to resolve the identified problem. Once potential adopters are made aware of possible solutions, they will seek information to facilitate the decision-making process. Potential adopters

PAGE 86

22 evaluate information and formulate attitudes toward the object being evaluated. How the object being evaluated is perceived will strongly influence the adoption decision. Ultimately, the potential adopter must decide on a course of action which is most appropriate for his/her situation. Several important diffusion concepts affect the outcome of the decisionmaking process. The most important diffusion concepts for soil and water conservation programs are as follows: awareness, relative advantage, compatibility, and complexity. Awareness i_s defined as the state of being conscious of problems and of possible solutions. Potential adopters must recognize that environmental problems and solutions exist before they will consider changing behavioral patterns. There is no purpose in being concerned about problems, if there is no way of solving them. There are many sources of information which may be used by potential adopters. People in industrial societies such as the U.S. frequently use mass media systems to become aware of action options. However, in-depth knowledge of specific a 1 ternat i ves is most often secured from personal contact with knowl edgeab 1 e peop 1 e or from techni ca 1 sources such as journa 1 s and books. Regardless of the methods used to disseminate information, potential adopters must have access to information for decision-making. Relative advantage refers to the benefits to be received from adoption of new action options compared with existing practices. Potential adopters assess alternative actions in the context of improvements over practices presently being used. If an action option will produce greater benefits than those presently in use at no additional cost, adoption will be considered. If the action option will not produce greater benefits,_there is no relative advantage associated with

PAGE 87

23 adoption. Most people use mental cost-benefit assessments to determine if an action option is worthy of serious consideration (Rogers, 1983). Compatibility refers to how consistent new practices are with established behaviors. If an action option disrupts established patterns too extensively, it will tend to be resisted even though it may generate benefits which are highly valued. Disruption of established modes of behavior is considered a cost in the decision-making process. Action options which complement existing practices will tend to be more quickly adopted. Complexity refers to the level of difficulty associated with understanding and using something being considered for adoption. If something is very difficult to understand or to use, adoption is less likely to occur. Some soil conservation practices are very difficult to understand and to implement at the farm level. Such practices are less frequently adopted. Application of the Diffusion Model to the Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices Reduction of soil erosion nearly always necessitates change in management practices at the farm 1 eve 1 However, farmers are often re 1 uctant to change established production systems because existing practices have been shown to produce desirable outcomes. Unless it can be clearly demonstrated that adoption of soil conservation practices will increase productivity, land operators will be reluctant to adopt. Unfortunately, it is often difficult to demonstrate profitability of soil conservation practices (Mueller, et al., 1985; Putman and Alt, 1987). It must also be recognized that some soil conservation practices which may be profitable may not be appropriate for certain farm operations due SI

PAGE 88

24 to farm speciality. This suggests that demonstration of the relative advantage of soil conservation practices over conventional farming systems is problematic. Evidence to date suggests that 1 and operators in the U.S. are knowledge ab 1 e of the causes of soil erosion. They are aware that soil erosion is problematic at the national, state and local levels. Also, many farmers are aware that their land is eroding. Most farmers are aware of techniques to control soil erosion. All of these findings suggest that knowledge of erosion problems and awareness of techniques to resolve them does not appear to strongly influence adoption of conservation practices. Even though many farmers are aware of soil erosion on their land, they continue to use tillage practices which exacerbate erosion. Research to date strongly suggests that the provision of additional information about soil conservation will probably have very marginal impact on the problem (Napier, 1988a; Napier, 1987; Napier, et al., 1983~; Swanson, et al., 1986). Some soil conservation practices are incompatible with existing tillage systems. Adoption of no till, for example, frequently necessitates extensive investment in new farm technologies, if traditional tillage practices are being used. The costs associated with adopting new tillage systems may be prohibitive (Carlson and Dillman, 1986). Other soil conservation practices are basically compatible with traditional tillage systems, such as conservation tillage (minimum tillage with 1/3 biomass on the land at planting time). A large portion of conventional farming equipment can be used in conservation tillage systems but fall plowing is usually prohibited. Adoption of some soil conservation practices necessitates investment in new farming skills by the land operator, if the benefits of adoption are to be ~achieved. New skills are required because some soil conservation practices are difficult to use. For example, no.till farming requires appropriate application .~1 t. ---(.;i

PAGE 89

25 of chemicals and timing of treatments. Skill levels may differentiate adopters of soil conservation practices from nonadopters. While the traditional diffusion perspective should be applicable to the voluntary adoption of soil conservation practices at the farm level, empirical research has demonstrated repeatedly that diffusion-type variables are relatively i nconsequent i a 1 in the exp 1 anat ion of variance in the adoption of such practices. However, the theory has been shown to be predictive of participation in government-sponsored, soil conservation programs which have economic incentives attached to adoption (Bouwes and Lovejoy, 1980; Napier, et al., 1988a; Napier and Camboni, 1988b; Camboni, et al., 1989). These studies strongly suggest that diffusion variables are only predictive of adoption behaviors in situations where potential adopters have a high probability of deriving direct benefits from adoption and the benefits are clearly recognizable. Most farmers are aware that adoption of soil conservation practices without government subsidies is not profitable. Appropriateness of the Diffusion Model to the Adoption of Groundwater Protection Practices While the traditional diffusion perspective has been shown to have limited utility for predicting voluntary adoption of soil conservation practices, it will probably be quite useful for developing programs designed to reduce the incidence of groundwater contamination. The reason for this assertion is that an important difference exists between soil erosion and groundwater contamination. Farmers who adopt groundwater protection practices may receive direct benefits in the form of safe drinking water. They seldom benefit directly for voluntary adoption

PAGE 90

26 of soil conservation practices. In fact, farm income may be reduced by adopting certain soil conservation practices. Land operators can export water-borne pollutants created by soil erosion to other members of society with considerable immunity. Farmers are seldom threatened by contaminants in surface water and are hardly ever required to pay for damages created by farm chemicals and sediments which they contribute to surface waterways. Most of the off-site costs of soil erosion are borne by nonfarm people. Thus, off-site damages are not perceived to _be costly to the agricultural polluter. Groundwater contamination, however, can adversely affect the land operator and his/her family. Threats to family health can be a very strong incentive for farmers to adopt practices which will protect t~e quality of groundwater resources. Adoption of groundwater protection practices wi 11 probab 1 y occur even if use of such practices will slightly reduce farm profits. The minor loss of farm profits would probably be perceived to be small payment for reduced health risk. This assertion is predicated on the assumption that land operators are made aware of the 1 inkage between agricultural practices and groundwater contamination. The threat of groundwater contamination to family health could also prove to be a strong incentive for 1 and owners to contra 1 farming practices of tenants. Use of inappropriate farming practices by tenants could result in contamination of drinking water of land owners. Concern for health should encourage greater participation by owners in the management of land resources operated by tenants. The soil erosion literature strongly suggests that farmers are aware of pollution caused by soil erosion. However, it is highly unlikely that many farmers are aware of the contamination of subsurface water supp 1 i es from

PAGE 91

27 agricultural sources. It is doubtful that farmers are familiar with the hydrologic cycle, understand the physics of groundwater contamination and arP. knowledgeable of the linkage between farming practices and the contamination of groundwater supplies. It is also possible that many land operators are unaware that their household water supply is vulnerable to contamination by agricultural po 11 utants. Thus, the awareness concept of the diffusion mode 1 shou 1 d be r,e 1 evant to understanding adoption of groundwater contamination prevention practices. Awareness programs were initially successful in facilitating adoption of soil conservation practices in the 1920s and 1930s when farmers were unaware of measures to prevent soil erosion. Similar approaches may be useful in facilitating adoption of practices to reduce the threat of groundwater contamination. However, sole reliance should not be placed on the provision of information. The adoption literature strongly suggests that conservation practices must be compatible with existing farming systems, if they are to be readily adopted at the farm level. This finding suggests that programs designed to reduce groundwater contamination should incorporate recommended conservation practices which are compatible with existing farming methods. Conservation programs which emphasize wholesale modification in farming systems and purchase of new technologies will be strongly resisted by agriculturalists. Consideration should be given to advancing farming systems which emphasize more careful application of farm chemicals and better timing of applications. Not only would the environment benefit from reduced chemical use but farmers may be able to off set some possible production losses by lowering input costs.

PAGE 92

28 Lastly, the diffusion model and the soil conservation literature noted above suggest that techniques to prevent contamination of groundwater resources must be relatively simple to implement. Use of existing educaLional infrastructures such as the Soi 1 Conservation Service and the Cooperative Extension Service should facilitate removal of the skill barrier to adoption of groundwater protection practices. The soil conservation 1 i terature suggests that farmers are willing to develop new farming skills, if the rewards for doing so are adequate to compensate them for their efforts (Napier and Lovejoy, 1988). The Fam Structure-Institutional Constraint Perspective The farm structure-institutional constraint perspective basically asserts that structural conditions of the farm enterprise and macro-level institutional conditions in the society affect adoption of soil conservation practices. This perspective argues that farmers who do not have access to economic resources to adopt soil conservation practices will be unable to implement soil conservation programs even though they may desire to do so. National and international economic conditions can act as barriers to the adoption of conservation practices (Swanson, et al., 1986). Farmers who have high debt to equity ratios may be unable to divert scarce capital for conservation efforts (Napier, 1988b). International and domestic demand for agricultural products can act as incentives to use short-tem planning horizons which emphasize maximization of production. The present agricultural system in the U.S. is oriented toward large-scale production and technology-intensive farming practices. Such a syste111. is very productive but it is a 1 so high 1 y erosive of 1 and resources. Agricultural :--:: .. f -

PAGE 93

29 institutions implement policies which support the continuance of the system at the expense of the environment. Permanent solutions to soil erosion problems cannot ignore institutional conditions such as those outline above. To attack soil erosion problems solely from the perspective of changing the individual farmer is counter productive and will probably not be successful. Long-run reduction of soil erosion problems will necessitate both behavioral change on the part of farmers and structural change in the agricultural system: The latter will be the most difficult to accomplish. Appropriateness of the Farm Structure-Institutional Constraint Perspective to the Adoption of Groundwater Practices It is highly probable that the farm structure-institutional constraint perspective will have considerable utility for understanding adoption of groundwater protection practices. Severa 1 of the vari ab 1 es inc 1 uded in the theoretical orientation should affect adoption of groundwater protection practices in the same manner as they affect adoption of soil conservation practices. Government farm programs wi 11 prob ab 1 y act as barriers to adoption of groundwater protection practices as they do for soil erosion control practices. Government farm programs will probably continue to motivate land operators to maximize production and to exploit soil and water resources. Macro-lev~l economic and market conditions will probably act as barriers to adoption of groundwater protection practices as they have for soil conservation practices. The present agri cul tura 1 system is based on an

PAGE 94

30 orientation which stresses increasing size and complexity of farming operations. Land operators who do not use convent i ona 1 farming practices combined. with chemical-intensive farming systems increase the risk of being forced out of farming (Napier, 1988c). Farmers are under great pressure by the production system to increase output and the only means available for many to do so is through increased energy-intensive mechanical input, and the cultivation of margi na 1 1 and. Such practices tend to degrade natura 1 resources, but it is highly probable that farmers will continue to be more concerned about survival in the competitive production system than about environmeutal impacts of their farming practices. Government-sponsored, soil conservation policies must be taken into consideration during the development of a comprehensive groundwater protection program. It is highly likely that effective campaigns to bring about the adoption of certain types of soil conservation practices at the farm level will exacerbate groundwater pollution. Government conservation policies must be made consistent which suggests that representatives of society wil 1 be farced to define what levels of surface and subsurface pollution are socially acceptable. It is highly probable that protection of groundwater resources will be impossible without coordinating groundwater programs with soil erosion control efforts. Some decision-making body must ultimately determine what resource will be permitted to be degraded and to what extent. Land tenure has been shown to impede the adoption of soil conservation practices because renters have very few ways of capturing the returns to investments made in conservation practices (Batie, 1986; Ervin, 1986). It is :.. highly likely that land tenure will act as a barrier to the adoption of groundwater protection practices ~or s i mi 1 ar reasons. Un 1 ess 1 and owners become

PAGE 95

31 informed about the threat of groundwater contamination and insist that tenants adopt groundwater protection practices, contamination wi 11 probab 1 y occur. Tenant farmers will not be constrained by groundwater contamination on rented acreage unless owners inform them that use of farming practices which threaten groundwater resources will not be tolerated. The potential loss of access to land for farming purposes may result in the adoption of groundwater protection pr~ctices by tenant farmers. Personal attachments to the land owner may also facilitate adoption of groundwater protection practices by tenants because they would not wish to harm the owner. In situations where personal attachments to the land owner do not exist and the tenant does not depend on the same aquifer for household water supply, formal leasing arrangements to ensure environmental quality may be necessary. Contracts may be enacted to ensure that the quality of groundwater is protected. Conclusions The review of the existing iiterature focused on the voluntary adoption of soil conservation practices and the theoretical perspectives hypothesized to be applicable to the adoption of conservation practices suggest several avenues for imp 1 ement i ng groundwater protection programs in the U.S. Some of the elements are voluntary, while others tend to be coercive in nature. It is highly 1 ikely that a successful groundwater protection program will require both voluntary and coercive approaches. One approach is to use an educat i ona 1 program designed to inform 1 and operators of the threat to their well-being and the future use of groundwater resources, if pollution continues. Information programs designed to demonstrate the direct benefits of adopting groundwater protection practices by 1 and f ,..-A, ( I

PAGE 96

32 operators will probably be rewarded by changes in behavior. However, before effective educ at i ona 1 programs can be imp 1 emented a research base mu st be developed to ascertain the existing knowledge level of farmers and other rural residents concerning groundwater contamination problems. Information needs of the c 1 i ent groups must be est ab 1 i shed and educat i ona 1 programs targeted to specific user groups. Benefits such as protection of hea 1th status, reduced in-puts to the production system and maintenance of resale value of land resources should be emphasized in educational materials. If data exist to demonstrate that adoption of groundwater protec~ion practices will not adversely affect food and fiber production, such information should be very useful for convincing farmers to adopt. A very important issue to be considered in the development of a comprehensive groundwater protection program is monitoring. Research should be conducted on a 1 ong-term basis to document the nature of the groundwater po 11 ut ion prob 1 em and the imp act of groundwater protection practices on the severity of the problem. Linkage of health problems with groundwater contamination from agriculture would strengthen the information component discussed above. Another method of convincing farmers to adopt groundwater conservation practices is through the use ofeconomic incentives. Evidence derived from research focused on the adoption of soil erosion control practices suggests that farmers are frequently reluctant to adopt conservation practices without economic subsidies (Bouwes and Lovejoy, 1980; Napier and Forster, 1982). Consideration should be given to extending existing conservation programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program to include protection of critical groundwater 1 -.J

PAGE 97

33 resources. The development of farm plans to comply with Conservation Compliance components of the Conservation Title of the Food Security Act of 1985 should take into consideration protection of critical groundwater resources. Research focused on the adoption of soil conservation practices demonstrates clearly that farmers can be "bought." Farmers can be convinced to adopt groundwater protection practices vi a government subsidies and rents. Leasing of farm land to prevent the use of farming practices which will degrade groundwater resources may be a cost-effective strategy in the long-run on recharge areas of critical aquifers. An alternative approach would be the purchase of farming rights or the purchase of all land rights by the state to permanently protect critical groundwater recharge areas. The latter option would be the best strategy because land use could be controlled in the future. The long-run cost of land purchase would probably be less than lease arrangements. It may be necessary to formulate Groundwater Preservation Programs at state and local levels in the future. It is highly probable that Congress will have to assume an important role in the formation and implementation of a comprehensive groundwater protection program. One of the primary reasons the Federal government will be required to act is that local governments do not have the economic and human resources to effectively address the problem. A groundwater protection program similar to the Conservation Reserve Program wi 11 be very expensive. Long-term 1 ease arrangements, purchase of cropping rights or purchase of a 11 property rights will be expensive even if only very important aquifers are protected using this approach. Ultimately, government agencies will be forced to address the issue of what constitutes socially acceptable l~vels of environmental degradation. Pollution

PAGE 98

34 of surface water resources from soil erosion must be evaluated in the context of groundwater contamination. The political process must determine what levels of degradation will be acceptable for both types of pollution. Some groundwater resources will be degraded and some political entity must determine which aquifers will be permitted to be contaminated and to what level. These are political decisions which must be considered by policy ~aking entities such as Congress. Congress may also have to make some hard decisions in the not too distant future re1ative to redefining property rights. Under present law, the concept of nuisance is the primary means of stopping soil erosion and groundwater contamination. Given the problems associated with identifying nonpoint polluters, consideration should be given to alternative methods of encouraging land owners to use conservation practices. One method would be forcing all land operators to develop and implement an approved Natural Resources Conservation Plan, if food and fiber for the market economy are to be produced on the farm. Failure to comply would be easily recognized and result in the administration of punishment. Given the state of scientific knowledge concerning the physics of soil erosion, conservation plans can be developed to ensure that socially acceptable levels of pollution are achieved. Penalties for noncompliance should not be tied to loss of government farm payments, since not all land operators participate in such programs (Napier, 1989). Significant economic penalties for failure to comply with the conservation plan should be applied regardless of the farmer's involvement in government farm programs. Such policies should be an incentive to comply with environmental standards. Once additional scientific knowledge has been generated in the area of _groundwater protection, an integrated Natural

PAGE 99

35 Resources Protection Program could be implemented which would optimize conservation of both soil and groundwater resources.

PAGE 100

36 Bibliography American Farmland Trust, Soil Conservation in America: What Do We Have to Lose?, Washington, D.C.: American Farmland Trust, 1984. Anderson, M.P., "Hydrogeologic Framework for Groundwater Protection." In Planning for Groundwater Protection, Page, G.W. (ed.) New York: Academic Press, Inc., 1-27, 1987. Bandura, A., Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hal 1, Inc., 1977. Berardi, G.M., "Agricultural Export and farm Policies: Implications for Soil Loss in the U.S." In Agricultural Soil Loss: Processes, Policies and Prospects, Harlin, J.M. and Berardi, G.M. (eds~) Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 279-290, 1987. Batie, S.S., "Policies, Institutions and Incentives for Soil Conservation." In Soil Conservation Policies, Institutions and Incentives, Halcrow, H.G., Heady, E.O. and Cotner, M.L. (eds.) Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society of America Press, 25-40, 1982. Batie, S.S., "Why Soil Erosion: A Social Science Perspective." In Conserving Soil: Insights From Socioeconomic Research, Lovejoy, S.B. and Napier, T.L. (eds.) Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society of America Press, 3-14, 1986. Bouwes, N.W.; and Lovejoy, S.B., "Optimal Cost Sharing and Nonpoint Source Pollution.Control", Economic Issues, Number 45. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1980. Brown, L.A., Innovation Diffusion: A New Perspective. New York: Metheun Press, 1981. Bultena, G.L.; and Hoiberg, E.O., "Sources of Information and Technical Assistance for Farmers in Controlling Soil Erosion." In Conserving Soil: Insights From Socioeconomic Research, Lovejoy, S.B. and Napier, T.L. (eds.) Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society of America Press, 71-82, 1986. Buttel, F.H.; and Swanson, L.E., "Soil and Water Conservation: A Farm Structural and Public Policy Context." In Conserving Soil Insights From Socioeconomic Research. Lovejoy, S.B. and Napier, T.L. (eds.) Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society of America Press, 26-39, 1986. Camboni, S.M. "The Adoption and Continued Use of Consumer Farm Technologies: A Test of a Diffusion-Farm Structure Model." Doctoral Dissertation. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Ohio State University, 1984.

PAGE 101

37 Camboni, S.M.; Napier, T.L.; and Lovejoy, S.S., "Factors Affecting Participation in the CRP in a Micro-Targeted Area of Ohio." In Implementation of the Conservation Title, Napier, T.L. (ed.) Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society of America Press, (Forthcoming) 1989. Camboni, S.M.; and Napier, T.L., "Five Decades of Soil Eroston: Problems and Potent i a 1 s." Paper presented at the 1986 annua 1 meeting of the Rura 1 Sociological Society. Salt Lake City, Utah, 1986. Carlson, J.E.; and Dillman, D.A., "Early Adopters and Nonusers of No-Till in the Pacific Northwest: A Comparison." In Conserving Soil: Insights fro,m Socioeconomic Research, Lovejoy, S.S. and Napier, T.L. (eds.) Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society of America Press, 83-92, 1986. Christensen, L.A., "Water Quality: A Multidisciplinary Perspective." In Water Resources Research: Problems and Potentials for Aqri cul tura 1 and Rura 1 Conununities, Napier, T.L.; Scott, D.; Easter, K.W. and Supalla, R. (eds.) Ankeny, Iowa: Soil Conservation Society of America Press, 36-62, 1983. Christensen, L.A.; and Norris, P.E., "Soil Conservation and Water Quality Improvement: What Farmers Think", Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 38: 15-20, 1983. Clark, R.M., "Technological Approaches to Removing Toxic Contaminants." In Planning for Groundwater Protection, Page, W.G. (ed.) New York: Academic Press, Inc., 89-123, 1987. Easter, K.W.; Leitch, J.A.; and Scott, D.F., "Competition for Water, A Capricious Resource." In Water Resources Research: Problems and Potentials for Agriculture and Rural Communities, Napier, T.L.; Scott, D.; Easter, K.W. and Supalla, R. (eds.) Ankeny, Iowa: Soil Conservation Society of America Press, 135-153, 1983. El-Swaify, S.A.; Moldenhauer, W.C.; and Lo, A. (eds.), Soil Erosion and Conservation. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil Conservation Society of America Press, Ankeny, Iowa, 1985. English, B.C.; and Heady, E.O., "Short-and Long-Term Analysis of the Impacts of Several Soil Loss Control Measures on Agriculture." Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 1980. Ervin, D.E., "Constraints to Practicing Soil Conservation: Land Tenure Relationships." In Conserving Soil: Insights From Socioeconomic Research, Lovejoy, S.B. and Napier, T.L. (eds.) Ankeny, Iowa: Soil Conservation Society of America Press, 95-107, 1986. Ervin, D.E.; and Washburn, R., "Profitability of Soil Conservation Practices in Missouri", Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 36 (2): 107-111, 1981.

PAGE 102

38 Forster, D. L.; Bardos, C.P.; and Southgate, D.D., "Soil Erosion and Water Treatment Costs", Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 42 (5}: 349-352, 1987. Gardner, B. D. "Government and Conservation: A Case of Good Intent i ans but Misplaced Incentives." In Soil Conservat.on: What Should be the Role of Government?, Indiana Cooperative Extension Service. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University, 8-16, 1985. Halcrow, H.G.; Heady, E.0.; and Cotner, M;L. {eds.), Soil Conservation Policies, Institutions and Incentives. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil Conservation Society of America Press, 1982. Hansen, D.0.; Erbaugh, J.M.; and Napier, T.L., "Factors Related to the Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices in the Dominican Republic", Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 42 (5}:367-369, 1987. Henderson, T.R., "The Institutional Framework for Protecting Groundwater in the United States." In Planning for Groundwater Protection, Page, G.W. (ed.} New York: Academic Press, Inc., 29-67, 1987. Hooks, G.M.; Napier, T.L.; and Carter, M.V., "The Correlates of Adoption Behaviors: The Case of Farm Technologies", Rural Sociology. 48 (2}: 309-324, 1983. Korsching, P.F.; and Nowak, P.J., Environmental Criteria and Farm Structure: Flexibility in Conservation Policy." In Proceedings of a Symposium on Farm Structure and Rural Policy, Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1980. Kraft, S.E., "Macro and Micro Approaches to the Study of Soil Loss", Journal of Sojl and Water Conservation, 33(5): 238-239, 1978. Lovejoy, S.B.; and Napier, T.L., "Institutional-Constraints to Soil Conservation on Steep Lands." In Conservation Farming on Steep Lands, Moldenhauer, W.C. and Hudson, N.W. {eds.) Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society of America Press, 107-114, 1988. Lovejoy, S.S.; and Napier, T.L. (eds.), Conserving Soil: Insights from SocioEconomic Research. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society of America Press, 1986. Miller, W.L., "The Farm Business Perspective and Soil Conservation." In~ Conservation Policies, Institutions and Incentives, Halcrow, H.G.; Heady, E.0. and Cotner, M.L. {eds.) Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society of America Press, 151-162, 1982. Miranowski, J.A., "Agricultural Impacts on Environmental Quality." In Water Resources Research: Problems and Potentials for Agriculture and Rural Connnunities, Napier, T.L.; Scott, D.; Easter, K.W. and Supalla, R. (eds.} Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society of America Press, 117-134, 1983. \ 0' -

PAGE 103

39 Miranowski, J.A., "Overlooked Variables in BMP Implementation: Risk, Attitudes, Perceptions and Human Capital Characteristics." In Perceptions, Attitudes and Risk: Overlooked Variables in Formulating Public Policy on Soil Conservatjon and Water Quality, Staff Report Number AGES 820129. Athens, Georgia: Economic Research Service/ United States Department of Agriculture, 1982. Moldenhauer, W.C., "Soil and Crop Management Factors: Implications for Soil Loss." In Agricultural Soil Loss: Processes, Policies and Prospects, Harlin, J.M. and Berardi (eds.) Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 173-194, 1987. Moldenhauer, W.C.; and Hudson, N.W. (eds.), Conservation Farming on Steep Slopes. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society of America Press, 1988. Mueller, D.H.; Klemme, R.M.; and Daniel', T.C., "Short-and Long-Term Cost Comparisons of Convent i ona 1 and Conservation Ti 11 age Systems in Corn Production", Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 40(5): 466-470, 1985. Napier, T.L., "The Evolution of U.S. Soil Conservation Policy: From Voluntary Adoption to Coercion." Keynote address presented at the Institute of British Geographers Annual Conference, Coventry, England, January, 1989. Napier, T.L., "Implementation of Soil Conservation Practices: Past Efforts and Future Prospects", Topics in Applied Resource Management in the Tropics, (Forthcoming) 19881 Napier, T.L., "Socio-Economic Factors Influencing the Adoption of Soil Erosion Control Practices in the United States." In Agriculture: Erosion Assessment and Modelling. Morgan, R.P.C. and Rickson, R.J. (eds.) Luxembourg, Belgium: Office of Official Publications of the European Communities, 299-327, 1988b. Napier, T.L., "Anticipated Changes in Rural Communities Due to Financial Stress in Agriculture: Implications for Conservation Programs." In Impacts of the Conservation Reserve Program in the Great Plains, Mitchell, J.E. (ed.) Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. Forest Service, P4-90, 1988c. Napier, T.L., "Farmers and Soil Erosion: A Question of Motivation", The Forum for Applied Research and Public Policv. 2 (2): 85-94, 1987. Napier, T.L.; Scott, D.; Easter, K.W.; and Supalla R. (eds.), Water Resources Research: Problems and Potentials for Agriculture and Rural Communities. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil Conservation Society of America Press, 1983. Napier, T.L.; Thraen, C.S.; Gore, A.; and Goe, W.R., "Factors Affecting Adoption of Conventional and Conservation Tillage Practices in Ohio", Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 39 (3): 205-209, 1984. Napier, T.L.; Thraen, C.S.; and Camboni, S.M., "Willingness of Land Operators to Participate in Governme~t-Sponsored Soil Erosion Control Programs", Journal of Rural Studies, 4 (4): 339-347, 1988a.

PAGE 104

,._ 40 Napier, T.L.; Thraen, C.S.; and McClaskie, S.L., "Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices by Farmers in Erosion Prone Areas of Ohio: The Application of Logit Modeling", Society and Natural Resources, 1 (1): 109-129, 1988b. Napier, T .L.; and Forster, D.L., "Farmer Attitudes and Behavior Associated With Soil Erosion Control." In Soil Conservation Policies, Institutions and Incentives, Halcrow, H.G.; Heady, E.O. and Cotner, M.L. (eds.) Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society of America Press, 137-150, 1982. Napier, T.L.; and Camboni, S.M., "A Social Science Perspective of Conservation of Soil Resources." In Alternative Uses of Highly Erodible Agricultural .L.lng, Henderson, H. A. and Meeks, T. K. (eds. ) Muse 1 es Shoa 1 s, A 1 abama: Tennessee Valley Authority, 165-177, 1988a. Napier, T.L. and Camboni, S.M., "Attitudes Toward a Proposed Soil Conservation Program", Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 43 (2): 186-191, 1988b. Napier, T.L.; Camboni, S.M.; and Thraen, C.S., "Environmental Concern and the Adoption of Farm Technologies", Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 41 (2): 109-113, 1986. Napier, T.L.; and Lovejoy, S.B., "Factors Affecting Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices in Ohio: A Typological Analysis." ESO number 1498. The Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1988. Ogg, C.W., "Cross-Compliance Proposals and Fragile Croplands." Paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Meetings, West Lafayette, Indiana, 1983. Osteen, C.D., "The Effects of Commodity Programs en Soil Loss." In Agricultural Soil Loss: Processes, Policies and Prospects, Harlin, J.M. and Berardi, G.M. (eds.) Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 291-317, 1987. Page, G.W. (ed.), Planning for Groundwater Protection. New York: Academic Press, Inc., 1987 a. Page, G.W., "Drinking Water and Health." In Planning for Groundwater Protection, Page, G.W. (ed.) New York: Academic Press, Inc., 69-87, 1987b. Pimentel, D., "Soil Erosion Effects on Farm Economics." In Agricultural Soil Loss: Processes, Policies and Prospects, Harlin, J.M. and Berardi, G.M. (eds.) Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 217-241, 1987. Pimentel, D.; Terhune, E.C.; Hudson, R.; Rochereau, S.R.; Samis, R.; Smith, E.A.; Denman, O.; Reifschneider, D.; and Shepard, M., "Land Degradation: Affects on Food and Energy Resources", Science, 149-155, 1976. Putman, J.; and Alt, K., "Erosion Control: How Does It Change Farm Income?", Journa 1 of Sojl and Water C_onservat ion, 42 ( 4): 265-267, 1987.,

PAGE 105

41 Reichelderfer, K.H., "Will Agricultural Program Consistency Save More Soil?", Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 39 (4): 229-231, 1984. Rogers, E.M., Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press, 1983. Schnaiberg, A., The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980. Swanson, L.E.; Camboni, S.M.; and Napier T.L., "Barriers to the Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices on Farms. 11 In Conserving Soil: Insights From Socioeconomic Research, Lovejoy, S.B. and Napier, T.L. (eds.) Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society of America Press, 108-120, 1986. Taylor, D.L.; and Miller, W.L., "The Adoption Process and Environmental Innovations: A Case Study of a Government Program", Rural Sociology, 43 (4): 634-648, 1978. Turner, J. H., The Structure of Sociological Theory. Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1974. United States Department of Agriculture, A National Program for Soil and Water Conservation: 1982 Fina 1 Program Report and Envi ronmenta 1 Impact Statement. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982.

PAGE 106

42 Appendix 1 Definition of Terms Rewards are defined as goods, services and recognitions that an individual receives for participating in societal activities. Rewards are defined as anything a person perceives to be desirable. Rewards may be monetary and nonmonetary in nature. Voluntary adoption refers to adoption of any soil conservation practice without government subsidies. It is argued that subsidized adoption is not totally voluntary even though the land operator may choose not to participate. Individual factors are defined as socio-demographic characteristics of farm operators such as age, education achievement 1 eve 1 access to information sources, access to learning experiences, length of time engageQ in farming, length of residence in community, number of contacts with conservation agencies, and number of contacts with extension agents. Farm structure factors are defined as characteristics of the farm enterprise such as the number of acres usually cultivated, number of acres usually rented for agri cul tura 1 purposes, number of acres owned, farm speci a 1 i zat ion, debt to equity ratio, and past investments in farm technologies. Psychosocial factors are defined as attitudes held by individual land operators such as perceived profitability, stewardship orientations, attitude toward government involvement in farming, attitude toward efficiency, perceptions of relevance, perceptions of soil erosion as an environmental problem, attitude toward environmentalism, attitude toward fanning as an occupation and attitude toward risk. Institutional constraints are defined as policies and programs to solve collective problems such as government farm programs and policies, conservation policies and programs, and general economic conditions in the society. Risk is defined as the probability of receiving benefits or internalizing costs from actions taken. In the context of adoption of conservation pract j ces, farmers do not wish to increase the probability of loss due to adoption and use of conservation practices. Social learning theory is a theoretical perspective which has its basis in behaviorism. The theory argues that human behavior is the product of learning experiences which affect future behaviors. Behavioral modification is achieved via exposure to new infonnation and experiences. Behaviors which have been demonstrated to be rewarding in the past will tend to be repeated as long as rewards are forthcom-.ng. The unit of analysis of this theoretical perspective is the individual.

PAGE 107

43 The farm structure-inst i tut i ona 1 constraints theoret i ca 1 ori en tat ion is an eclectic perspective which combines farm enterprise concepts with macro-level institutional arrangements to explain adoption of soil conservation practices. This theoretical perspective asserts that individual behaviors are partially governed by forces beyond the individual actor's ability to control.

PAGE 108

Appendix 2 Suggestions for Implementing Groundwater Protection Programs 44 The research findings and theoretical perspectives discussed in this paper have implications for the development of strategies to implement a comprehensive program to protect groundwater resources from agricultural pollution. A successful strategy will necessitate voluntary and coercive components. 1. Educational programs should be developed to infom land owners of the threat to hea 1th from groundwater contamination by farm chemicals. Direct benefits associated with adoption of groundwater protection practices should be demonstrated. Development of effective educat i ona 1 approaches necessitates the production of extensive research findings focused on the i nforinat ion needs of farmers and sources of information. Exploration of appropriate methods of di ssemi nat i ng information wil 1 be required for this approach to be successful. 2. Programs should be designed and implemented to ensure that land operators' deve 1 op positive attitudes toward groundwater protection. Environmental education programs should be useful in removing this barrier to adoption. 3. Methods should be devised to make it possible for land operators with limited economic resources to implement groundwater protection programs. It will probably be necessary to subsidize adoption of groundwater protection practices. 4. Recharge areas of cri ti ca 1 aquifers should be protected from degradation by agricultural pollution. Purchase of cropping rights or purchase of a 11 1 and rights may be required to permanent 1 y protect critical groundwater resources. Such action will require intervention by political representatives of the society. 5. Technical assistance should be provided to land operators to facilitate implementation of groundwater protection programs. Agencies such as the Soil Conservation Service and the Cooperative Extension Service should be involved in this type of service activ;ty. 6. National environmental and production policies should be made to comp 1 ement the other. Nati ona 1 production goa 1 s and nat i ona 1 environmental goals should be clearly specified in the context of achievable outcomes. It is unlikely that existing levels of food and fiber production can be maintained, while simultaneously protecting groundwater quality.

PAGE 109

7. Programs should be explored to use scientific knowledge to develop a comprehensive national Natural Resources Protection Program targeted to land operators who produce food and fiber for the market economy. 8. Consideration should be given to expanding existing soil conservation programs to include groundwater protection components. Penalties associated with the programs should not be linked to commodity payments but result in substantial economic sanctions. 45

PAGE 110

46 Appendix 3 Summary of Similarities Between Soil Erosion and Groundwater Contamination 1. The result of farming activity. 2.-Forms of nonpoint pollution. 3. Difficult to identify polluters. 4. Damages are obscure. 5. All members of society can be affected. 6. Pollution treated as externality of production. 7. Lower priority than production of food and fiber. 8. Contribute to soil and water degradation. 9. Affected by regional variability of soils, climate and topography. 10. Affected by regional variability of farming practices and social factors. 11. Costs are difficult to quantify. 12. Can affect human health. 13. Resolution can cost farmers income. 14. Lack of treatment can reduce resale value of farms. ,/ \ ', U,.) r.:.,\\G v

PAGE 111

Appendix 4 Summary of Differences Between Soil Erosion And Groundwater Contamination FEATURE Off-farm impacts Administrative responsibility to address problem Liability assessment Variation in incidence by geographic region Farming practices employed to address problem Degree of regulation in addressing problem Knowledge base on behavior SOIL EROSION Often interstate Federal agencies authorities Difficult Depends on land erodibility and farming practices No till and minimum till age practices combined with filtering systems (filter strips, grass borders, etc.) Voluntary (education, technical assistance, and subsidies) Extensive research over the past ten years GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION More localized State and 1 oca 1 Very difficult Depends on hydrogeology, soils, and farming practices Modification of chemical appli cation systems Regulatory (pesticide regulation and application restrictions) Little empirical information 47 \\ \ Y"'. ,. \

PAGE 112

Appendix 5 Summary of Factors Influencing Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices 48 Individual characteristics of farmers (limited utility for predicting adoption) Educational experiences Fanning experiences Age Level of awareness of problem Access to information Exposure to information Farm structure factors (best predictors of adoption) Gross farm income Acres farmed Acres owned Acres rented Access to farm technologies Debt to equity ratio Past investments in technologies Fann tenure Psychosocial factors (some utility for predicting adoption) Perceived profitability of conservation practices Stewardship orientations Attitudes toward government involvement in agriculture Attitudes toward efficiency in decision-making Perceptions of relevance of conservation practices Perceptions of soil erosion as a problem Commitment to environmentalism Institutional ~onstraint factors (potential predictors of adoption) Governr 1nt farm programs Federa conservation programs Nation~l economic conditions Global economic conditions Competitive nature of agricultural system

PAGE 113

Appendix 6 Summary of Necessary But Not Sufficient Conditions For Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices 1. Creation of environmental awareness among land operators. 2. Creation of positive attitudes toward soil erosion control. 3. Removal of economic barriers to adoption. 4. Removal of technical barriers to adoption. 5. Removal of institutional barriers to adoption. 6. Creation of national policies to encourage adoption. 49

PAGE 114

LOCAL AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCE NEIWORKS REL.AT/YE TO GROUND WATERPROTEC110N by Peter J. Nowak Associate Professor of Rural Sociology University of Wisconsin Madison, WI April 1989 This contractor document was prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) assessment entitled Beneath the Bottom Line: A&rlcultural Approaches to Reduce Airichemical Contamination of Groundwater. It is being made available because they contain useful information beyond that used in the OTA report. However, they are not endorsed by OTA, nor have they been reviewed by the Technology Assessment Board. References to them should cite the contractor, not OTA, as the author; a suggested citation format follows: Author(s) name(s), Contract paper title, prepared for the U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater OTA-F-418 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1990). l.c \

PAGE 115

LOCAL AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION ARD ASSISTANCE NETWORKS RELATIVE TO GROURD WATER PROTECTION Peter J. Nowak, Associate Professor of Rural Sociology University of Wisconsin-Madison Abstract This paper examines the role of local information and assistance networks in addressing ground water contamination from agricultural sources. The emphasis is on farmer to farmer referral networks. Three factors determine whether agricultural practices will contaminate ground water: ( 1) the characteristics of the agrichemical such as its persistence, water solubility, and toxicity; (2) the soil and hydrologic features of the site where the agrichemical is applied; and (3) the application methods and production practices of the land user who applies the agricultural. It is hypothesized that the third factor, especially mismanagement of agrichemicals, are a major source of the contamination problem. Agricultural decision making is briefly examined. It is summarized by noting that the agricultural decision is not a static event, but is an ongoing, dynamic process. The role of information and assistance in the technology transfer process is discussed. This is a complex process in that different types of farmers rely on different types of information and assistance at different stages of the decision process. The role of information and assistance in this process is to reduce risk and uncertainty. Existing local information and ass-istance networks are then briefly examined. This is followed by a secondary analysis of data that addresses effectiveness of these networks. Assessment was in terms of three dimensions: (1) ability to define and specify local problems; (2) establishing the economic and agronomic viability of alternative practices; and ( 3) providing information and assistance in a format that is accessible and relevant to local land users. A national survey of USDA personnel was used to assess the first two dimensions while a research and education project in Iowa was used to assess the third dimension. It is concluded that existing information .and assistance networks falls far short of what is expected or needed to realistically address current ground water problems. Farmer to farmer referral networks are offered as one technique that might be used to address this deficiency. A recommendation for supporting these networks is offered. Recommendations are also made for a uniform national assessment of the ground water problem with the county as the unit of analysis; a greater role for farmers in research and dissemination programs; and, improved coordination between the private and public sector relative to local information and assistance networks. i l \I'".

PAGE 116

Abstract Table of LOCAL AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCE NETWORKS RELATIVE TO GROUND WATER PROTECTION .................................................... Contents .......................................... Section 1: Local Assistance to Reduce Agricultural i ii Contamination of Ground Water ................... 1 Sources of Agrichemical Contamination of Ground Water ..... 1 Decisio.n Making Regarding Use of Agrichemicals 3 The Role of Information and Assistance .................... 6 The Nature and Scope of Local Delivery Networks ..... 8 Section 2: Current Status of Local Delivery Networks ......... 9 Definition and Specification of the Problem ............... 11 Establishing Economic & Agronomic Viability of Practices ... 15 Format of Available Information and Assistance .......... 19 Section 3: Options for Improving Network Effectiveness ....... 25 Farmer to Farmer Information and Assistance Networks ...... 26 Developing Problem Definition and Specification .......... 27 Design of Appropriate Technology & Dissemination Formats ... 29 Public Agency and Private Sector Coordination .......... 30 Conclusion ................................. . 32 Ref er enc es . . . . 3 4 Footnotes . 3 7 Figures 1 -9 ..................... 0 3 8 ii i, \\ _; \..

PAGE 117

LOCAL AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCE NETWORKS RELATIVE TO GROUND WATER PROTECTION Sources of Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater There are three major factors that determine whether agrichemicals will contaminate the ground water (Fleming, 1987). The first factor is the characteristics of the agrichemical such as its persistence, water solubility, and toxicity. Toxicity is important if the focus is on ground water contamination as opposed to movement of a substance to ground water. The second factor is associated with the soil and hydrologic features of the site where the agrichemical is applied. These features can be used to specify the susceptibility of certain sites to ground water contamination. The third factor are the application methods and production practices of the land user who applies the agrichemical. (Figure 1 about here) Although much of the scientific ~nd legal attention has been focused on the first two of these factors, the third factor is also important. The land user's decision on what crops will be grown, where they will be produced on the land controlled by the farm operation, assessment of what chemicals are needed to grow the selected crop, the timing of the agrichemical application in the production process, accuracy of the application method, and the handling, storage and disposal of waste agrichemicals and containers are all directly related to the potential for agrichemical ground water contamination. Mismanagement of any of these processes can result in ground water contamination. 1 I I I

PAGE 118

A number of the highly mobile, persistent, and toxic chemicals have already been banned from U.S. agriculture (Fleming, 1987). Further, the majority of relevant soil and hydrological features related to infiltration are largely fixed or static across a crop cycle. At least most of those that can be significantly influenced by the land user. Consequently, viable political solutions to this problem need to be built around the third factor ---variation in ground water contamination associated with the agrichemical decisions of the land user. A fundamental hypothesis underlying this paper is that there is significant mismanagement of agrichemicals. Further, even though there may be little research on the nature and extent of this mismanagement, it is hypothesized that mismanagement is one of the major causes of ground water contamination from agrichemicals. However, it is~ asserted that teaching proper management to all land users will "solve" this pr6blem even if that were possible. This strategy would not address the first two factors listed above, nor does it account for climatic and technological-failure causes of ground water contamination. Nonetheless, reducing mismanagement of agricultural chemicals may be the most cost-effective and politically acceptable strategy available. At issue are the different mechanisms for addressing mismanagement. A number of different techniques are available associated with the processes of knowledge generation and dissemination. This paper will focus on only one of these techniques ---the role of farmer to farmer information and assistance networks as one method of addressing the mismanagement of agrichemicals 2 :---\\l '--

PAGE 119

Decision Making Regarding Use of Agrichemicals Agrichemicals often account for a major share of farm production costs (Goldstein and Young, 1987). Consequently, the decision process surrounding purchase and use of these products needs careful examination. There have been a number of extensive studies on agricultural decision making (Rogers, 1983; Lionberger and Gwin, 1982). Decisions related to the adoption of agricultural innovations have been explained by four groups of factors: (l) the ecological context into which the agricultural innovation must fit; (2) the institutional context which may hinder or facilitate the adoption of certain innovations; (3) the nature.of the support and delivery system surrounding the innovation within different settings; and ( 4) the nature of the farm firm including the characteristics of the decision make1:s in the operation. The explanatory power of thes~ four factors varies with the nature of the agricultural innovation (Nowak, 1987). The agricultural decision process have been found to be related to the farmer's capability to evaluate constraints, resources, and opportunities surrounding the farm operation (Bartlett, 1980; Bennett, 1981). "Farmers proceed through the agricultural cycle as master players proceed through a chess game, using an extensive body of knowledge to define potential problems and alternative solutions at each point in the cycle" (Gladwin and Murtaugh, 1980:118). Three generalizations summarize much of this decision making research. First, the agricultural decision is not .. a static event, but is an ongoing, dynamic process (Bohlen, 1964). Second, assistance and access to information are important 3 \_ \\{

PAGE 120

influences for the course and outcome of this process (Rogers, 1983). Third, different farmers rely on different sources and types of information at the different stages of this decision process (Beal and Bohlen, 1967). Experience and indigenous knowledge systems are often a major influence in this decision process (Bartlett, 1980). It is important to recognize that information and assistance can be experiential as well as garnered from informal sources. Information and assistance does not just flow from the "top" (private and public research and education organizations) to the farmer at the "bottom." A consistent research finding is that individuals are important both as sources and evaluators of information (Lionberger, 1960:8). "Regardless of practice, or place, or person, adoption decisions almost always involve other individuals as information sources. They may provide initial knowledge of a practice, definite advice as to the course of action to be taken, or reinforcement of decision already made. They may be specialists or outsiders, but they are more likely to be fellow farmers personally known and trusted." (Emphasis added) Information and assistance regarding the use of agrichemicals come from a variety of sources. In general, information on new agrichemicals largely comes from private sources by means of the farm media and supply dealers. These dissemination mechanisms introduce information about the new agrichemical into the agricultural system. Public research and education organizations then assume their major responsibilities in this area. As the agrichemical becomes more widely diffused, these organizations conduct extensive efficacy studies and develop management 4 \\c; L

PAGE 121

guidelines. Finally, conventional wisdom (e.g., 1.3 pounds of nitrogen for every bushel of corn per acre in the Midwest), past experience, and the experiences and advice of other farmers play a major role. Two major points are being summarized in this brief discussion. First, there are multiple sources of information and assistance available within the farm community. It is not, as comm~nly perceived, a "direct pipeline" where it is just a matter of coming up with the right information to feed into this process. This fact was summarized in a conversation with a county extension agent reported by Dillman (1985:21). "However, he also noted that there was much more to making a decision than simply to having the information. The important act was not the securing of information from a particular place, it was the interaction that interpreted the information in a local context. He concluded: 'if solving problems was only a matter of applying the same information to all problems everywhere, the movie projector would have made us obsolete.'" Further, these sources of information are not necessarily consistent with each other, and are often contradictory. Second, although the variability among farmers in terms of which sources they use and trust has decreased over the last few decades, significant variation remains. Different farmers use and depend on different types of information and assistanc:e sources. This is in addition to the long standing fact that farmers use differe~t sources and types of information for different stages of the decision process. One source or form of information and assistance will not work for all farmers. Nor will a source of information and assistance that is accepted for one technology necessarily remain the same for other agricultural practices. 5

PAGE 122

.... The Role of Information and Assistance As noted above, decision making is an incremental and recursive process. If the farmer is to adopt a new practice or technique, then this implies behavioral change. Changing behavior is a complex process involving knowledge, attitudes, and intentions (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). Simply stated, the role of information and assistance is to develop a knowledge base from which attitudes and behavioral intentions can be formed or changed. The absence of this knowledge, or the presence of contradictory knowledge results in either a lack of motivation for change or in uncertainty. Uncertainty is often defined as a situation characterized by the lack of information. Uncertainty results in and .ts equated with risk. Two general strategies have been employed in the area of resource management to reduce this risk. A common strategy is to subsidize or pay the land user to take a risk associated with adopting a new practice. This strategy has been employed with many traditional conservation practices, and in more recent times with reduced tillage systems. A second strategy is to reduce the risk by supplying the information that minimizes the uncertainty surrounding a new practice or technology. This later strategy has received less emphasis in both the research literature and program design. Considering that both proper management or reducing agrichemical inputs are associated with increased managerial sophistication suggests that this second strategy may be most effective relative to reducing the potential for ground water contamination. In this context the major role of information and assistance 6 ,....\ \ l ... \v'

PAGE 123

is to minimize the risk and transition costs associated with reducing agrichemical use, or changing or improving agrichemical management ( Dabbert and Madden, 19 8 6) The more complex the technology or management strategy, and the greater the difference of this new technique when compared to the traditional practice, the greater the risk and transition cost to the land user (Wake et al., 1988). The role of information and assistance is to reduce this risk and transition cost to a point where the land user is willing to make behavioral changes. This research literature suggests a number of critical questions to be answered: 1. To what extent are land users currently being supplied the necessary information and assistance to reduce agrichemical use, or improve or change current agrichemical management? 2. To what extent do current knowledge generation and dissemination mechanisms recognize the fact tha~ different farmers will require different types and sources of informat.ion at different stages of the decision process? 3. What is the current and potential role of farmer to farmer information and assistance networks in this process of knowledge generation and dissemination? ~he Rature and Scope of Delivery Retworks Supplying farmers with information and assistance has been a major feature of the United States agricultural system since the middle of the last century. Extensive research, education, and outreach (extension) organizations have been built to meet the information and assistance needs of farmers (Chartrand, 1982). As agriculture has increased in sophistication, complexity, and 7 111

PAGE 124

diversity, these organizations have also changed (Schuh, 1986; McDowell, 1988). Both formal and informal local information and assistance networks have emerged (see Figure 2). (Figure 2 about here) The core of public agricultural information and assistance networks are the land grant universities, agricultural experiment stations, and the state and federal extension service. Related network components would include the National Weather Service, USDA Crop Reporting Services, and other USDA agencies. One would also include state departments of agriculture, local libraries, schools ( FFA, VoAg), and colleges in this category. All these organizations play varying roles in making di f erent forms of information and assistance available to the farmer. The private agricultural industry has also developed an extensive information and education assistance network. Local dealers and suppliers of farm products and services play a major role in shaping farmer decisions regarding farm inputs. Many farmers depend on recommendations of local suppliers of pesticides and nutrients regarding the type and application rate. These recommendations are often coupled with custom application by these private businesses. Other formal sources of information and assistance include farmer to farmer referral networks and private nonprofit groups. Informal. groups of farmers have emerged in response to the issue of finding viable methods of reducing agrichemical inputs. What is known about these groups is that they can have up to three functions. First, they engage in on-farm experimentation of 8 II~

PAGE 125

different reduction techniques and disseminate tLis information within their network; second, they bring in or contact external sources of information and assistance to help network members; and third, they use different formats (newsletters, demonstrations, meetings, phone calls) to share information among network members. This is a very cursory and general overview of the nature of the information and assistance network in agriculture. There are a number of detailed studies of this subject, especially the public land grant system, that are beyond the scope of this paper (Busch and Lacy, 1986; Feller et al., 1983, 1984; OTA, 1981; Parrlberg, 1981; Rutan, 1983; Warmer and Christenson, 1984). CURRERT S~ATUS OF LOCAL DELIVERY HETWORXS Two points have been established; that information and assistance is a critical input to decisions regarding agrichemical management, and that there is an extensive delivery network currently in place within the agricultural community. The next issue to be addressed is the status of this existing delivery network relative to meeting the information and assistance needs of land users. If a policy option based on local information and assistance is to be designed, then an analysis of the adequacy of this network is needed. Three dimensions of this delivery network need to be assessed. First, the extent to which the problem of agrichemical contamination of ground water is being defined and specified to land users. It makes little sense to expect land users to seek alternative practices until they first recognize a problem with existing techniques. This problem can be defined in terms of 9

PAGE 126

either the health risks associated with contaminated ground water, or with the economic losses associated with wasted agrichemicals reaching the ground water. The second dimension is associated with the information and assistance being provided on alternatives to existing practices. Farmers need site specific economic and agronomic facts on these alternatives as part of the adoption decision. It is unrealistic to expect farmers to adopt alternative practices based on stewardship themes or vaguely defined health risks. Although these messages may motivate farmers to seek alternatives, there is low probability of adoption unless they can obtain adequate economic and agronomic information about suggested remedial practices. Supplying this information should be a function of these local assistance networks. It needs to be emphasized that the supplying of this information and assistance does not necessarily mean from researchers, extension professionals, or agency personnel to farmers. The whole concept of farmer to farmer referral networks implies that farmers can also be a source of this information and assistance. Both to fellow farmers and to researchers, extension professionals, and agency personnel. The third dimension is the format of this information and assistance. Problem definition and economic or agronomic facts must be. presented in an accessible and usable format for the farmer. That is, the right type of information in the appropriate format has to be made available to the farmer at the stage of the decision process when that information is relevant. The information context surrounding farmers is complex and 10

PAGE 127

dense. Few farmers have available time or resources to seek out information and assistance that may or may not be relevant. Both time and resources (costs) are involved with this search process. Further, as noted earlier, different farmers use different information sources at different stages of the adoption process. Consequently, it is important that information and assistance be flexible so as to provide farmers with a format that is accessible and relevant. Definition and Specification of the Problem A number of research generalizations have been developed in the area of resource conservation that may apply to this topic. Research has found a "proximity effect" working among farmers relative to the perceived degree of a resource problem (Nowak, 1984). The farther away from the farm operation, the greater the farmer's perception of the extent of the problem. As one gets closer to the farm operation, the extent of the problem decreases proportionately. This implies that a critical component of information and assistance needs to be the ability to provide site specific problem definition. That is, to "internalize" what has been treated as an externality in farm production. A related research generalization has been the finding that farmers underestimate their resource problems while overestimating their conservation behavior. Information and assistance supplied to farmers must go beyond specifying a problem with a local area. It must also be able to specify the farm contribution (cause -effect relationships) to that problem. Farmers do not need generalities or slogans. They need site-sp~cific facts. [ -\J(_.

PAGE 128

There is not a comprehensive, national assessment of agrichemical contamination of ground water. Estimates and local assessments, however, do exist for some states (Lee and Nielson, 1987). In large part, however, local information and assistance networks cannot address either definition or specification of ground water problems. Instead, most representatives of local delivery networks are forced to deal in generalities if they address the situation at all. There has been no national assessment of local network personnel regarding the quantity and quality of information and assistance available to them for working with farmers. Nor has there been a comprehensive effort to assess the quality and quantity of information available in those areas where ground water contamination from agrichemicals has been established. Overall, little is known on a national level regarding the capa~ility of local assistance networks to define and specify the problem. A closely related issue is the extent to which representatives of these local delivery networks believe there is a problem. This belief is important as local network personnel would be reluctant to commit limited time and resources unless they first acknowledged a problem. Their involvement, like the farmers, is dependent on first recognizing a problem which needs attention. The Soil and Water Conservation Society conducted a national survey of USDA county level personnel in 1987 (Nowak and Schnepf, 1987) and again in 1988. Every fifth county employee (off ice supervisors) for the Soil Conservation ~ervice (SCS), Agricultural Stabilization and ConservatJ.on Service ( ASCS) and Cooperative 12 'i,. I 1 '---

PAGE 129

Extension Service (CES) were interviewed relative to the conservation programs found in the 1985 Food Security Act. Several questions were added to the 1988 survey related to water quality problems associated with agrichemicals. One question asked respondents to assess the extent of water quality problems in their county. The intent was to obtain an overall assessment of surface and ground water quality by these USDA personnel. The results are presented by USDA production region in Figure 3. (Figure 3 about here) Generalization has to be limited because corresponding data on the actual extent of water quality problems at the county level does not exist. However, because of agriculture's major contribution to water quality problems some judgments are possible (Gianessi et al, 1985; Lee and Nielson, 1987; Hallberg, 1986). First, these local network personnel appear to be underestimating the extent of the problem. For example, Lee and Nielson (1987) show a major portion of the Corn Belt and the Lake States as being areas with potential ground water contamination from both pesticides and nitrates. Yet only a quarter ( 25. 0%) of the respondents in the Corn Belt viewed water quality as a severe or serious problem. Less than a fifth (18.2%) gave this issue the same ranking in the Lake States. A similar situation is found in the Delta States where a large area has potential contamination from pesticides. Only 19.8 percent of the USDA respondents viewed the water quality situation as serious or severe. In the Southern Plans, where a large area is susceptible to nitrate contamination, less than a tenth (9.3%) viewed water contamination as severe or 13 J I

PAGE 130

serious. Another third (33.9%) only viewed water quality problems as moderate, while the largest response category were the 47. 5 percent who viewed it as a slight problem. Similar patterns can be found in other production regions. The general conclusion is that the extent of the water quality problem is being underestimated by these USDA county personnel. In addition to underestimating the problem, there appears to be some ambiguity among USDA county personnel on the cause of the problem. Respondents were asked about the extent agriculture contributed to local water quality problems. Results are presented in Figure 4. Nationally, only 1. 9 percent said agriculture was the sole cause of water quality problems in their area. Another 38 (Figure 4 about here) percent said it was a major, but not the sole cause of these problems. The majority of the ~espondents, 52.2 percent, said agriculture was a minor cause of local water quality problems. Another 5.1 percent said that agriculture did not cause these water quality problems. The remaining 2. 9 percent said they did not know agriculture's relative contribution to water quality problems. There was significant variation between the regions relative to perceived contribution of agriculture to water qua.lity problems. The highest level of renunciation came from the Southern Plains and Southeast. There were 7 8. 8 percent and 7 6. O percent, respectively, who said agriculture was not a cause or only a minor cause of water quality problems. Respondents in the Northern Plains appear to -have a more realistic assessment based on the data from Lee and Nielson (1987). These low population but agricultural dependent

PAGE 131

areas of the Northern Plains had a significant number ( 53. 6%) reporting agriculture as a major or sole cause of water quality problems. On this same end of the spectrum, a large proportion of USDA respondents saying agriculture was a major or sole cause came in the Lake States and Corn Belt (62.4% and 54.6% respectively). Again, this data is difficult to interpret without corresponding county level data on agricultural contribution to water quality problems. However, it does illustrate that at least half of the USDA county level personnel in seven of the ten production regions view agriculture as being a.minimal contributor (none or minor) to water quality problems. Further, in two of the production regions (Southern Plains and the Southeast) three out of four USDA county personnel viewed agriculture as an insignificant contributor (none or minor) relative to water quality problems. Even when considering the significant variation between agriculture's relative contribution to water quality problems between regions, the data indicate that USDA county staff are underestimating agriculture's contribution to water quality problems. It is highly probable that representatives of these local information and assistance networks are doing little regarding problem specification and definition. Establishing Economic and Agronomic Viability of Alternatives Farmers cannot work with generalities. Although general ideas may appear to be useful, they still have to be translated into practical, site-specific facts. In particular, they need information on the agronomic requirements and economic consequences of the practices relative to the specific ecological setting of the 15

PAGE 132

farm. Farmers attempt to obtain these facts by one of two general methods. First, they may take a general idea they likely obtained from a media source and then experiment on a small-scale basis on their own operation. The intent is to adapt the practice to fit soil, climate, planning objectives, pest cycles, machinery, labor, and management skills available. This first method is timely and is prone to failure. Moreover, the ability to risk the resources involved in this trial and error process varies greatly among farmers. Many farmers cannot afford the risk associated with this method and must stay with traditional, proven practices. The second method is where an information and assistance network provides this locally relevant data. The most common method of this happening is when a farmer copies the behavior of a neighboring farmer. This method accounts for the spatial diffusion pattern found in the diffusion of a new agricultural innovation (Brown, 1981). Local demonstrations or on-farm assistance could also provide this type of information. This, of course, is one of the major functions of the public and private information and assistance network discussed earlier. As part of the Soil and Water Conservation Society survey discussed earlier, representatives of this public information and assistance network were asked about farmers interest in sustainable agriculture. Responses by USDA agency are presented in Figures. (Figure S about here) Overall, 6.1 percent said there was no interest among farmers, 32.3 percent said there was a little interest, 39.2 percent said there was some interest, 18.1 percent said there was moderate interest, 16 ,,......, l I~

PAGE 133

and 4.2 percent said there was high interest among farmers. There was variation between the agencies relative to the expressed interest of their constituents relative to this topic. Extension agents were more likely to perceive higher levels of interest, while ASCS respondents reported the lowest level of interest. Respondents from the SCS fell in between these other two USDA agencies. Perceived level of interest in sustainable agriculture was also analyzed by production region as presented in Figure 6. The highest level of interest is in the Mountain region and the Delta (Figure 6 about here) States. Nine percent of the respondents in the Delta States said there was a high level of interest, while 7.7 percent reported this level of interest in the Mountain region. They were followed by the Southern Plains and the Lake States with 5.3 percent and 5.1 percent, respectively. Only 0.7 percent reported a high level of interest in the Northern Plains. A different ranking emerges when combining "high" and "moderate" levels of expressed interest. The Southeast had 29.5 percent expressing one of these upper levels of interest. This was followed by the Mountain region where 27. 9 percent had high or moderate levels of interest. On the other end of this distribution, there were 45. 6 percent in the Southern Plains who said farmers had little or no interest in sustainable agriculture. The Northern Plains and Delta States also had 43 percent and 42 percent, respectively, in these little or no interest categories. If one equates interest in sustainable agriculture with one 17 I') 7 l-\~2

PAGE 134

of the techniques that may reduce the potential for contamination of ground water from agrichemicals, then, in general, USDA respondents see little interest in this topic. On average, only one out of every five respondents (22.3%) said there was moderate or high interest. The majority (77.7%) said there was "none," "little," or only "some" interest in this topic. The important implication of this finding is tied to the extent these local agency representatives respond to local demands. Extension agents are supposedly the most responsive to local demands. The SCS and ASCS are more of the line agency who respond to programs developed at higher levels. If local demand on this topic is perceived as weak, then few if any resources will be dedicated to generating locally relevant information and assistance. One conclusion from this data is that farmers are receiving little information and assistance from these USDA agencies relative to the economic and agronomic dimensions associated with agrichemical management, especially as related to reduced reliance on agrichemicals. Generalities may be available, but agency representatives information. perceive little demand for site-specific If the farmer is seeking relevant economic and agronomic information, then in most cases the farmer must turn to private sources or to rely on the trial and error method discussed earlier. This was confirmed in a study of the Practical Farmers of Iowa, an example of a farmer to farmer assistance network, by Mala and Deibert (1988:8). "The need for basic information about sustainable practices and for research information was met through personal contacts, trial and error, and alternative agriculture publications. Rodale Publications was the 18 I ~l \

PAGE 135

most often mentioned source of publications. Little help was received from government research, university research, Extension Service, or radio farm shows." Further evidence of this lack of information on the economic and agronomic details associated with agrichemical management was found in an ongoing study on Wisconsin. Approximately 300 farmers were identified as attempting to reduce agrichemical inputs. Farmers were asked about major obstacles at the beginning of the transition process and where they are now in the transition. Respondents were given a list of potential problems including obtaining adequate information, yield losses, reductions in net income, labor unavailability, and the lack of necessary machinery. The lack of valid and reliable information was reported as the largest obstacle at both the beginning and at their current stage in the transition process. Format of Available Information and Assistance From a fiscal and administrative perspective it is impossible to provide all farmers with site-specific information and assistance that is compatible to their needs. Consequently it is unrealistic to expect formal sources of information and assistance to provide this detailed knowledge on a wide scale basis. Other sources, such as farmer to farmer networks, need to be considered. Yet support for this possibility is based on the extent that current information sources are capable of generating this information and assistance in a format compatible to local farmers. Administrators of public research and education organizations and private business seek what they perceive to be the most effective and efficient method of providing information and 19 ,;ct

PAGE 136

assistance. However, what may be most cost efficient from the provider's perspective may not be the most economically or agronomically effective from the farmer's viewpoint. There is also the equity consideration of just which farmers are receiving information and assistance in a format compatible to their needs. The Soil and Water Conservation Society survey did not address format of information and assistance. However, a survey in the Big Springs Basin in northeastern Iowa does provide some insight. This area has serious ground water contamination problems from agricultural production. Iowa State University, working with the Iowa Geological Survey and other organizations conducted a large research project in this area during the mid-1980's. One small part of this research involved farmer interviews regarding the format and reliability of information and assistance sources. One questionasked farmers to check the sources of information they had used in the past two years regarding the relationship between farming practices and ground water contamination. Results are presented in Figure 7. County Extension and a Big Springs Basin (Figure 7 about here) newsletter were identified as the sources most often used by farmers. The mass media (radio, newspapers, farm magazines) and ISU experts were also identified as an information source by at least half of the respondents. Private businesses were identified by few farmers as providing this type of information. Neighbors and friends were also a minor source of this type of information. It is important to understand overall uses of information sources versus when they are used in the decision process. The mass media 20

PAGE 137

and newsletters are good sources to create general awareness of the problem and the types of alternatives available. They cannot, however, provide the site specific information needed for the actual adoption decision. The reliability of these information sources are presented in Figure 8. Farmers were asked to rank the reliability of these sources on five point scale (l=very unreliable; S=very reliable). (Figure 8 about here) The non-response (NR) values in Figure 8 refers to the percentage of farmers who did not provide a reliability ranking because they had not used or were unfamiliar with that particular source. The County Extension and the local newsletter received the highest reliability scores. They were closely followed by the other public agencies. Private industry and neighbors and friends received the lowest reliability scores. In addition to reliability, the non-response data in Figure 8 also points out that many potential sources are not being considered or used as information providers. Two items need to be kept in mind when interpreting Figures 7 and 8. First, this area of Iowa had received a lot of attention by public agencies and the mass media in specifying the problem, and in identifying the sources of these problems. The Big Springs Basin area cannot be considered representative of areas where ground water contamination from agricultural sources is found. In fact, the newsletter receiving such a high evaluation was developed as part of this project. Second, past adoption research (Rogers, 1983) supports the finding that neighbors and friends would ll.Q.t be a major supplier of information in the definition of a problem, 21 I)) I I"'\ I L, ( .I''

PAGE 138

especially one related to health or environmental concerns. Farmers are largely dependent on private and public sources for information and assistance relating to the technical dimensions of problem definition. There is a second reason why other farmers scored so low in the above research. Other farmers, neighbors and friends serve as an evaluator or legitimizer of information. The credibility given to items of information or potential assistance is partially based on the evaluation by these neighbors and friends. If the above research project had asked about an evaluation of alternative practices being promoted by different sources, a very different ranking would be found. Too much research in this area fails to discriminate between general sources of information on a practice or issue versus specific sources of information used in the evaluation of that practice Qr issue. These findings confirm earlier observations: no one source of information or assistance is used by all farmers. Instead, farmers within an area use a variety of sources with differing levels of credibility. Further, although not directly tested in this research, the source of information will shift when moving from gathering knowledge on a problem or practice to evaluating the suggested remedial practices. It is also important to note that this knowledge gathering process is still occurring in an area where there are significant ground water problems from agriculture, and where a major research and education project had been developed. In areas where this extensive effort is not underway, problem recognition, knowledge gathering, and practice evaluation processes must be occurring at a much slower rate.

PAGE 139

Another critical question regarding local assistance networks concerns the format of the information and assistance. That is, not only is the source important, but the format used by that source is also equally important. Results from the Big Springs Basin Project regarding this dimension are presented in Figure 9. Pamphlets are by far the most used format of information employed (Figure 9 about here) in the last two years regarding agriculture and ground water contamination. Almost half of the farmers r~ported using this format of information. The other three formats all had less than 20 percent of the farmers using them in the last two years. The reliability of all four formats scored approximately the same on the fiv~ point scale. These use levels are a sobering reminder of the complexity of the technology transfer process. Even in this area where ground water contamination had been established as a major problem, we find very low levels of use among very traditional formats. This needs to be considered when evaluating the potential effectiveness of new formats such as computer models and the like. If less than one out of five farmers are using formats that have been available across the last half century, then is it realistic to expect widespread audience participation with some of these newer formats? Richardson and Mustian (1988:2) report a similar conclusion from their study of North Carolina farmers. "Agricultural producers surveyed generally expressed a strong preference for those information delivery methods that can be classified as traditional Extension methods. When asked to list the five methods most frequently used, producers listed as most important (l) newsletters, (2) meetings, (3) farm visits (agent to farmer), (4) 23 f -/2:

PAGE 140

telephone calls, and (S) on-farm tests and demonstrations. Newer Extension informational delivery techniques such as teleconferencing, video tapes, audio cassettes, cable television, and home study courses were rated quite low as preferred methods for receiving information." An advantage of farmer to farmer referral networks is that it does not rely on any one dissemination technique. Instead, it recognizes that learning occurs under multiple situations. Learning "correct" agrichemical management is a process that will depend on multiple formats and sources. Moreover, farmers not only have to learn "what" has to be done, but they also have to learn how to make that "what" operate efficiently within their farm operation. Wake and colleagues ( 1988) identify three techniques of agricultural learning. Informational learning (learning by information) observational learning ( learning by observation) and experiential learning (learning by doing). Informational learning is associated with the more formal sources of information disseminated through the print and electronic media. Farmer to farmer networks would. play a minor role in this process. Instead, these networks are designed to take advantage of observational and experiential learning. Network members are encouraged to observe neighboring or network membe~ farms and local demonstration sites. They are also encouraged to experiment on a small scale basis on their own farms, experiential learning. The strength of farmer to farmer referral networks is not in informational learning. Instead it is in the other two forms of learning, and in the process of making practices work better ( efficiency considerations) under local agroecological conditions. 24

PAGE 141

OPTIONS FOR IMPROV!HG NEffORK EFFEC~IVERESS This brief summary of the literature pointed out a number of areas where local information and assistance networks could be made more effective relative to reducing agrichemical contamination of ground water. However, prior to discussing specific strategies, one overriding concern needs to be expressed. This is the lack of research information on the role, structure and efficacy of these local information and assistance networks. It is noteworthy that none of the data used in this paper directly assessed the nature and effectiveness of these informal local networks. Although early adoption and diffusion of agricultural innovations research in the 1950' s identified these as major factors, little has been done since. This level of ignorance is combined with the fact that farmer to farmer assistance networks are emerging in all .agricultural areas of the United States regarding sustainable agriculture. This needs to be a priority for USDA research agencies and the land grant universities. A significant effort is currently underway to define the problem, and to generate knowledge on alternative solutions. However, little attention is being given to the efficacy of different dissemination methods. It appears that an overriding assumption is that traditional dissemination methods are effective, and all that is lacking are technological innovations to make these traditional methods more cost effective (e.g., teleconferencing, computerized expert systems, and video). This unrealistic assumption is ignoring a vast amount of literature that has been accumulating on dissemination mechanisms associated with Farmihg Systems Research (Lightfoot and Barker, 1988), or with _r,,, ...

PAGE 142

what has been called the Farmer First and Last model of knowledge dissemination (Chambers and Jiggins, 1987a, 1987b). Farmer to Farmer Information and Assistance Networks Consequently, the first recommendation needs to be both the study and support of these local assistance networks. Many plans and efforts are being developed to accelerate information and assistance through traditional university, extension, and conservation agency networks. Few if any, however, are considering formal support for the development and maintenance of these farmer to farmer information and assistance networks. One alternative, therefore, would be to create a program that would support these farmer networks. This could provide payments to farmers to engage in field experiments regarding better management and possible An obligation of these payments would local farmer network where field Funds would also be used to support reduction of agrichemicals. be the participation in a experiments would be reported. the dissemination of results in multiple formats both within and beyond the local network. Government agencies and private sector organizations role in this process would be one of support rather than leadership. They could supply criteria for valid field experiments, provide technical assistance, assist in producing the results, help establish these networks, and in other roles deemed appropriate by participating farmers. There are several models around which this program could be designed. The Sustainable Agriculture Program managed by the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection; the Minnesota Department of Agriculture's Energy and Sustainable Agriculture On 26 t / l//

PAGE 143

Farm Demonstration Program; and the Iowa State University Leopold Center's relation to the Practical Farmers of Iowa immediately come to mind. However, none of these examples are able to provide enough incentive to farmers to offset the risk involved with field experiments or to pay for adequate dissemination of the results. The state programs also require the farmer to go through a formal grant application and review process. These formal requirements would limit farmer participation as it may be perceived as "another government program." This program could be funded by the federal or state government with the intent that as soon as adoption of remedial technologies reached pre-determined levels in targeted areas, or certain parameters associated with problem definition were achieved, the funding would be phased out. One final consideration of s~ch a program .would be t.o establish it only in those areas of the country where the potential contamination of ground water from agriculture has been determined to be high. Developing Problem Definition and Specification A better mobilization of existing local information and assistance resources could occur if there was a better specification of the problem. While a significant amount of research is occurring on the relation between agriculture and ground water, little has been dedicated to a uniform, national assessment of vulnerability and contamination levels. The Environmental Protection Agency assessment currently underway may address some of this concern, but it is a timely and costly process when compared t9 state initiatives (e.g., Wisconsin's sample of 600 r: : d? i_: -, ;

PAGE 144

farms) that have already attempted to fill this void. Since it is critical to have a uniform assessment, EPA or congressional action would be needed to specify assessment procedures. This administrative action could specify criteria for selecting sampling sites, sampling methods, and a standard spectrum of compounds for which tests would be conducted. This action would help insure uniformity and comparability of results across time and geographic locations. Another important component of this assessment procedure would be a specification of the format to be used in disseminating the results. A uniform format would have to be designed that would be understandable to both local information and assistance network personnel and the land user. The unit of analysis of this assessment should be the county as most assistance networks are built around this political unit. Scientifically it may be more valid to assess hydrologic, geologic, or soil units of analysis, but these are often incompatible with local units of government. If correcting the problem is the ultimate objective, then the data has to be collected and organized with dissemination in mind. A related theme would be to establish procedures so that all agricultural research would assess the contribution of the production technique to ground water contamination in areas where the production technique would be employed. This would help address the situation where production research is often organized and presented as independent from research on the natural resource base. This procedure could be implemented by the agricultural experiment stations.

PAGE 145

Design of Appropriate Technology and Dissemination Formats Many of the references cited earlier discussed the lack of responsiveness by the land grant university and extension to the needs of land users. Many other citations, as well as testimonials, could also be presented. Yet this is unnecessary as the point has been made. Too often research and extension is carried out in response to the priorities established by professional peers and the demands of funding organizations. Design of complex and sophisticated technologies that address agricultural contamination of ground water may be professionally rewarding, but may have little relevance to the typical farm or ranch. The core concept behind appropriate technology reverses this order: an understanding of the needs and capabilities of multiple target audiences serves as the foundation for the design of remedial technologies. Farmer to farmer referral networks are one mechanism that could be used to gain this understanding. More emphasis needs to be placed on this strategy in developing funding priorities for research and extension activities. Further, eligibility for agricultural competitive grants need to be expanded so as to allow assessments of different target audiences relative to the technology transfer processes. Research scientists base their work on a rich classification of the physical setting, but have a tendency to view farmers as a homogeneous group when it comes to dissemination. Dissemination of research results and tests of appropriate technologies needs to recognize the complexity of the technology transfer process. Too much emphasis is being placed on finding 29 ~~i I r I : / t ,. : f

PAGE 146

the "technological fix" to agricultural contamination of ground water. Or it is being placed on specifying the problem in great detail and depth while ignoring the actions of the land user whose actions may cause the problem in that situation. This may be the complex computer model that would be accessible to only a few farmers and understood by fewer still; the design of plants and animals through biotechnology that will reduce reliance on agrichemicals; or the use of sophisticated telecommunication devices to which few farmers have access or willingness to use. More emphasis needs to be placed on how to mobilize existing information and education networks in order to address today's problems with today's technologies and management strategies. One method for this to occur would be to develop greater involvement of farmers in the design of research projec~s and remedial programs. Although some would argue that this is already happening, too often these farmers are not representative of the majority. They are instead selected on the basis of their past cooperation or use of recommendations from the private and public assistance network. Yet the farmer who has not followed past recommendations or is not tied into the existing county extension network also needs to be heard. Farmer to farmer referral networks may be one technique of overcoming the bias often found in formal information and education efforts of only working with the "cooperative, progressive" farmer. Public Agency and Private Sector Coordination A critical problem facing local information and assistance networks is that they are composed of both the private and public 30

PAGE 147

"' i I sector elements. The public sector is there to assist production, protect the resource base, and manage agricultural programs. The private sector is there to assist production through selling products and services. This is a problem in that recommendations from one sector often are contradictory with recommendations from the other. This can be in the use of soil tests in developing nutrient recommendations, identification of what constitutes a "pest" and the appropriate remedial action, or the use of market mechanisms to promote agrichemical use in response to agricultural commodity programs. Local information and assistance will continue to be less than effective until a coordinating mechanism is developed. This coordination needs to occur on two levels; within and between the sectors. Coordination within the public sector regarding resource management has been found to be deficient (Hoban, 1986; Nielson, 1986). A major factor behind this situation is national legislation that only considers the design of agricultural policy while largely ignoring implementation. A situation has developed where each agency has their programs and constituents while rarely considering that these constituents may be participants in other agency's programs. More attention needs to be given to implementation requirements and inter-agency relations while drafting national legislation. Coordination within the private sector would also be difficult in that these parties are in competition with each other. The industry faces the prospect of either increasing cooperation relative to preventing resource degradation or to be subjected to increasing federal and 31 j L,/ I ,,. I, .. .... -.

PAGE 148

state regulation. Therefore, more effort has to be placed on finding programs and activities that will increase this cooperation and coordination. Studies need to be conducted on both private and public sources of information and assistance relative to obstacles to cooperation and coordination. CONCLUSION Local information and assistance networks can play a meaningful role in the reduction of agrichemical contamination of ground water. the current This could occur in two ways. First, by decreasing mismanagement of agrichemicals through providing locally relevant information and assistance. Second, they could increase the adoption rate of management techniques and technologies that minimize the probability of ground water contamination. This meaningful role, however, is unlikely considering the current assessment of these information and assistance networks. An overview of the situation found USDA agency personnel unable to define and specify local ground water problems, and lacking basic economic and agronomic facts on remedial technologies and management techniques. In addition, the dissemination literature cited in this paper has found traditional U.S. agricultural outreach efforts largely insensitive to using different sources of information in different formats in order to meet the needs of the largest number of land user~. Farmers are viewed only as targets for information and assistance rather than being sources of this knowledge. Underlying this dismal assessment is the fact that very little 32 L.(),

PAGE 149

substantive research has been conducted on the role, structure, and efficacy of these networks. Much of our current understanding is only suggestive while being based on antidotal information or a few studies of very limited scope. A number of general recommendations were made to address this situation beginning with more research on these networks. There is no question that agriculture will have to respond to ground water contamination in a meaningful way due to current political and demographic trends. At issue is the form of this response. This response will fall along a regulatory to voluntary continuum, probably being a mixture of both. The underlying theme of this paper is that an effective voluntary approach has to be based on a viable information and assistance network. Yet the viability of the current information and assistance network has been questioned. What remains to be seen is our response to this situation, and whether farmer to farmer information and assistance networks will play a meaningful role in this process. 33 l t,j l; tr'

PAGE 150

r REFERENCES Ajzen, I. and M. Fishbein 1980 Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood ciiffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Bartlett, P. (Ed.) 1980 Agricultural Decision Making: Agricultural Contributions to Rural Development. New York, Academic Press. Beal, G. and J. Bohlen 1967 The Diffusion Process. Special Report No. 18. Ames, Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Station. Bennett, J. 1981 Farm Management as --a Cultural Style: Studies of the Adaptive Process in the North American Agrifamily. Research in Economic Anthropology, Volume 4. Jai Press, Greenwich, CN. Bohlen, J. 1964 The Adoption and Diffusion of Ideas in Agriculture. Our Changing Rural Society: Perspective and Trends. Ames, Iowa State University Press. Brown, L. 1981 Innovation Diffusion: A New Perspective. New York, Methuen. Busch, L. and w. Lacy 1986 The Agricultural Scientific Enterprise. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Chambers, R. and J. Jiggins 1987a Agricultural Research or Resource Poor Farming: Transfer of Technology and Farming Systems Research. Agricultural Administration and Extension 27:35-52. Chambers, R. and J. Jiggins 1987b Agricultural Research for Resource Poor Farmers: A Parsimonious Paradigm. Agricultural Administration and Extension 28:109-121. Chartrand, R. 1982 Information Services for Agriculture: The Role of Technology. Congressional Research Service (CRS-82-183-S). Washington DC, Library of Congress. Dabbert, s. and P. Madden 1986 The Transition to Organic Agriculture: A Multi-Year Simulation Model of a Pennsylvania Farm. Journal of Alternative Agriculture 1:99-107. 34

PAGE 151

Dillman, D. 1985 The Social Impacts of Information Technologies in Rural North America. Rural Sociology 50:1-26. Feller, I., L. Kaltreider, P. Madden, D. Moore, and L. Sims 1983 Agricultural Research in the United States: An Overview. Institute for Policy Research and Evaluation. University Park, Pennsylvania. Feller, I., L. Kaltreider, P. Madden, D. Moore, and L. Sims 1984 The Agricultural Technology Delivery System: A Study of the Transfer of Agricultural and Food-Related Technologies. Institute for Policy Research and Evaluation. University Park, Pennsylvania. Fleming, M. 1987 Agricultural Chemicals in Ground Water: Preventing Contamination by Removing Barriers Against Low-Input Farm Management. Journal of Alternative Agriculture 2:124-130 Gianessi, L., H. Peskin, and C. Puffer 1985 A National Data Base of Nonurban Nonpoint Source Discharges and Their Effect on the Nation's Water Quality. Resources for the Future, Washington DC. Gladwin, H. and M. Murtaugh 1980 The Attentive -Preattentive Distinction in Agricultural Decision Making. Agricultural Qecision Making: Agricultural Contributions to Rural Development. New York, Academic Press. Goldstein, w. and D. Young 1987 An Agronomic and Economic Comparison of a Conventional and a Low-Input Cropping System in the Palouse. Journal of Alternative Agriculture 2:51-56. Hallberg, G. 1986 From Hoes to Herbicides: Agriculture and Groundwater Quality. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 41:357-364. Hoban, T. 1986 Barriers to Interorganizational Relationships: A Comparative Analysis. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Iowa State University. Lee, L. and E. Nelson 1987 The Extent and Costs of Groundwater Contamination by Agriculture. Journal of Soil and water conservation 42:243-248. Lightfoot, c. and R. Barker 1988 On-Farm Trials: A Survey of Methods. Agriculture Administration and Extension 30:15-23. 35

PAGE 152

Lionberger, H. 1960 Adoption of New Ideas and Practices. Iowa State University Press, Ame~.Lionberger, H. and P. Gwin 1982 Communication Strategies: A Guide for Agricultural Change Agents. Interstate Printers and Publishers, Danville, IL. Malia, J. and A. Deibert 1988 Sustainable Agriculture in Iowa. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, Athens, GA. McDowell, G. 1988 Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture: Renegotiating or Abandoning a Social Contr~ct. Choices (2nd Qtr.) 18-21. Nielson, J. 1986 Interorganizational Relations in Conservation Targeting Programs. Conserving soil: Insights from socioeconomic Research. Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, IA. Nowak, P. 1984 Adoption and Dirfusion of Soil and Water Conservation Technologies. Future Agriculture Technology and Resource Conservation. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA. Nowak, P. 1987 The Adoption of Agricultural Conservation Technologies: Economic and Diffusion Explanations. Rural Sociology 52:208-220. Nowak, P. and M. Schnepf 1987 Implementation of the Conservation Provisions in the 198S Farm Bill: A Survey of County-Level U.S. Department of Agriculture Agency Personnel. Journal of Soil and Water conservation 42:285-290. Office of Technology Assessment 1981 An Assessment of the United States Food and Agricultural Research System. U.S. Congress, Washington DC. Parrilberg, D. 1981 The Land Grant College and the Structure Issue. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 63:124-134. Richardson, J. and R. Mustian 1988 Preferred Methods for Delivery of Technological Information by the North Carolinia Agricultural Extension Service: Opinions of Agricultural Producers Who Use Extension Information. Paper presented to Agricultural Communications Section, Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists, New Orleans, LA. 36 I vi u -, l ... (~;

PAGE 153

1983 Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press, NY. Ruttan, v. 1983 Agricultural Research Policy Issues. HortScience 18:809-818. Schuh, E. 1986 Revitalizing the Land Grant Universities. Choices (2nd Qtr.) 6-10. Wake, J., c. Kiker, and P. Hildebrand 1988 Systematic Learning of Agricultural Technologies. Agricultural Systems 27:179-193. Warner, P. and J. Christenson 1984 The Cooperative Extension Service: A National Assessment. Westview Press, Boulder, co. FOOTROTES 1. The survey population was drawn from the county offices of SCS, ASCS, and CES. From lists provided by each agency we randomly selected a 2 0 percent sample of the counties in each state. A questionnaire was then mailed to this group during March and April of 1988. This was a twenty-five question instrument including two open-ended questions at the end. A post card followed approximately two weeks later reminding them to return the completed questionnaire. Of the 1,770 questionnai~es sent out,. 1,267 wer.e returned with usable information for an overall response rate of 72 percent. Individual agency response rates varied between 80 percent in ASCS (485 of 609 were returned) to 61 percent in CES (375 of 613 were returned). SCS has a response rate of 74 percent (407 of 548 were returned). 37 I '17

PAGE 154

--~ '1 FIGURE 1: FACTORS AFFECTING THE POTENTIAL FOR GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION FROM AGRICHEMICALS Nature of Physical Setting Geologic Features Hydrologic Features Decisions of Land User Crop/Land Selection Agrichemical Management Nature of Agrichemical Persistence, Mobility, Toxicity, Solubility Potential for Ground Water Contamination

PAGE 155

J\ Figure 2: Local Information and Assistance Network Members Relative to Farmers and Agrlchemlcal Management Members Nature of Contacts Extension Local/state/U.S. agency Formal structure/function scs USDA agency Formal structure/function ASCS USDA agency Formal structure/function Crop Consultants Supply Dealers private business Both formal/informal private business Both formal/informal Local Media private business FFA/VoAg Both formal/informal youth education Both formal/informal Role Education emphasizing production techniques Techn teal assistance on erosion control Participation in US farm programs High management and inputs production Sales and service of production inputs Reporting on programs & factors of producUon basic production theory and practice Farmers private busine11 informal Evaluation, generation 8t use of production techniques ll/9 Interactions Mainly cooperative farmers Mainly farmers wt th erosion problems Farmers participating in farm programs Mainly progressive farmers farmers Focus on new ideas Student/parent discussions Other farmers wt th similar goals & operations

PAGE 156

Figure 3: USDA County Personnel View of Water Quality Problems by USDA Production Region N'ortbeut .AppaJacluaD Saatlaeut Cona Belt. Delta Slat. Soatlaena Pluu Pacfflc .---., L, \~ c:::J Moderate 100~ ,,, ( ., .. BEST COPY AVAILABLE : .,, )

PAGE 157

Figure 4: USDA Personnel Perception of Agriculture Causing Water Quality Problems by Production Region Production Region Northeast Appalachian Southeast Lake States Corn Belt Delta N. Plains S. Plains Mountain Pacific 0% .......... '.' . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ............ .. ........ ...... . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . .................... ............ . '.... . . .. . . . ... . . . . . . .... 25% 50% 75% Extent Agriculture Causes Problems None D Minor Major RI Sole 100%

PAGE 158

1 Figure 5: Farmers Interest In Sustainable Agriculture As Reported By USDA County Personnel 50--------------------------. 40 30 ...................................... 20 ..................................... .. 0 None Little Some Moderate High scs 5.3 33.4 38 18.7 4.6 ASCS 8.6 36.5 38.7 14 2.2 CES 3.8 25.9 41.1 22.6 6.5 Total 6.1 32.3 39.2 18.1 4.2 Respondents: SCS = 4-07; ASCS = 4-85; CES = 375 scs ASCS EB CES -Total

PAGE 159

Figure 6: Farmer Interest In Sustainable Agriculture Reported By USDA Staff By Production Region Level of Farmer Interest D None Little 9m Some Moderate High Production Region Northeast Appalachian Southeast Lake States Corn Belt Delta States N. Plains S. Plains Mountain Pacific 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

PAGE 160

Figure 7: Use of Information Sources in Past Two Years on Farming & Groundwater USDA SCS Conserv. District County Extension University Experts Geological Survey Mass Media Local Newsletter Machinery Dealer Seed/Chemical Dealer Neighbors & Friends 0% 25% 50% 75% rm Used Not Used D Don't Know Big Springs Basin Project, Iowa, 1984 ... 100%

PAGE 161

Figure 8: Reliability of Information Sources on Agriculture/Groundwater USDA SCS Conserv. District County Extension Univ. Experts IA Geological Survey Mass Media Local Newsletter Machinery Dealer Seed/Chemical Dealer Neighbor & Friends 1 1 = Very Unreliable 5 = Very Reliable 2 3 Big Springs Basin Project. Iowa. 1984 ; 41% 35% N 55% N 45% N 45% N 4 5

PAGE 162

Figure 9: Use of Types & Reliability of Information on Farming & Groundwater Information Types (Reliability Score) Field Demonstrations (Reliability Score = 3.2) Trade Shows/ Ag. Fair (Reliability Score = 3.0) Pamphlets (Reliability Score = 3.2) .. .. .. .. -.-. Farm Visits (Reliability Score = 3.2) ......... ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 0 10 20 30 40 50 Reliability Score 1 = Very Unreliable Used Not Used 5 = Very Reliable D Don't Know Big Springs Basin Project, Iowa, 1984 60

PAGE 163

EXTENSION EDUCATION FORAGRICHEMICAL DEALERS ON GROUNDWATER PROTEcrION: AN EXTENSION PERSPECI1VE by K. A Kelling Professor and Extension Soil Scientist Department of Soil Science University of Wisconsin Madison, WI J. L Wedberg Professor and Extension Entomologist D~partm.ent of Entomology University of Wisconsin Madison, WI August 1989 This contractor document was prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) assessment entitled Beneath the Bottom Line; Agricultural Agproaches to Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater. It is being made available because they contain useful information beyond that used in the OTA report. However, they are not endorsed by OTA, nor have they been reviewed by the Technology Assessment Board. References to them should cite the contractor, not OTA, as the author; a suggested citation format follows: Author(s) name(s), Contract paper title, prepared for the U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater OTA-F-418 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1990).

PAGE 164

Extension F.ducation for Agridlemi.cal Dealers on Gralmwater Protection: An Extension Perspective K.A. Kellirg am J .L. Wedbergl I. Introduction ani rationale '!he developnent an:l use of fertllizer ani pesticide practices which recognize the benefits of these materials, rut at the same time minimize their inpacts on the environment, is becanirg a1e of the major issues facirg agriculture ani the general pmlic today. Issues such as farm profitability, surface ani grourdwater :resource protection, CX)nsumer arx:l food safety, arx:l viability of fanns am rural communities have all becare increasirgly important durirg the late 1980's. If these ccn::erns are to be faced, there is a substantial need for irx::reased education for fanners, agrib.lsinesses, ccnsume:rs, an:l governmental age.J'Cj personnel on the _relationship between agricultural practices ani enviromnental quality (UWEX, 1988). Irc:eased education of agridlemi.cal dealers is critical because this group is intimately involved with the fanner in selectirg the materials, rates arx:l actual practices exrployed. Dealers are present when the product or practice is selected, are consulted on their knaledge of product perfornance, differences am reccmnerxations, arxi in many cases actually apply the fertilizer or pesticides to the field. 1 Professor ani Extension.Soil Scientist, Department of Soil Science, and Professor ard Extension Entarclogist, Deparbnent of Entaoology, respectively, Universit.y of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706.

PAGE 165

Agrichemical dealers usually offer a combination of fertilizer an:i pesticide products an:i ser.vic::es to their clients, although sane carpmies will only han:lle one type of product. Most states already recognize these agrihlsiness people as one of the major audiences ser.ved by the agricultural carpment of Extension; h.c:7.vever, in sane cases p~ for this audierx:e group are i.nccllplete or nonexistent, am in other cases cx:JUl.d be ilrpraved. Extension p~ for agrichemical dealers am consultants are partiauarly inportant, because this group has direct inplt into the farmer's decision as to what practice or chemical will be used am the rate at which it will be applied. '1hey are an integral part of that decision process. Al.lOOst every smvey corxiucted on agrichemical use shows that, next to past experience, the dealer or imeperdent consultant is the primary source of gl"CM8r infonnation on fertilizer an:i pesticide use (Wisconsin Agriauturist 1985; Farmlam In:iustries, 1984; Foi:rest et al., 1988) Extension is c:::cmoonly rated as the fourth to eighth nrst bportant source of information for growers on these topics, but usually first or secorx:l on information credibility. It is also well documented that Extension is often the primary source of the infonnation provided through other cutlets such as dealers or trade jomnal.s even though this original source is not recognized. Dealers an:\ consultants also sm:ve as inp:)rtant disseminators of university-generated infonnation. Dealers employ sales people, agronanists am, in sane cases, pest scxuts. All of these inlividuals, as well as imeperdent crop consultants provide fanners with information an:! advice as to the best practice for a given situation. If this message is similar to that bein;;J provided by Extension, conflict is avoided am greater 2 1 I I \.. : '..l ...

PAGE 166

credibility for all parties is developed. Extension p:rcgram.s in sane states such as Wisconsin have recognized the benefits of cooperation am provided special educational efforts for dealers, includirg the Amual Wisconsin Fertilizer an:l Pesticide Conference (of the Wisconsin Fertilizer Aglime an:l Pest Management Conference Vol. 1-28), area dealer meetin;Js, (12 pesticide, 10 fertilizer ard 9 seed dealer meetin;Js each year), crop management workshops, IPM (Integrated Pest Management) scout schools, newsletters such as the Wisconsin Pest Manager (UW Agronany Dept.) an:i the Crops an:l soils Newsletter (UW Soil Science Dept.) an:l written materials such as the Herbicide Manual, various fertilizer an:l pest management fact sheets an:l conference proceedin:Js an:l popll.ar press art.icles. one shoold not be so naive to think that university infonnation which is passed to the farmer tlu::'cu;Jh the dealer is not subject to selection ani interpretation by the dealer. Although fanner acceptance of the dealer's ~tion may increased_ by alignin] the dealer's suggestions with university philosq::hies or p:rcgram.s, there is little econanic incentive on the part of the dealer to recamnen:i a bare-bones, enviromnentally-oriented fertilizer or pesticide program when the dealer's sole source of incane is based on product sales. However, there is an opporbmity for both parties to benefit because a ccnm::>n question put to dealers is, ''What does the university n:cacmem?". If the dealer can sha-1 that his program is catparable to that recamnen:ied by the university by us~ techniques such as university soil test recamnerxiation p:rcgram.s or followirg university pest management guidelines, then significant credibility is gained. In some states this elevation of dealer credibility is of major importance to fanner clients. 3

PAGE 167

If dealer sales are going to be adversely affected by ioore environmentally driven recx:mnerxJation programs, we believe that the current trerxi of fanners payi.BJ for advising services of consultants (irx:lepen:ient or dealer-affiliated) will have to continue, am that this source of incane may partially offset the income lost fran decreased prcxiuct sales. One imication of the increased demarrl for consulting services was the creation of CENIK)L, an irx:lepen:ient consulting branch of the CENEX/I.an:l O'Iakes Regional COOperative, in 1980. '!here are currently 15 CEN.mOL offices in operation in 8 mid.west states (R.L. Beck, 1989, personal cxmmmicator). 'Ihe sucx:ess of this transition to ioore dealer services for pay will be depernent upon the dealer supplying credible ard usable infonnation that the grower can translate into improved profitability or ac:x:eptarDa of the environmental. benefits. II. Extension programs for dealer education on fertilizer and agchemical management A. current efforts Extension education programs for the fertilizer am pesticide imustry have existed for many years. Programs am levels of activities vary f:ran state to state, but several types of dealer education efforts appear evident. 'lhese include: 1) providing dealers with up-to-date research results on crop prcxiuction, pesticide an:i fertilizer management; 2) developi.BJ am implenenting r..etter predictive am diagnostic tools such as pest scouting, econanic thresholds, disease protection no:ieling, soil testing am plant analysis so that dealers can assist their clients in detennining fertilizer or chemical needs; 3) helping train dealer employees 4 I .' ,..... / I A;, \ .... '\.l,;"-" .....

PAGE 168

in basic am advanced soil fertility, fertilizer, safe chemical harnl.irg am pest management skills; am 4) integratirg environmental p~ into existirg p:rcduction-oriented programs so that needed dlan;es in philosqnies or approaches can be mre SllX>thly incorporated into practice. For many issues related to environmental or water quality, dealers already have been made aware of the issue or problem. As in:licated by program topics at national cxmferences, articles in agricultural trade joumals am dealer att:emance at environmentally related programs, the dealer sensitivity to these c:orx:erns am pressures is very high. Furtherioore, although a basic conflict may exist between sales generation am public environmental good, this audience group is askirg for ioore help. In sane states, early progranmirg efforts have resulted in the developnent of a sb:ag workirg relationship arxi cxmfidence between dealers am Extension that can be blilt upon. 'lhese earlier prcgrammin:J efforts nay serve as an excellent sprinjx)ard for mre intensified, future prcgrammirg as additional resoorces are made available or redirected. It has been air observation that Extension programs which are consistently successful with the agrichemical irx:lustry contain several silllilar characteristics. 'Ihese include present.in;J infonnation whicti is basically positive in tenor. Negative prcgrammin:J or erpiaSizing what should not be done often results _in audience rejection. Replrasirg or statin;J ideas in a positive way significantly inproves accept.ance. For exanple, in the last several years the poor comition of the fann econany has resulted in a great deal of Extension prcgranuning for fanners an agric:hemical use in ways to inprove production and econanic efficiency. One of air mre sucx:essful. programs clearly emphasized ways to address this 5 \ l/)_,

PAGE 169

problem through tryirg to save 100ney (Kellirg am Schulte, 1985). '!his was considerably DDre palatable with both dealers arxl their farmer clients. 'Ihe infonnation presented 1'lllSt also be presented in an accurate, straight fo1ward, arxi underst:amable way which stresses the benefits of the idea or concept. 'lhe infonnation or program 1lllSt be presented such that the potential confrontational position which can arise an:,rg prcduct/sales oriented organizations arxi research, consumer or other client group organization is minimized. 'lhis does net mean that controversial iSSlies or differin; q,inions shalld be avoided; in fact, they are often encouraged. However, the method of presentation 1lllSt be balanced, ccmplete, objective, ard Ul'1elll:Jticmal.. Vehicles for this type of progranmin;J vary substantially anaq states; hat.ever, below \tJe have listed sane ~ch are nest cx:awon. 1. Many states ocnmct an amual Fertilizer am Agdlem:i.cal Conference, often in coq>eration with the state's Fertilizer am Agdlemical Association. Exanples include the Wisconsin Fertilizer, Aglime am Pest Management conference, the Illinois _Fertilizer Conference, the Irxliana Plant Food am ~icultural Conference, arxi the Minnesota Soils, Fertilizer ard Agricultural Pesticides Short Course. Topics presented at these oneto three-day programs usually center on current research up:lates, issues which are timely or ''hot'' for that season, am those expected to be illlportant in the next season. Regulation arx:J/or law changes affectin; the iniustry arxi new initiatives are often also included. 'Ihe educational program is often coordinated by a state specialist with input f:ran an iniustry cxmnittee, but the overall conference may be coordinated by the dealer association. Att:ermnce may not be restricted to dealers only, but 6 \ LtJ

PAGE 170

toost imust.ry groups do not encourage fanrer attemance. Often, the top one to three people within a dealership will att:em. A registration fee ($15-$60) is usually charged am a trade shcM of related equipnent am products is often a part of the activities. 2. Area dealer meetin:Js or clinics are comucted in many states. 'Ihese meetin;s usually are coordinated by state specialists rut are strongly aided by county faculty for p.lblicity am local artan;1ements. '!hey provide dealers with an update on current university recxmnemation.s or programs. sane awlied research topics may be included. Historically, these are att:en:led by mre of the sales people an:l agronanists associated with dealerships. In Wisconsin, separate pto;p:ams are run for pesticide dealers, fertilizer dealers arn seed dealers, although sane of the same people may atten:i each. A small registration fee ($3-$5) is charged. 3. Most land grant institutions have designed active ar;plicator training programs that praoote the safe hanllirq, storage, ~lication, am disposal of agricultural chemicals. Although na;t of these programs were designed to allow both camnercial an:l private applicators (farmers) to purchase and apply pesticides classified as ''Restricted Use" by the Enviromnental Protection Agerc:{ (EPA) trainin;J programs are often broader than the mininum canpetency stamaras nee.dad to satisfy state-maroated requirements am apply to restricted am non-restricted agricultural chemicals as well. 'lhe programs are developed am coordinated at the state level, but may be taught by camty faculty (private applicators). 4. Dealers, agricultural consultants, and farmers can atten:i scout trainirg schools that provide trainirg in the principles of

PAGE 171

Integrated Pest Management (IlM) -a management system that reduces the reli.a!De on a sin'Jle-approach technique (e.g. pesticides) to manage agricultural pests. Clientele leam to identify pests am their damage, pest life cycles, pest management altematives, econanic injury levels and econanic thresholds, am scoutin;J techniques. 'Ihese (twoto five-day) workshops are also used to train college students am others interested in workirq as summer field sccuts. Irx:lustry demam for these trained imivicbJaJs is very high, but participation by students awears to be declinin:J coiooidentally with the reduced enrollments in prcxiuction agriculture departments. '1hese sccuts may work directly for fanners or for agricultural consultants, agricultural chemical dealers, or pesticide manufacturin'J cmpany field representatives. 5. Special dealer training seminars which provide basic fertilizer, soil fertility, or pesticide information to new enployees have been ccn:lucted in sane states. Variations of these workshops include advanced cwrses with in~ infomation on 100:re specific topics such as nitrogen, fertilizer placement, or fertilizer management for specific crops. 'lhese programs may be developed for any need that arises. For exanple, a special series of programs have been corducted in Wisconsin since 1986 to help dealers un:ierstarxi the_, design, am the maintenance for fertilizer am pesticide secomary containment facilities. Initially, these programs emphasized the newly-developed rules arxi facility design needs, but the last two programs have shifted eqilases to record keepin'J, spill am crisis management, am maintenance of facilities. 'Ihese one-day sessions were comucted by state faculty am agency personnel and a nalest registration fee was charged ($15) / 8 \0~ G: ... \ 70

PAGE 172

6. Fertility management programs for dealers also cxx:ur as part of carpmy-sponsored programs or trainirg sessions. Many of the regional cooperatives am a few of the private conpmies hold sessions for their employees or aJStaners at which Extension specialists provide a portion of the educational program. In sane cases, special update sessions are also held where management or trainirg personnel are a,wrised of charges, new information or developirg treros as perceived by university faculty. 7. Fertilizer am pesticide dealers also serve as an edlicational link te farmers through the sponsorship of lcx::al producer meetirgs. Many .county am state Extension faculty provide agricultural production information at dealer sponsored functions such as custaner appreciation days. While this edlication is oriented primarily toward the fanner atterxlees, the dealers are also beirg exposed to the Extension message. SUdl foroms are inportant Extension vehicles because they tern to inprove dealer/mti.versity relations, attract lai:ge fanner audiences, am resolve or conflicts in recamnen::lations. 8. Denalstrations continue to be a part of Extension efforts. 'Ihese are often comucted in cooperation with lcx::al faculty ard dealers for other audiences such as farmers, although sanetimes the denr:mstrations are aimed particularly at dealers. For exanple, PUrdue University has developed a la:rge detoonstration program on crop problem diagnosis. 'Ibis facility draws dealer am producer employees for one to several days of classroom am field trainirg. Den:>nstration plots graphically illustrate many of the ca1m10u nutrient am chemical problems a field agronanist or sales person .~tight encounter. SUbstantial registration fees are charged ($2,000 for each trainirg day) with up to 50 people att:en:li.rXJ. t. \ 11

PAGE 173

9. Newsletters have been particularly effective in keepi.rg imustry informed on current crop or management problems, regulation charges, or seasonal rem.imers. Slide sets, Extension fact sheets an:i other publications, video programs am ccnp.rt:er decision aids are also used with agrihlsiness clientele, but are mre c:x.moonly developed for other audience groops such as fanners or other ag professionals. B. OJ:ganizations p:rovidirq dealer education Alth.a:g:l vocational-technical agriculture, agricultural consultants, an:i a few other private am public institutions are involved, nrJSt of the research am educational activities associated with fertilizer arx:i pesticide management are ccniucted by the ~lied research an:i Extension arms of lard grant universities. 'lhe programs listed above are all exanptes of these Extension efforts. Not all are occurri.rg in all states nor is a?'fJ one state prcvidirq all of the programs or exanples cited. li:7MeVer, the previous listin} does provide a cress-section of the kims of efforts carducted especially in the midwest. Product manufacturers are also involved in ed11cation by proviWD3' specific product information to dealers an:i fanners. Even when this occurs, product efficacy is usuaJly verified am the information disseminated by university applied -ion programs. Sane workshops am dealer-oriented tra.in.in;J are bei.rg comucted by consultants on a fee basis, especially in states where Extension contact with in:iusb:y is small. State or national fertilizer or dlemical organizations such as the Illinois Fertilizer or Chemical Association, or 'lhe Fertilizer Institute may be partners in sane traininJ programs, particularly in identification of program need am developnent of program content. such joint ownership is seen as a critical 10 \ tJl

PAGE 174

link between dealers am the wti.versity for ilrprovin;J 1l'O.ltual. urnerst.amin;J, conmmicaticm, clarification of issues, arxi establishment of credibility. 1he diverse nature of issues associated with grcmxiwater ani surface water contamination with agridlemicals necessitates a coordinated syste.ms approach am::,rg lam grant colleges, Soil Consetvation Service (tillage and soil erosion programs), Agricultural stabilization am Consavatioo service {cr0Sb--catpliance programs), state Departments of Agriculture or Departments of Natural Resan:oes, ani local organizations sud1 as Soil am water Conservation Districts. Alt:hcu;Jtl rules developnent, program description, or policy creation responsibility for various soil, water and agridlemical issues have largely resided in other agencies, the educational efforts cxniucted in conjunction with sud1 programs have traditionally remained with Extension. In many instances, Extension am;or applied research faculty contribute to ard are a part of the developnent, description, am creation process as well. Occasionally, CXltlflicts have arisen when agencies expected Extension to agg1essively "p1a1ote11 sane p~ rather than silrply educate user groups as to its st.rergths, weaknesses, or ramifications. A recent example was the rather severe criticism of Extension by ASCS officials in sane states for the low participation in the 1986 nrlry Whole Herd Buycut P.r:cgram. c. Proolems a.s.sociated with dealer education 1. lack of infonnation. Major problems result fran gaps in the data base. A University of Wisconsin Water ResoUJ::ces center review concluded that the scientific data base is inadequate to determine how arxl where fertilizers or pesticides can be used without risk to grcmxiwater or 11 -""I .' (

PAGE 175

to evaluate the health an:1 environmental risks associated with grourx:iwater contamination (Chesters et al., 1989). Nor do we have the data base to teach dealers and fanners everyt:hil'V:J they need to knc:M aba.tt avoiciin;J environmental. contamination with agridlemicals. SUrface waters can be contaminated by nutrients and pesticides carried in solution durin; run-off, in association with sediment in the nm-off, in solution with grcun:iwater am eventual disdiarge to surface water, and by volatilization into the at:loosplere, followed by deposition into surface water. It is unclear as to what site specific factors control the mvement, degradation an3/or deactivation of sane pesticides. It is also not known what inpact roodifications in production practices will have on the degree or extent of the contamination. How well do the proposed best management practices work? Significant time may be needed to detennine the effectiveness of such chan;es, especially where grourx:iwater inpacts are involved. Of all the p::,t:ential grourx:iwater contaminants, nitrate is the oost common thrcughcut the U.S. (Blodgett and Clark, 1986; Hallberg, 1986). Intensive fannirg associated with no:iem agriculture has been linked with increased levels of nitrate in grourx:iwater (CASr, 1985) however the extent to which practices increase grourx:iwater nitrate levels is not well defined and often controversial. For surface waters, phosphoros has been identified as the oost critical nutrient to prevent as a cacponent of run-off (Schmidt am Stmgul, 1989). Evaluations are needed of new predictive tools for establ~ nutrient needs. Detenninations nust be made on the fate am inpacts of applied nutrients in various soil and crop settings. can sane crops be grown in certain areas without the threat of water contamination? (. 12 \ \.J 1 I ~-1-' ,. -

PAGE 176

Weed management prcgram.s to reduce the anomt of herbicide used in fields are umerway. 'll'lis kini of research points out a greater need for an interdisciplinary ci:oppin; systems clR;)roach than has been previoosly needed with mre sillplistic approaches to weed science (Schmidt am stw:gul, 1989). For exanple, University of Wisconsin studies usin; reduced hel:bicide rates for irrigated potatoes grown in san:ly soils have sham that the resultant sanewhat greater weed pressure also results in an increased risk of insect am plant disease problems (stevenson et al., 1988). '!here is a need for extensive research that examines the interactive nature of all crowmJ carp:nmts am their potential water quality hazards am benefits. '!here are many factors that influerx::e hC7N farmers select hel:bicides, such as cost, past experience, performance, advertisin;, etc. '!here is, ha.vever, little available info:cmation to develop criteria which allc,.., us to add the potential for leachirg to the selection process (Schmidt am stw::gul., 1989). Although there are considerable laboratory data available, there has been little field~ to evalu~:te the effects of appropriate management practices on water quality. 2. Need for new technologies. Mixirg/loading sites are a major point source of gra.niwater contamination with pesticides. 'l'Wenty-two Wisconsin sites have been identified where illproper storage, disposal or hanilirg of pesticides have caused grcurdwater contamination (ZuelsdQrff, 1989) Although containment pads are beirg built for these sites, it is not known if the construction materials beirg used will withst:arn lag-term effects of weather am frequent use. Additional work is also needed to develop portable contairnnent systems for use by aerial applicators. Aerial

PAGE 177

applicators often use local airstrips or growers' fields for landing arrl do not return to a pennanent base for mixirg, loadin;1, ard rinsirg. Improper hamlirg of wastes generated by rinsirg tanks, equipnent am pe...c:;ticide containers can result in serious hmnan health conoen,s arx:l environnental contamination (Schmidt ard Sturgul, 1989). Although guideline for reducirg wastes f:ran pesticide application are available (Zuelsdorff, 1987; Doersdl et al. 1988) these guidelines may be inpractical for some operations. Sprayers that inject pesticides into spray water durirg the sprayirg operation can oonsiderably reduce the problem of leftover spray mix. However, a carpletely acceptable prototype is not available at this time. Enptied pesticide containers contain pesticide residues, am if disposed of in this m,rinsed state can contribute to grourxiwater CX)ntamination. Altha.]h satisfactory rinsirg protocols are recx:anmen:ied arxi available, mirinsed containers still fird their way into the system. Retumable arxi :reusable mini-bulk co..111:ainers can alleviate this problem, but may contain greater quantities than needed by small fanners. FUrthenoo:re, 1lllltiples of the quantity of material packaged in large containers may not suit the size of the inlividual fants. Because of the large size of these CX)ntainers, extra precautions may be necessary to prevent leaks am spills. Fertilizer nitrogen recamnen:Jations are usually based on the crop's need for N (yield goal) with sate o:msideration for the soil's ability to supply N. In sane cases, credits are given for :residual N stored in soil, rotational crops such as the addition of N f:ran legumes, or applied waste materials such as manure. Farmer acx::eptance of these credits 14 I \ \ ) :

PAGE 178

has been less than desired due to the difficulty in obtairti.rg deep profile N samples, lack of fanner c:onfidettce in the unifonnity or quantity of manure clR:)lications, inability to accurately assess the legume stam density, arxl the desire to use these "extra" nutrients as a bonus or hedge in anticipation of an excellent grc,ing season. 'lhe developnent of a ccnp.tter decision-aid system for better detennining N fertilizer needs arrl the developnent of a rapid, easy to cooouct soil sampling system which better estimates soil available N could help significantly in minilnizing aver application of N (Oberle et al., 1987; BJrny et al., 1989). 3. Shortage of applied research am Extension fuming. New research initiatives are neaied to llllprove pesticide practices arrl to develop new pesticides that are less ncbile, less persistent, 100re specific to target pests, an:i less toxic to non-target organisms (National Coalition for Agricultural Safety an:1 Health, 1988). '!here is a critical need for increased fuming for research on pesticide transport, degradation pathways am toxicity of metabolites. our ability to detect residues is considerably greater than our of what these residues mean. With no support fun::ling for research in this area, little progress will be made in reducing pesticide ilrpact on the environment. Although lan:1 grant institutions have the basic prerequisites to con:iuct needed researdl, flmiing arxl positions are needed for both basic arxi aR;>lied researdl, am Extension activities. HCMeVer, lam grant institutions are experiencing position freezes am cuts, declining budgets, or at best static flmiing. For example, in 1980-1981 the University of Wisconsin Agriculture/Agribusiness program area had 98 full-time equivalent faculty doing Extension programming. By 1987-1988, this number was 15 1 \ J 1./ I

PAGE 179

diminished to 62 (UWEX, Staffin;J Plan 1987). Researdl arxl Extension activities that currently take place are often in addition to numerous other high-priority responsibilities. '!here is a misconception on the part of many govermnent leaders ani the gerlE:mli plblic that because only 2% of the population is involved directly with agriOJ.lture, am we currently have sw:plus production of sane mraco:lities, that there is a redlice.d need for furdirg am p:,sitions to drive research, teacru.IY:J, arxl Extension activities at agricultural institutions. In actuality, problems are considerably 100:re complex than those experieoced even 10 years ago am often take mre time, plannin:;J, :research, an:l interdisciplinary interaction to solve. Sane basic ard applied :research has been initiated which examines the pr:in=iples ard efficacy of varioos methods of nonchemical nutrient arxl pest management. Although potentially effective, these methods tern to be e,r.trenely management intensive (Francis et al., 1987). Further developnent an:l adoptia, of these tecJ:miques may provide a basis for new ~r exparded management service by the agrichemical imustry. However, acceptance an:l inplementation of these techniques will also likely require additional applied research an:l substantial del:oonstration of their applicability (Kelling, 1989). '1he mnnbers of county am state Extension positions continue to decline, am although the Extension sezvice prides itself in pt."Ogiam plannin:;J arxl priority settirg, it may have reached a point where there are too many items with a "top priority" arxl too few people to adequately serve ard educate the plblic. In addition to their still-inp:>rtant, mre traditional responsibilities, Extension state staff specialists at na;t institutions new cxnluct Inlld1 of the applied :research necessary to provide \ .,... ( ''{ \_,,-. ,'-.

PAGE 180

the data t3--:;e for their educational programs. While this shift in responsibilities has been desirable f:ran the perspective of progi:am ownership am identification, it has been done at the expense of time available for Extension activities an:1 canmitment to Extension. FUrding for such applied work is difficuli'; to procure; cuupetitive grants for mission-oriented research are essentially non-existent. In sane cases, the results, although critical for the well-bein;J of both rural am urban agriculture, are sanetimes not publishable in the scientific literature. Because academic merit of :researchers is usuaJly scrutinized in tenns of numbers of publications am caupetitive grants awanied, it is umerstaooable that a new :researcher may be :reluctant to spen:i significant time on applied research, or w~ with the general public on resolvin;J these real-world problems. 4. Addition of new prggrams or regnj:rements. Although pesticide applicator training programs offered by states currently meet U.S. EPA trainin;J _, new federal initiatives will require revanpirq an:1 expansion of existing tra.inmJ. Worker protection st:amaros, right-to-know rules, SUperfurd Amermnents am Reauthorization Act (SARA), grourxlwater protection, am en:1argered species protection requirements must now be included in the training ard will require greater time canmitments fran trainers an:l participants. Trainin;J programs currently take 1lDSt of a day am none of the existin;J subject matter can be dioppeJ to aa:x:a,arcdate the new initiatives. An additi,Jllal. time ccmnitment fran trainers am participants will be necessary. Extension will need to increase training or lose approval of their program, while facin;J local political pressure to reduce both training time ani charges for growers, am dealers.

PAGE 181

5. Reduced interest in production agriculture. '!be use of field scouts in IlM programs will ocr.asionally increase pesticide or fertilizer use; however, the em result of such programs usually results in reduced arx:l mre judicious use of agrichemicals. Private consultants, agricultural chemical dealers, am Extension pilot nM programs are currently facing a shortage of trained field scouts. 'lhis is in spite of the fact that nest colleges of agriculture sponsor scout tmining schools for students am non-students alike. An illustration of this trern is shown by enrollments in the three University of Wisconsin scout schools which is clatm nearly 40% fran the high enrollments (100-120 students) of the early 1980's. (B. Jensen, uw Entaoology personal canmunicator). catpetition for trained scouts is keen, am anyone wishing to wrk as a summer field scout can fin:l work. Part of the problem may be the result of a decl.inirg rural school age pop.llation which is reflected in decreased enrollments at colleges of agriculture, especially in programs related to production agriculture. such drcps in enrollments are evident at all levels of education (B.S. through :Al.O.) ani sane concem exists that qualified faculty specializing in production agriculture will not be available to replace faculty who will retire in the early 1990's. Production agriculture programs are apparently unattractive to prospective students even though jobs exist in this area. 'lhis situation may be cyclical am a result of the recent problems in the agricultural econany. 6. CUrrent policy within Extension, In an attar to make federal am state Extension programs 100re relevant an:i accountable, the concept of issues programming has evolved (Geasler, 1982). '!his concept calls for a small ex>re of :relatively flexible specialists to detennine I 18 \ l ~)

PAGE 182

programm:irg needs, provide program leadership am coordinate the activities of short-tenn people hired to fulfill the specific program needs. Once the program has met its goals, these people waild be released or iooved to a ne11 project. '1his concept ignores the sucx:essful development of a workirg rapport with clientele groups that lies at the bee.rt of sucx:essful Exten sion progranmin:J. Clientele groups use Extension because they have gained confidence in the organization am the imividuals associated with it through the developnent of lon;-tenn workirg relationships. It takes significant time to develop this level of cxmfidenoe. Jumpirq fran one audience group to another to satisfy only the immediate needs of the current hot issue serioosly erodes this relationship. An Extension st.rergth lies in the fact that it historically has relied on ubottan-up" developnent of programs to nset clientele needs. In issues prcgrammi?xJ, it is .iJTportant that this is not lost arxi replaced with "top-down" developnent of perceived Lc;s1es. In recent USDt\-cES documents addressirg the need for arxi chal.len;es ~iated with Extension programmirg in water quality, the message is IOOSt clear that in this area is neede.d, but was very mixed as to which audience groups should be served (Extension Service 1988; ECDP, 1988) Both reports imicate that CES needs to provide educational programs that result in actions to inprove water quality am that create am sustain a plblic cxmnitment to enhanced water quality; however, the specific direction am thrusts of these programs is properly relegated to state arxl local discretion. SUggested potential audiences incluie agricultural prcduoers, agridlemical dealers arxl OJStan ai:Plicators, householder~, local govemments, consumers (general public), lam managers 19 \7 V .. ,.. t_ 1\/

PAGE 183

and state agencies. It is our belief that given the diversity of needs an:i opportlmities for water quality programs, Extension will need to carefully choose those programs am audience groups they wish to SeIVe. An important issue to be answered will be whether directed programming such as water quality will be aimed at traditional audiences or if Extension will try to expam into audience groups who have not been lorg-tenn Extension users. In sane states, agrichemical businesses may be considered a traditional audience whereas in others it may require new natl.es or reallocated resources. 7. Iack of dealer incentive. Sane fonn of incentive must be present for dealers to sell fewer dlemicals. Although IOOSt dealers do not currently sell chemicals with disregard for the lorg-tem econanic health of custaners, they are nonetheless in business to sell fann SUR;>lies. Dealers currently serve as a source of "free advice" for growms. In the future, they may need to dlal:ge for this service. For exanple, a grower might be advised that past plant tillage ail.tivation may catplement a 1ower herbicide rate aIXl prove equally effective as a higher rate of herbicide. 'Ihe dealer may have to charge for such prescription weed control. E:ccman ics drive the system; a fanner does not have the time or expertise to make all crop production decisions unilaterally. He relies on the dealer to help with many crop related decisions. Universities capitalize on this pyramid-like system of providirg educational infonnation to consultants arxi dealers for their transmittal to growms because Extension does not have the personnel, travel budgets, nor time to work one-on-one with all growers. Once data are released by the university, econanics arxl practicality detennine if that practice is adopted by the private sector. 20 t \ ," ~, L~-

PAGE 184

'lhis type of scheme allaws the irrlustry to substitute the sale of service for the sale of products. It also ocxm:s to us that this system may \Ork best if all in:1ustry participates in dlargirg for services. FUrthenl:>re, universities may stinlll.ate rovement toward this opportlmity by similarly c.hargirg for ~tions. D. Recx:mnen:3ations for future agrichemical dealer Extension programs 1. Infonnation needed. '!here is a key need for dealers am consultants to be aware of the factors that contribute to contamination of grc,uMWater by nutrients am pesticides. 'lhe phenanenon cannot be explained by product solubility alone because rather non-soluble pesticides can also reach grourxiwater. Solubility, soil :reactions, adsorption, volatility, transformations, am persistence are all involved. Field site, soil, hydrologic am geologic characteristics also llllSt be considered for the prope1. assessment of a chemical's potential for grc,uMWater contamination (Sdnnidt am sturgul., 1989) Dealers ICDJSt un:1erstan:i that pesticide load in run-off is affected by the time, type, frequency, am intensity of various fa:nnirg operations. For exanple, a survey of all Iae plblic water supplies determined that surface water was ioore frequently contaminated with pesticides (63% of the supplies utilizirg surface waters) than grc,uMWater (Fa~tt, 1988). Spencer et al. (1985), however, reported that except where heavy rainfall occurred very soon after application, pesticide concentrations very la am the total anomt of pesticides rerooved fran the lam in nm-off durirg the crop year was usually much less than five percent of the cq:plication (Kinsel!, 1980) CUrrent data suggest that 1t0St grourxiwater contamination results fran p:>int soorces of pollution. Many states are enactirg contain ment laws requirirg that mixirg am loadirg sites, am storage areas must 21 tr-rJ. ? .. 1(' \. I.I

PAGE 185

be protected by impervious dikes and pads. Dealers need to uooerstand the best methods available for reducirg risks at these locations. Rinsirg sprayers in the field alle7w1S rinsates, excess spray mix, arxi effluent to be used in the field in accordan:::e with pesticide label directions arxi state ard federal law. It also reooves the activity fran vulnerable well sites. Operators also need to be familiar with methods of dealirg with spills an:l other energency procedures. Inproper calibration or excessive application may result in carry-over of fertilizers am pesticides, cause crop damage am :increase the potential for grtllniwater contamination. SUbstantial. enviromnental contamination with pesticides arn fertilizers results fran inappropriate management practices. AR;>lyirg only the needed rate of nutrients is the single IOOSt inportant nutrient best management practice (Schmidt am sturgul, 1989). Pesticide users must always read am follc,..r label directions, mix am calibrate accurately, prevent spills, use proper waste disposal, arxi consider weather am irrigation effects on surface water. Water sources 1lllSt be protected by anti-sipionirg devices. Pesticide storage facilities should be placed well away f:ran am down gradient f:ran water supplies arxi other sensitive areas. Emergency response plans must be developed, pesticides 1tDlSt be transported safely, am pesticide containers must be rinsed an:i disposed of properly. Dealers also need to remin:i fanners of these techniques arxi requirements. 'Ihe dealer is usually the last person advisirg a fanner before he purchases an:)/or awlies a pesticide. Dealers need a thorough familiarity with relative merits of various altemative fertilizer and pest management practices crop rotation, utilization of planting dates, use of manure, cx,ntrol of weeds 22 { ,it. i \... l

PAGE 186

harborirg pest insects, altemative nutrient sources, timirg of harvest, tillage, biological controls, all need to be considered before the fanner makes the ultimate management decision. Dealers need to becane ioore adept at fittinj many imividual carp:,nent decisions into an overall systems approach management progi:am. IlM is an exanple of overall pest control which considers all altematives when fonm.il.atirg a control p:ro;iram. It involves chemical am non-chemical control methods, an:i application of chemicals only when absolutely necessary. Insurance applications of insecticides are used only as a last resort an:l ooly with the nest selective c::c.qx,un:is available. can plete eliminatioo of the pest is unnecessacy, arxi the small reservoir of pests that remain helps maintain a population of beneficial insects. Positive an:l accurate pest identification is a prerequisite for IlM programs as is an umerst:an:lirg of econanic threshold arxi econanic injury level concepts. Similarly, fertilizer am weed control pro:JXans should not be approached as sirgle entities, but as part of a systems approach that utilizes good management programs throughout the season. SUCh programs inclooe variation in r:cM spacirgs, proper plant densities, proper seedbed preparation, adequate but not excessive nutrient application fran all sou:ras, arxi awropriate disease arxi insect control. 'lhese practices ptauote vigorous Ciops that cuupate well with -weeds. 'lhe goal of such cultural practices is to establish a profitable vigorous crop that caipates well withcut un:lesirable inpacts. Recent fin:lin;Js in groun:iwater an:i surface water contamination with agricultural chemicals has provided inpatus for a systems approach to evaluatirg chemical inputs arn the developnent of best management 23

PAGE 187

approaches to managm;J crop pests arx:l fulfillin;J its nutrient requirements. In other \\10rds, the IOOSt effective approach may not always be the best one when all factors are cxm.sidered. Continuirg efforts are goin;J to be needed for the identification of key factors that lead to grcun:iwater contamination with the objective of developin;J site specific reccllmel'Xlations for the best nutrient management ani the control of crop pests. CUltural practices such as use of crop rotation, appropriate crop selection arxi use of cover ctops, in addition to hold.ug soil in place, can be a part of a crop management progzam that reduces fertilizer an:i chemical use. Dealers must be made to recognize the lorger tenn benefits of such practices in contrast to their short-tenn loss of sales. If dealers are goin;J to substitute better service as a profit generatirg mechanism for product sales as an econcmic SUIVival strategy, Extension will need to provide additional help in several ways. Most inportantly, Extension in cx>nsort with regulatory agerx:ies must be prepared to suwly the dealers an::i consultants with the means for determinirg arn prcvid.ug profitable am environmentally acceptable alternatives an:i reccmnerdations for specific fields am farmin; enteJ:prises. Best management cx:np.rt:er-driven decision aids arxi ec:Xllonic threshold detenninations will need to be developed or expan:led. Soil test reccmneniation programs will need to be reviewed in light of both econanic arxl environmental considerations. Dealers will need to becare increasin;Jly skilled in fann management am financial mmsel.in;J techniques. Extension currently provides this type of trainin;J to its county faculty, an:i to sane extent to agrihlsiness (see Section II). However, if this strategy is to be enployed, this role will need to be greatly exparxled. As the link between research arxi the en:l user, an::i as the outreach educator, Extension is best equipped to sezve this role. 24 l I ,.. \(i_r f i' ..:) i.-._.

PAGE 188

2. Extension needs for delivery. Extension has the framework, experience, am talent to aa:uuplish the stated educational needs. What it lacks is stability, augmentation with permanent furmn:J, faculty positions, am strorg, effective leadership at the state am federal levels. Olrrent emphasis on "issue prcgranmint' may be an acceptable strategy, but there is a very real risk that the "issue" am the clientele graip will renain lorg after the pcp.llarity arxi furmn:J has faded. such ambitious programs should not be U1'Xlertaken with ''soft'' dollars. An analogous situation exists with pesticide applicator trairu.nJ arxi IFM p~zams, for which federal furmn:J has been awanied on a fonrul.a basis. Ft.ln:1irg for private an:i ccmnercial applicator trairu.nJ has alJoost disappeared ard dollars for state IlM programs are t:enuoos at best. 'lhe demam for in 'these areas remains high, but these programs have never reached their full potential because they have not been SUR)Orted by a pennanent budget addition. 3. staff needs. Faculty needs will vary with states, but, at the very least, each state should have a full time progtam exx>rdinator to deal specifically with dealer t.rainin;J am with sane budget for technical am clerical staff. 'Ihis role should be considered as a new position ani filled by a person who already has significant Extension experience. He/she nay con:iuct sane applied research as well. 'lhe coordinator should be trained am,lor experienced in production agriculture amjor pest management, but with a sensitivity to envirorunental protection. 'Ihis in:lividual should also be able to con:iuct ard CXX)rdinate cq:plied research because it will be necessary to work with subject matter specialists in interdisciplinary programs. sane states will not have personnel to adn'ess certain iss1es, so the coordinator will also have to locate am coordinate input fran subject natter specialists fran other states.

PAGE 189

Additional research an:i Extension specialists are also needed to develop an:i evaluate production best management practices relative to their inpact on groon:iwater, surface water, arxi other non-target areas; develop am;or evaluate negligible inpact practices for susceptible areas; an:i develop an:i comuct educational programs an water quality am best management practices for dealers, county Extension agents, agricultural consultants, fanners, environmental. groups, arxi the general public. All of these positicns should oot be filled with M.S.-level people capable only of pro;;,i::am deliveey, as these in:lividuals 'NO.lld not have the research base or the personal or-mership of the program for effective delivery. F.ac.h state will have to carefully consider its program developnent arxl clR)lied research needs relative to the needs for program delivery. 'Ihe actual staff hired will be depement on the identified needs. 4. other agency involvement. Because JOOSt lan:i grant institutions have the basic organization, talent, an:i experience needed to corx:luct sudl lai:ge interdiscip~inacy projects, it is c!R)rcpriate that leadership for developnent of these programs reside with Extension an:i lan:i grant institutiC11S. It will, havever, be inp:>rtant to develop am deliver these progi::aus in close cxx:,rdination with the appropriate state am federal agencies incl~ the EPA, U.S. Geologic SUrvey, Soil Conservation Sel:vice, Agriall.tural stabilization an:i Conservation Service, state Departments of Natural Resa.rrces, ani state Departments of Agriculture. In many cases, these rmits are charged with regulatory responsibilities for variaJS aspects of water quality. COq)erative efforts with these agencies that are involved in the develcpnent arxl enforcement of pertinent rules lead to better -an:i even expan:ied levels of cooperation. -/1 I I) I -26 -I' ., ..... '. 'C..l

PAGE 190

Particular agency staff members may contril:>Ute to educational prcgram.s; however, educational leadership an:l primary delivery should continue to reside in Extension. state am local m1uculity organizations, fertilizer an:i agrichemical associations, an:i professional consultant groups nee::l to continue to be involved wit.h programrnin;J efforts as they have in the past. '1his will provide an inmediate feedback mechanism for the usefulness, practicality arxi ~:rq>riateness of developed materials or programs. 5. Delivery mechanisms. 'lhe existirg education arxi infonnation vehicles used by Extension will also work for these programs. As new technology arxi management techniques develc:.p, there will be an increased need for direct fanner contact. Dlrirg a recent series of meetirqs seeking input for research arxi Extension needs in sustainable agricultm'e, it was very clear that fanners wanted mre inlividual contact am personal help in develc:.pirg management strategies am illplementation plans, am that hams-at, shcM-me daoonstrations are desirable (Kel.lirg, 1989). Both of these techniques require significant numbers of personnel. Dealers can provide an invaluable sezvice as both an audience group am a transmitter of information by both methoos. Develc:pnent of c:x:rrprt:er-assisted decision nmels will need to be accelerated, am agr.iblsiness will need to be trained in their use. To sane extent, dealers already use fann record keepirg an:i reccmnen:3ation programs for their custaners. Ha.vever, additional programs will be needed to educate dealers on the carp.rt:er tools which try to zero in on specific Use of programs such as Potato crcp Management (stevenson et al., 1988) am Nutrient Adju~ Worksheet (Schulte et al. 1988) will expan:l.

PAGE 191

6. Proorain evaluation. Evaluation of the success of such programs is diffia.tl.t. One is tryirg to measure a charge in awareness arxi attitude of people as a cxmsequence of program effort. F\lrt:hermre, these charges are expected to brirg about charges in practices or actions by the clientele groups (ECDP, 1988). SUrveys of this nature are difficult to design ani interpret, but they will need to be done. Baseline data will need to be carefully collected am then followed with measurements of charges in client activity. '1he u1 timate measure of the success of these programs will be the subsequent trerDs in the quality of oor gI"Ol.lOOWater am surface water. Intensive, long-tenn ronitorirg of these natural :resoorces will be an important, integral part of these projects. Many states already have monitorirg programs in place an:i then data sha.tl.d be used where awlicable. III. SUggested administrative actions to foster dealer education programs Policy makers ani agen::y or university administrators nee:! to recognize that the way in which fonnula an:i cmp3titive furxlirg are distril:Juted makes it very difficult for lani grant institutions to address issues such as those described in this paper. What often happens is a reshufflirg of scarce resources am positions with an add-c:>n of responsilJilities to present staff. 'lbe allocation for. "a~Jricultural" research nrust be carefully scrutinized. National Science Fourdation (NSF) National Institute of Health (NIH), USJll\ carpetitive Grants, an:i similar sources generally fun:l only very basic research. Plqx)Sals for basic research addressil'q prevention or amelioration of grcmxiwater contamination with commercial fertilizers ani pesticides would not be fun:led because they / 2a ... t., \L-

PAGE 192

are not sufficiently theoretical to meet granting parameters of these institutions. Furthenoore, sane of the fu:n:ii.ng that lam grant colleges receive is eannarked to the point that administration has limited latitude in shifting resources to meet local needs. '!here is a critical need for a system of formla fu:n:ii.ng am cuupetitive grants to assist lan:1 grant institutions in dealing with the econanical production of agricultural corraoodities in a system that considers aIXi protects natural resources. Perhaps there needs to be an evaluation of our current fu:n:ii.ng system to see if research needs are being met by present fun:li.ng sources, or whether eannarked fun:1i.ng predetennines the kims of research that are done. I.am grant institutions must maintain st:rorg basic applied research programs. As colleges of agriculture expan:1 their expertise an:1 productivity into such areas as mlecular biolc,:n, biotechnolo:n, etc. it must not be at the expense of mission-oriented research that addresses day-to-day problems in production agriculture, sociological issues, revitalization of rural America, am the delivery of these programs to appropriate clientele. University administrators must remember that within p.lblic institutions, the role of the p.lblic se?.Vice arxi education ccmponent is a significant responsibility, arxi that this canpment is very ilrp:,rtant in detennini.ng how citizens perceive their lan:1 grant institutions. Once mid-career an:1 older state staff Extension specialists retire, there will be few people left at the university level who have the training arxi to work with a canbination of p:rcduction agriculture, integrated pest management ard enviromnental protection, or even have the willin;;Jness to do so. Goverrnnent arxi university 29

PAGE 193

administrators must recognize the critical role that these positions play in rural and urban agriculture. 'Ibey nust not overlook this need arx:l should provide rewards and advancement for people who do work in these critical areas of research and outreach. Specific potential actions at the federal level may include: 1. Developirp regulations that govern the use ani managenent of fertilizers and pesticides. '!his approach, while possible, 'WOUld be difficult and probably not very palatable. SUCh regulations 'WOUld need to be sufficiently broad to be sensitive to local needs and environmental. corxlitions. Historically, rules which have tried to dictate good management systems have been either overly carplicated or ineffective. Enforcement 'WOUld be difficult, costly, and onerous. 2. Increasing educational prcgtams that emphasize the link between agrichemical use an;1 inprcved management am water C]I 1a] ity. Although sane programs currently exist they could be expamed am better focused. Specific efforts towards fanners, agrichemical dealers, and homeowners shcw.d be advanced. 3. Developirp federal water c;n.ia].ity standa!TI for pesticides and nutrients. stamards must be established which safeguard the plblic waters but do not overly restrict the use of materials important to caupatitive agriculture. Agricultural products caupete in the world marketplace an:i U.S. fanners must remain caupetitive. 4. ])J;;J;"fflsilp fun:lirg for applied research which delineates the water gnaJ ity risk or benefits associated with aqrichemical, use. Olarges in certain management practices may result in reduced potential for water 30 1~7

PAGE 194

contamination with nutrients or pesticides. Evaluation of such techniques on a local basis is inportant for fanner acceptance an:i adoption. See Section IICl. 5. Providing acprcpriations qgrur.ensurate with educational pnxgam needs. 'lhe Cooperative Extension Service-US~ should be authorized or requested to develcp cost estimates, in conjunction with several states, for the provision of adequate programs in pesticide education, nutrient management education an:i other aspects of agricultural .inpacts on water quality. 'lhese shculd include both farmer education arxi agrichemical dealer education an:i should include estimates of the administrative staff needed to administer such programs. 6. 'lhe COoperative Extension Service-USm should_,gjJ:PCf; its water qyality educational pzOOiamrninq towards those audiences sudl as agrichemical dealers am fanners that can have the laroest inpact. Clientele rapport an:i trust are inportant. CES should build on the stren:Jths it already possesses.. Even within the context of expan:ied resources, it is not possible to meet the needs of all groups. Literature Cited Blodgett, J.E., an:i E.H. Clark. 1986. Fertilizers, nitrates an:i grourxiwater: an ove:cview. Proc. Colloqujm of Agrichemical Management to Protect Water Quality. National Research Council, Washiron, D.C. Beck, R.L. 1989. Personal CXll'lllD.D1ication. CEN.EX/IOL, P.O. Box 64089, st. Paul, MN, 55164-0089. Bl.lmy, L.G. 1988. Estimat.in;J nitrogen availability fran soil an:i plant farts. Proc. Wis. Fertilizer, Aglnne an:i Pest M3mt. Conf. 27:319-315. CJlSr. 1985. Agriculture an:i grourdwater quality CASr Report 103. May 62 p. 31

PAGE 195

Chesters, G.' G.V. Simsi.man, J. IJavy, B.J. Alhajjar, R.N. Fathulla, am J.M. Harkin. 1989. Enviromnental. fate of alachlor an:i metolachloro Review of Environmental Contamination am Toxicology (in press). Doersch, R., J. Wedbel'g, c. Grau, N. Neher, am R. Flashinski. 1988. Pesticide management principles for the Wisconsin fanner. S8cxn:i Fdition. University of Wisconsin-Extension. D:>11, J .D. 1988. Controll.iJ'g weeds in sustainable agriculture. University of Wisconsin-Extension. Extension Sei;vice. 1988. Focus on initiatives -water quality. USn\., Washin;Jton, D.C. E
PAGE 196

Hallberg, G.R. 1986. Agrichemicals an:i water quality. Proc. Colloquim of Agrichemical Management to Protect Water Quality. National Research Courx:il, washin:Jton, D. C. Kelling, K.A. 1989. f:ran the 1989 sustainable agriculture listening meetings. college of Agric. am Life Sci., Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison. Kelling, K.A., am E.E. Schulte. 1985. Fertilizer econanics, getting the IOOSt for your Dlll'lE!Y crops ard soils 38(1) :17-21. Kinsell, W.G. 1980. amAMS: A field-scale ncdel. for chemicals, nm-off arxi erosion fran agricultural management systems. USn\ Conservation Research Report No. 26, 640p. illus. National Coalition for Agricultural safety an:l Health. 1988. Agricultural ocx:upatianal. an:l environmental health: Policy strategy for the future. Report to the nation, Dec. 1988. Oberle, S.L. 1987. Developnent of a nitrogen management m:xiel f~r corn in Wisconsin. Proc. Wis. Fertilizer, Aglime arxi Pest M;pnt. conf. 26:76-97. Schmidt, K., an:l S. sturgul (ed.). 1989. Nutrient ard pesticide best management practices for Wisconsin Fanns. Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, an:l Consumer Protection Bull. No. 1. Spencer, W.F., M.M. Claith, J.W. Blair, ani R.M. I.eMert. 1985. Transport of pesticides fran irrigated fields in surface runoff ard tile drain water. USn\-ARS ConsetVation Research Report No. 31. 71 p. Stevenson, W.R., L.K. B:inninJ, D. Olrwen, K.A. Kelling, J .A. Wyman, arxi J.P. Koenig. 1988. Integrated crop management of p:,tatoes. Annual Research Report. Department of Plant Pathology, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison. 33

PAGE 197

University of Wisconsin-Extension. 1988. statewide plan for Extension programs of the UW System 1988-1991. University of Wisconsin-Extension Madison, WI 31 p. Wis. Fertilizer, Aglime am Pest Management COnf. !"l'tX:. 1961-1989. Vol 1-Vol 28. Department of Soil Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. Wisconsin Agriculturist. 1985. 1984 Agricultural chemical am fertilizer survey report. Fann ~ess catpm.i.es, Ianbard, IL 57 p. Zuelsdorff, N. 1987. Pesticide rlnsates. Management am reuse guidelines. In Proc. Wis. Fertilizer, Aglime am Pest r-tJmt. COnf. 26:234-237. Zuelsdorff, N. 1989. Environmental cx:mtamination at pesticide mixirg/loadmj sites. ID Proc. Wis. Fertilizer, Aglime am Pest r-tJmt. COnf. 28:205-208. 34

PAGE 198

COMPUTER-BASED DECISION SUPPOKI SYSTEMS FOR FARMEP~: APPUCATIONS FOR GROUNDW.ATERPROTECIION by Bernard Knezek Crop and Soil Sciences Associate Director, Kellogg Biolo~cal Station Michigan State University East Lansing, MI J: Roy Black Agricultural Economics Michigan State University East Lansing, MI November 1989 This contractor document was prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) assessment entitled Beneath the Bottom Line: Agric;ultuntl tJ'proaches to Reduce A~chemical Contamination of Groundwater. It is bein& ma e available because they contain useful information beyond that used in the OTA report. However, they are not endorsed by OTA, nor have they been reviewed by the Technology Assessment Board. References to them should cite the contractor, not OTA, as the author; a suggested citation format follows: Author(s) name(s), Contract paper title, prepared fer the U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Beneath the Bottom Line: Agricultural Approaches To Reduce Agrichemical Contamination of Groundwater OTA-F-418 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1990).

PAGE 199

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. ~ODUcrION 1 U. MICROCOMPUTER APPUCATIONS IN MANAGING PARM BUS~ES 3 A. Setting the stage: computer use in agriculture prior to 1980 3 B. The beginning of the on-farm microcomputer era: microcomputer owm:rship aad software applicatiom by U.S. farmers during the 1980's S C. The structme of agriculture and the ec:onomim of microcomputer use 12 D. Private and public sector software vendon and oa-lille data bases 15 Ill. THE DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM CONCEPT AND MICROCOMPUTER APPUCA110NS FOR SUPPORT OP DECSION MAKING BY FARMERS 17 A. Concept of decisioa support systems (DSS) 18 B. Selcctecl applicatirm that illustrate DSS 22 C. Cassa of software that arc c:ummdy available and used in support of U.S. farmers' clecisioas . . . . . . . Z3 IV. GROUNDWATER PROTECl'ION IN AGRICULTURE 24 A. All Illustrative eample 24 B. Carrmt capabilities of dedsion support systems 'Z7 C. 'l'be Dell" futme . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 D. Beywd tbe year 2')(X) 30 B. MmitoriDg systems of the futme 31 V. EXAMPLE OP THE INTEGRATED DSS AT KELLOGG BIOLOGICAL STATION 33 VI. P'tmJRE DIRECI'IONS AND POUCY OPrIONS 36 APPENDIX A. Geographic Informadoa Systems (GIS) 39 APPENDIX B. Dairy Barn Aush Ceaning System and Manure Management at KBS 41

PAGE 200

LIST OF TABLES ll.1 Applications in 1986 by Tulare County, California Farmers Who IL2 11.3 D.4 Own Computers ................................ 42 Probability of Spreadsheet, Accounting, and Production Decision Aid Uses in 1986 for a 41-to SO-Year-Old Parmer with No Farm-Related Business 111 Tulare County, CA. Private Sector Software Com Providing Agricultural Software . . . . . n-_ .. __ a,..:_,.,..._, T-'-o--.:ftn C!-.:.-uu-111111; ~......,. ..... .1111 .........., 43 44 47 UST OP FtGURES ID.1 ID.2 ID.3a ID.3b ID.4 IV.1 V.1 V2 A.1 A.2 Components of a Decision Support System ~) &le of Dm Acquisition Netv.wk for DSS lrriptioa Scbeda1ing Prototype Model: Components of Model Input ....................................................... lrripdm Scbedulmg Prototype Model: Components of Model Output . Pield Crops lmcct Management Decisions Support: MajCII' Crmpc:,aeats !t Hydrologic Cyde Dairy/Crop Parm Layout at Michigan State. Unhersity's JCo11aa1 Biological Stadm Pare fJl. 0rpnic C:aemicals (Oej ...... Geographic Iaformadon Systems: Conceptual Diagram ... _,;_~ to p~--Prod .. ...:-~""'81.U' .~ 49 49a 49b 49c 49d 49e 49f 49g 49h 49i GLOSSARY ......................................................... so BmUOGRAPHY .... .................................................... S3 BEST COPY AVAILABLE -.... ----., -.. -. ---

PAGE 201

1 I. INTRODUCTION Farmers use a vmety of information sources to make basic decisions about their farm business, but few can readily obtain tbe easeariaJ inf~ and manipulate it in ways that result in optimal management deci.1ions. Most must forge ahead with the mformatioa at band, hcnwM:r sketchy or cmjointed it is, opening tbemseha to risk of a poor dec:isioa and possibly reducing farm efficiency. Farm managers' need for more and better information has grown_with coacerns about the environmental impacts of farming operations, sacb II nitrate aad pesticide coataminari911 of groundwater. Legislators and regulators are coasideriag a nap of po&cy iastrwnents to reduce tbe potenriJ for groundwater c:oararniuation, including remidioas oa pestidde ase, limits on nitrogen use, restricdons to choicea among best management pradices, sampliag wt moaitoring, aacl groaadwarer quality standards. All dumps would require farmers to Resean:bers ia the public and private sectors are working to improve tbe dec::ision support tools available to farm managers and tbase working with farm managers. New tools mclude moaitoring and control devices, computers, app&odnn aacl clarebese 10Awe, 111d C01111Pmriodon Jinb -these elements. This paper focmes oa a new caacept far iatep'idag these tooJa, Docision Support Systems (DSS), and its applicaDm to gruaudwater protedioa ia apicDJlure. DSS are primarily computer based (m agriculture, primarily microcomputer) programs ud suppartiag data bases ased in support of management derisions. 1 Components 1 The CODCept of dccisioa suppoct systems evohed out of dissadsticdoa with the more mcturecf concept of mnapo--mt iaformadaa s,stems. la me of tbe menapmeat aad infcxmadon systems literature, DSS refers primarily to taola far iateracdvely qucaJing dara bases ad mlyzing aJtrmames fm relamely umtructured also, tbeJ speci&callJ focaa aa flaibiJity aad adaptabililJ to aa:ommodate changes ia the economic and te#:bnal euthOlDBcmt. Imtead ol cfetiN!i"I a new term, sacb II m1nago11.t support systems, we haw cbosea to place die wide arr-, fl campateaized tools ad sappardag cJ.a base caacepts (e.g., tramac:tioas proce11;, sjiUWII, apert s,steml, mn,....em iafarmadoa systems, geographic and otber sparially oriented i1lformatim .,.._. dedsioa lids) wd ia S1lppckt of tbe decisioa mkhag faacdoa UDdcr tbe umbrella of the term clecisiaa support. May aalbaa hate adopted tbia appaoach. Tbe DSS coac:ept is discassed in section ID.A. Scvmal ntiPret ':IIISCI of infonnadon .,.._. ba9e emerpcl dlroup efforts to apply iDcreasingly sophisticated campater barclware to agricultural 1}IOblans, while striving to pat data-prores,;ng operations under the direct comrol of farm users ( e.g., as COlllraSted to mail ia record systems that haw evohed in the areas of farm armamiDg and dairy herd maaagement). The three main c:lasses of informadon systems are: TPS ....... ....: I. ... ..:.... upd __ ... !-1. di OI' uaawawuu proees,mg systelllS &Of ~e,ltinl, U1U posting 111&orm8tiOD ICCOr ng to predefined procedures. Software within this claa includes field records and farm service center records. [-Jo)

PAGE 202

2 of the system can be used individually, such as making improved nitrogen and pesticide use decisions, or jointly, and share data bases. DSS appear to haw high potential for addresmag eawiromnental considerations in agriculture because they are capable of haacfliag both specific, structurecl questions aimed at identifying best management practices for a pm operation, 11 well a less structured questions about how a strategic farm plan could be revised to reduce tbe need for chemical fertilian wt pcsdcidcs. Por the potential to be fully reached, however, additfonal models will need to be developed to c:cm:r' the broad range of dec:isioas farmers mast make. existing models often need to be cnbanced to reflect a broader range of IIUIDlpinent altcrnatm:s and environmental considerations, wl the supporting data bases need to be improved. The eclncation and training of farmers and those working with farmers in tbe use of those tools will be aa equally important componeal ill the evolution of farmer's approach to decision making 2 Tbe paper bcgias widl a review of the ffl>lutioll of computer use production agricu1turc in order to hue a baseline for exploring future use. This sec:tion iDdudes a review of tbe ment of current microcomputer aso by farm.ers, a cm:niew of tho number ad locations Gf 1elldora of agricaltura1 software, and a listing of some of tbe aa-1iae (ae2ssibL= by microcomi,atervia modem) darebeses wailable to farmers ad tbme who work with farmers. Nar, tbo orpnizadonal cqampt ol dec:ision support systems is ctiscuucd; some of tbe currently available campoamts ate dcsc:ribecL The faarth section tJf the paper focmes oa poaadwara' protection applications of DSS. The last sec:tion describes a prototype mtcgntccl D&, that is under development aa the Dairy /Crop Farm at Mkbipn State Uanersitys JCdbm Biological Stadoa to illustrate how cmiaoamemal and farm operation data can be integntecl in software programs ueful to farmers. Mm OI ffllD'IC meat iDformadoa sysbmlS that me predefined systems that !.&ave predefined analysis w1 reporting .capabmties Tub sadl preparing 6nanrial l1IIIIDUlrics and SIIIIUll8ries of weed incidence aad aitrogell use by 6e1cl and tbe labor use profile for the )al' are examples. DSS ar decision sappart systems with ar.eadable, built-ill capabilities to support data gathering for TPS; iaformadm processing \1ia MIS; applicatioa-specific m1ysis wl reducdoa of data to agrepted smnmaries; 111d decision-moderg actmtics. Tasks suda evaluanon of imec:t. nematode and disease rmtro1 optioas, irriptim, rit411Jing-.nd c:hoice of level aad timing of aitrogell app6cuioa are mmp~ Pull-fledged, ,.,., farm ,ersions of D&1 software remain to be built and tested. 2 Models. databases and training are fnnik,d by oar knowledge base. For example, our understanding of the mcnemcnt of pcsdcides and aitratcs through the soil bas improved markedly ill the 1980's, yet quantitating the movement, particularly below the root mae to groundwater is quite imperfect except ill obvious cases. Thus, development of a better qualitatiw and quantitative understanding will be crucial for improved models and supporting databases. \ '7 Lr L_,.. I "\6 I (;J

PAGE 203

3 II. MICROCOMPUTER APPLICATIONS IN MANAGING FARM BUSINESSES Farm level decmons can be enhanced by computer systems aDd supporting interactive software that indudes integrated management models and databases The use of microcomputers in agriculture has been widely touted for a decade. After a number of "false starts ownership appears to be increuing. providing a support bae for future expansion. This section discusses the computer applicadom by farmers clmiag tbe 1960's and 1970's that set the stage for the introduction of on-farm personal computers in the 1980's. Suneys of the extent of farmer adoption over the course of the decade are discussed nm; the kiDcls of applirarioas farmers made such as accounting. financial projtdioas, and crop and livestock management cir,cisi011 aicfs are discussed. The oat sections lists agricultural software and some of the major on-line data bases that are available to farmers with computers and modems 11ao last section bring, attention to the implicadoas of the structure of agriculture and of the cost of hardware and software for parcbaso and applicadm by farmers. These sections set a reference point foe messing the prospedS for increasecl microcomputers use in production agriculture in the 1990's. JU-Sea!na TIie 5--= OMpater U Ill Apiadtan Prior To UIO Compaler 11111 m c:ammcrdal ap'icaltare wa primarily in three area prior to 1980. F'ust, wbcn use of --!-&.---beca Ila .:-Lt L-1~ 3 --~ IIUlllllnlllW camputcrsme eeo11a111cau1 flilUlll:i III ua;; ,guu s, lllllversity, ... pnvate sector orpmzatioas and -sector c:oasardmaa offered mai1-iD farm record and accouatiag services (Harsh, 1989). Many of these were a c:ampcmat of farm record assodarioa programs where a &eldman worked closely with app,aai .. ,.tely 1SO farmers. Kam, 1J6aois, and ,Cmnesot.a were tJpica1 of this model. 11le Parm Credit System's AGRIPAX s,stem aad Parm Bureau Systems were tJpica1 of private sector iDitiadws. Mal.; :>I these s,stema were appadca aad measiom of previous systems maiataiaed by hwL MOit aperts believe farmer's participadoD in these projects bas been due more to income tax and other federal wt state lepl requirements dum as a basis for management decisioD making Management needs were importut, bat tbey were not the major reason for participamag. Participadoa by farmers in states with viable and well supported farm record systems ranged from 8 to 35 percent of commercial farms (Hepp, 1988). 3 Uamnity systems were justified as fao1itaring an educational function, providing 'real' information on rmts and returns, and studying managerial processes '" 7

PAGE 204

4 A second major area was the Dairy Herd Improvement Associations (DHIA) which provided (and, continues to provide) a mail-in record service on the performance of individual dairy cows and for the evaluation of bulls for uso in artificial in.endnari'lll programs. Participation varied across the United States, but represented about 40 percent of dairy cows. Certain otber maaapm'\at iDformaDOII w provided, including recommendadoas for culling Tbcse aswriarions, Gke muy of tbe farm record asoririons, were loosely tied to uam:rsides,. with lllliversitics proridiag educ:adoaal support and coatributiag sipifiontly to prototyping and defining protocol that the system would follow. DHIA tieldmen made moatbly farm visits to make the appropriate measurements. Tho farm record aad dairy record systems haw microcomputer opdoas ia many areas of the United Stare., m tho late 1980'L Also, m some areas, tbe dairy rec:ard system may be accessed via a modem in a time share computing emironment. The third major thrust was in the area of iDicgratcd pest management (IPM)4 begiuaiag with the iatrodacticm of time-share compadag ia the early 1970's. Thao systems were part of a much larger 1PM research and educatiaa acdvity (Bird, 1989). ID many states, comiderable resources were put into the dc,eJapmeat and fostering of mopcnmes and private scctcr pest management scmce 6rms that provided pest scouting and acdaa picfeBaes to farmers. Here, pall an, detiaect to mdude weeds, iasec:rs, nematodes, and plat diseases Somo irripdm, riedu&ag ,enic:es developed aloag this modei too. The role of tbe time-share computing emironment iacluded maintenance of OD-line weather data and accompanying peat projectioD models ~o assist scoura ia idendfyiag pall to be scouted. Thao systems. also mduded IIIIDlgelDeDt models wbida coald be used ia CODjuncdoa with pest iacidCllce models to project economic tbresbolds for pest control ldions oa tbe part of farmers. The focaa was pest coatrol programs based upoa obsemdoa, followed bJ appropriate acdaa COldrllted to lack of obsemaim wl blaakrt controJ. The oceptlaa to tbe dme-sbare compatiagcamples discmsed ,occmrecl primlrilJin California and some Soatbeatena states lib Trm, Florida, M9vssipp ad Arkansas. There, some luge farmers and c:oasuJriag 09oizariona bad mini-and small mainframe computers pudcipadag ill a time-share computing emiroament. This was ec:onomic:al1y viable became ol the luge a of tbe farms, relative to much of the United States, and the bigb value and peat suscepdbilily of crops being grown. 4 1PM is a systems approach to reduce pest damage to tolerable levels through a variety of techniques, includmg predators and parasites, genedcally resi1t1at hosts, natural environmental modificatfo:as, and r 2. _., wlicot acm11uy and approprwe,. clicmicaJ pesdcicles I 7 X -o ::i

PAGE 205

s D.B. The beghmln1 of the on.farm microcomputer en: mlcrGcompater ownenblp and software appllcatlons by U.S. farmers durfna the 1980'1 This secdoa fffleWI studies of the adopdon of microcomputers following their introduction in 1979 /PJJ. This transition ret1ects initial entl-usiasm, particularly on the pait of potendal software vendors, many University Coopenm,, Ehtensioa Service tpedaJists, and imlovating farmers. Mally changes took place as hardware and software ~heel during the 19S>'s and as the utility of microcomputers and data acqumtion were re-evaluated. The period was further tempered by the worst 61undal crises in US agric:ulture in SO years. Arthur Aadersoa/UDlftrsltJ ol Dllaols Stady (1982) The authors estimated las drm three percent of coauaerdal farms owned a computer in 1982. They projected one in six commercial farmers (17 percent) would OM1 a microcomputer by 1987. Their study indicated common~ ~d indude accounting. crop and lnestock productioa records, forward planning (mduding cash flow, profit and loss, and financial balance sheet projectioas), and ~umdoa of mar~ information for use in 1rin ~-. m gpncmg~ Ian State Ullhenlty Stady (198Z) Bultema ancl'Hoiberg's (1983) objective was to emnine factors_ that disdnguisbed adopters of computer technology from noadopters. Tbe sample was drawn from those farming at least 80 acres. There were 425 farmers ha the sample. Oaly 3 percent of the farmers iD the sample were using microcomputers iD their farming operations. AD addidonal 10 percent said they were definitely plamring to pardme a microcomputer and 7 percent were contemplating a parchaae. Om oat of four farmers were not microcomputer users, but they bad thought about bow I microcomputer might be usccl ia their farming opendom. The luplt group, 57 percent, bad not ghen seriou thought to how a mic:rocomputer would be ol. use to them. Tbe adoption of microcomputers WII related lo size of. farm 1'asinesa md the edacadonal level and age of operator. For farms with over $100,000 in sales, 25 percent either owned or ere contemplating buying a computer. The percentages were 13 percent for farms with $75,000 to $100,000 sales and 7 percent for farms with $20,000 to $75,000 in sales. Forty eight percent of farmen who were using computers were college graduates and I L, i' I

PAGE 206

6 18 percent of the farmers who were planning to purcbuc a microcomputer were college graduates. In contrast, only four percent of college graduates hadn't given any thougb to pFcbasiug a microcomputer. The awnge age of farmers who pu,cbased, or were contemplating the purchase of a microcomputer, was sligbdy younger (42 ,an old) than those who bacl decided apinR or hadn't considered pucbasiug a microcomputer (48 ,an old). The farmers who bad purcbascd, or we planning to pmcbase a microcomputer, made more use of forward pricing ecbanisms for the crops and 1natock they produced than those who did not. Further, they made more use of more complex pricing mccbanisas (futures contracts vs. c:uh forward contracts). Seventy me percent of the farmers who were using microcomputers used tho futures market to price a portion of their graim or &wstock. ID contrast, only 1S percent of those who bad not coasiclered or rejected using computers uaecl futures markets. New York Stady (UIZ) Aldrida 111d ICnoblauda's (1982) objective was to determine the c:urrem: state of micrQCOmputcrs use on farms. to ptbcr dala oa tbe types of microcomputen used, to review tbe types of software in use and the 't'elldors they wae acquiaocl from, ad to idmdfJ software dcvelopmeat Deeds. Farmers were idenrifi~ who owned microcom91DD 111d a mail 111fteJ WII med; the respoNO rate was a> percent. Tho predominanr farm type was dairy or dairy/eah crop. The moat common computer in use, by a large order of magnitude, was the Radio Shack (Tandy). Thirty eight percent of tbe farmers bad written some of their owa programs or spreadsheet templates. They indudcd radon beianriag finaarial record SJStemS, and animal record systems. MIiiy farmers dtM:loped spreadsheet templates basecl upoa Uaiwrsity Cooperame Exteasioa Scnice Pacr Sheets; some used coding sheets that bad bem for programmable caJcnJatQIS a a point of deputare. Parcbased software was in the same applirarioa area aad ia fertilimr recommendarioaa aDcl in support of. imect managem,mt. One out of three farmers used spreadsheets (e.g., Vllic:alc). Software was acqaircd from two priYare sector wmdon and a number of Laad Gram Universities. The private sector wnclors were Agway (a large farm supply cooperative in the northeastem US) and CoasuJAgr. Uanersities induded Ceznsoa (accoundng), Cornell (liwstock records and auuuagement decision aids), Missisappi State (ntion formulation, records, and budget generation) and Oklahoma State (records, cash flow projections). J_.()0 (_,

PAGE 207

7 Farmers stated the area of greate.,t benefit was in the area of record keeping, both financial and physical ( crop aad IM:stock) records. A major objecthe was to use the computer to gain control of the farm organi7.ation and thereby pin eflic:iency.5 Important future objec:tffl:S included developing the capacity of decision support aids to read information from and write informadoa to dara bases. Also, farmers wanted more capacity to paerato m,n.,.,._ reports &om their data bases. Reakime appliradoas such as daily monitoring of milk pt'Oducdoa wl nhn health wl feed coatrol systems were cited as future uses. Automaring equipment to "feed" and to "ale darebncs in arriving at coatrol decisions wu set as a target. Elpteell Coat, ladlua Stady (1913) TIie Ardmr Alldersoa, Iowa, New York and Purdue studies were conducted sbortly after microcomputer tedmolo&Y entered commercial c:baanels 11le Purdue study .s designed to measure attitudes about farm microcomputer performance and collect imorn,tion 011 farm computer users, computer hardware an.cl software, and usea of tbe farm computer (Alderfer, 1985). Scwmt,-cipt farmers who oncd microcomputers were sm w,yed; they were using 'Z/ different models of crmpater berdwe and a Ylricty of cammerciel software. This lack of staadardizedoa reflected the lack of standercfinrion darins tbe earlJ days of the microcomputer industry. TIie study was CODcluded at a time when farmers were staning to make die twvsidoa &am tbe Radio Shack, Apple D and CP /M systems such as the Osborne aad ICaypro II to IBM penaaa1 computers and associated clones. IBM ~aal computers started to beame available in tho fall of 198L Paanera making cash flow projedioas, &nnrial balance sheets projections, and crop field record data applk:adona bad a more pmithe attitade about tbeir systems tbaD those who did not. Likewise, thme with spreadsheets, larger capacity hardware and modems ,vere more sadsfied ,,nth their computer systems. Younger farmers, partiadarly those who used their microcomputers in cost armnnring. bad a more posime outlook 5Lamrus and Smith (1988) studied New York dairy farmers use of their dairy herd improvement association records. Farmers who agreed or strongly agreed with the statement ihey did not have enough time to study their records; cows produced 6% lea milk than those who disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. Farmers with more productive herds had the time or made an effort to allocate more time to analyze their records. The question responses may also be indicative of management capacity.

PAGE 208

8 regarding the farm computer. Formal farm records increased by 20 percent after computerizing. Many farmers substituted microcomputer accounting systems for mail-in systems in which they bad ptmously participated. 6 ltlft/NfJW York Stady (1984) Scherer and Yarbrough (1984) further cn~inecJ adoption of microcomputers by farmers in Iowa and New York. The studies were based upon random farmer panels in Iowa ill W"mter 1982, 1983 and 1984. The usable samplo mes were 531, 368 and 32S in the n:spective These reflect respoase rates of at least 60 percent. The same procedures were used in New Y otk in 1984. There were 630 respondents, which reflected a response rate of 70 perc:ent. The adoption rates for the random sample were 3, 5, and j percent in 1982, 1983 and 1984, respectively. Most farmers wae aware of microcomputers. SC\a percent of. farmers were in an ew1uadoa stage in 1982 and moved up to about 15 percent m 1983 and 1984. The adopters comistenrly tended to be younger, haw more educatioa, 111d have larger farm busincsw. Rejection was highest for older farmers, lcsa educated farmers, aacJ smaPer farmers7 The perccnt of adopters wlm had prior compatcr apericnco WII in the 40 to 50 percent range it was 15 perccnt or lesa far tbmo wbo had rejected purcbasing a microcomputer. Those in tbe evaluation stage were intermediate. Uso of cm flow aaalysis, eaterpriso aca>unring. aad Cutmcs markets wu greater by respondents who bad parchascd computers or wbo were in tbe evaluation stage. Tolan COllldJ Callfonda SIU'ftJ (1986) Aa 189' rmdom. mail survey of farms in Tulare Collllt)', California WU c:oaducted m 1986 to estimate the cmem of compatcr owaersbip ud tbe aamre of computer applic:arioas (Puder and Zi1bermaD, 1988). Fortyme percent of tbe farms saney responded. Appr eximrcly one out of four farms owm:d computers. Table D.1 depic:rs, for tbmo farmers who owm:d computers, tbe pcramtage who used various app6cadons. There was a large range ill app&c:adoas; three out of four farms used accounting software ( e.g.; pacral Jedger and cast accoundng) while less dum one out of the used producdoa maaagement decision aids 6niere is coasiderable anecdotal evidence farmers haw made much more use of their records when they had more control over structuring them aad being able to interactively query the data base. They also maintain more information in the context of farm specific" decisions. 7 Older farmers also tend to be less educated.

PAGE 209

9 ud/or crop liw:stock management software. Approximately six out of ten farms who owned computers used spreadsheets (e.g., Excel, LOTUS 1-2-3,.0uattro, SuperCalc), with very high rates of application for college educated farmers. Table 11.2 depicts the probability of ac:coamin& spreadsheet, and production decision aid being used by a 41-50 year old farmer with no farm related be:sinesses The table is for all farms, not just those with computers. Computer applicadoa iDc:reases with farm size, farm operator cducadoa, and for multi enterprise farms. Computer applicaticm patterns difl'er, hOMm:r, for the largest farm category-those with annual gross sales in rms of $4,000,000. These farms made less use of spreadsheet data base management software than smaDer farms. Iaterviews by tbe authors with experts in Tulare collllt)' sugest difference., in patterns were due to type of computer used; ltbe largest farmers tended to own mini-and mainframe computers while medium and smaDer farms (by CaliforJmia staadards) OWD microcomputers. Also, some dairy farmers make use of time share computers for lhatoc:k records and tactical decisioD aids for sefecriag feeding Urategies, making culling decisions, and creadng "to-do lists (e.g., list of cows for the w:terinariaD to enmiae). Dairy farmers were the most likely to 111e decisioD suppc;rt appHcadoa& 11us result was expected because of these dccisioas are very stradllred (well clefined) wt the aatare ad form of the decision aids bas evolved aver die last twad)'-fhe ,em. Mally early mainframe prototype app6cadoas in the 1960's were ia this area. t>ecisioa iuppo,t app&cadons bectme widely a9lilable andcr time-share computing in the early 1970's, particalarlJ iD CalifomiL Aa tbe Dumber of farm eaterpri.,es f.be JiJcefihood of using crap/Jhestock management appHcatiom increases:. IDc:reased complmity iDc:reases the aeecl for tools to monitor and manage complexity. Shailarly, ownership of farm related hninesses signifioatly iDc:reases computer ownership and application. 0waen of sales related b11si:-esses ( e.s.i, padriag sbed) are more likely to me ...,marrioa proc:e:ssing applications mch as payroll and UMlltory. Parma with pest control advice related bosineuea are more likely to own decision aid applications. Farms with farm menage,nent CODSUldng related MSiaesses were more likely to own spreadsheet and data base management appBcadoas. The authors conjecture that the Iowa' use of crop proclucdoa orieDted dedsioD aids was due to the lack of adequate, field tested crop simulation models. These arc still ill the early development stage (particularly, relatiw to livestock feeding) and do not even exist for some crops. Further, mmy of the more simple crop

PAGE 210

10 decision aids (e.g., fertilization rates) have tended to be amenable to printed Fact Sheets (although this is becoming less true u gro~ protection iaues are more adequately taken into account) while livestock feeding and formulation software ur,1izea matbemaric:al programming aJgoritbms that are not suited to solution with a SlO calculator and a worksheet. Adopdoa or Compaten By New York Dairy rumen (1917) Lazarus aacl Smith (1988) studied 335 participmta in a 1986 farm business smnmary aad analysis project conducted by Conu:11 Unm:nity. The participaDII were pcrmhed to be beUer tlrm -=rage maaagen because of the nature of the program, and camaot be caasidaecl a represeatalne sample of all New Yk dairy farms. The number of fanni with c:ompacers used far ICC01lllriDg iDcreasecl &om L4. ill 1983 to 2.89' ill 1984, 4.2% in 1985 and &,., in 1986. Many of tbe farms bad more tlrm oae operator. Tbe younger operators witb more education tended to be the indmduals using the computer. Tbe computer OWDCl'S had benb that were about 809' larger than the avenge for the sample, wl avcrapd 545 mare milk sold per UJW. TIie aadaaa also studied paid consubnts asecl by tbe farmers. Silty-two percem of the farms retained wterialrillll. far monthly wsb, 81CJ, ased ta prepmas, 48CJ, asecl KQXIDd"I senices, 359' used herd management a,irm, wt 3>'1, 1IICd rariaa formuJarion scniccs. Yomager farmers with more ecb.acation v.,:re more likely to use tbree infonnation 10un:es (computer OMICl'Sbip, aco,u.aring ucl sc:beduled wteriaarian visits) .. Corapater Onenldp a, COIIIIDlftlal Oldo Cull Gnlll rumen (1917) Batte et.al. (1988) ma,1ed a mney addressing iaformatioa asap aa cammcn:ial.cash crop farms to a slrarified rudam sample ol 1800 crmmercial farms. Tho primary focm of the suney was 011 iDformarioa used in ~~an1 marbdDg d~ inducfmg the ro1e o1 microcomputers uc1 software and c1ara baes. Futy-tbree percent of the quesdanaairea we retmaed; forty-one perc:eat of the questionnaires were for farmers who we farming and c:rmpleted the quesdormahe. The retumed qucstioaaaires wbich had not been completed were primarily &om redred ran.a or others wbo had aired farming, with a small ~ber refused to answer tbe suney. ~( \,,.. t ,,. d'-''i

PAGE 211

11 The authon further sub-divided their farms to those with at least a hundred acres of grain crops and with ao major lnestock eat~ comprised approximately thirty percent of the ac=ptable questionnaires. The ftl'IF farm me for this sperialized sub-group was 730 acres. The ffCl'IF age of respondents was 48.8 years, &om twmty-&ve to eigbty-tbree years. Parm aperiellce ruaged from six to silly-five years, with aa aerap of~ years. Eigbty-oae percent of the sub-sample bad a high scboo1 educatiOll or leu with tbe balance doing some college degree wort. One half of one percent bad post graduate work. Forty-three percent had part-time off.farm employment. Twenty-eight percent of the respondents plan to expand, fifty-six percent plan to maintain their current size, while &fteen percent plan to reduce their farm size or exit &om Sewmteea percent of tbe farmers use computers in business maaapment, while eigbty-tbrec percent did not. The authcn found larger farms tended to rank all informadoa sources bigbm' tbaD anaUer farms. Farmers with more formal ~PC1tioa placed less value on broadcast media sources than less educatecl farmers. Farmers who used computers as a management tool placed less value on _broadcast sources and more value on profes~ comubnts Uld periodicals tlrm farmers who did aoc use computers. Awdocal !-+free, Prlmarlly l'NIII TIie Mid-West (1988/89) A group of eight crop aacl livestoc:t CODSPkants met in March of~ to review tbe potendal of a sample of. DSS software for dairy /aop farms (Rotz and Black, 1989). The CODS1dtants were &om Iowa, Illinois, and W-JSCODSUI Some of tho c:oasukants speriaJized in dairy cattle management and feeding while others spe-cia!ized in cropping yStem management. Educadon ranged &om m to Ph D. The coas11Jtanrs in age from late 20's to mid 50's. AD of the a,mnkants -=d microcomputers in their bnsiaesses; some of tm coasnJtants were also software providers and/o, provided suppoa services. 0De of~ consnkanrs bad been a hardware/software wmdor iD tbe early 19SJ's (CP /M era described iD tbe Indiana stacly) and bad withdrawa from the market because of Joaes iaacm1ecl. M part of the dismssio-\ the partic:ipars were asked to estimate the extent of microcomputer ownership in their areas. The esdmatm were placecl ia the ten to twenty percent range. They stated use wu highest for farmers who were younger and who had more formal ecfucadon, a result consistent with all previous survey information. Larger farmers were perceived as being more likely to own and .use microcomputers.

PAGE 212

12 A second survey was conducted using a small sample of faculty teaching farm management at Purdue (Indiana), Micbipn State Uanersity, and tho University of MiDDesota-Miwapolis/St. Paul They were asked what proportion of. the students they bad who were planning to return to commercial farms were &om farms that either bad or were c:oatempladng purchasing persoaa1 computer. the response was forty to fifty percent. O.C. TIie l1radan ol apicaltare ad die ecoaomlcs of microcomputer ue no economic~ of U.S. agric:ulture is very beterogeDcous (OTA, 1986). Farms come in several types ranging from Great Plains farms raising a single crop under a aop/&Jlow scheme to farms in other regions with camp)icatecl rotations imohiDg as many as me crops. Some farms grow annuals such as wheat while others grow perenniak such II tree crops. Farm size raagea &om put-time operalions, where farming is not the principal occupadoa to one to three family operations where family members provide a significant portion of the labor to large farms where the operator is primarily a manager ud most of tbe labor is purcbaSNL The potential role for microcomputer technology is different in each of these CIMl'OIUDems as ~ugested by tbe Tulare County, Cmifomia,may.8 Al a c:oarat for refereace, a 600 acre farm ia the cam belt raising com, soybeans, and wheat. That waaJdbe a tJpical one family opcndoa, with suppm!en11J seaonal labor required for plnring 'lad banest. TIie tJpical computer that waald be .:ommcnded for a farm ia tllll size nDp and complexity would cost $2,SOO iadvcfing printer (AIMS, 1989). The S2,SOO estimate for hardware costs does not iadude momtoring technologies sach II wadlersations, data lagers, or the capacity to do some of the graphics that would be associated with a Geographic lnformadon System (GIS). They do cowr tbe casts of hardware systems that would permit 1"IIDIWlg most of tbe software used by farmers today. Perhaps, a modem would be purcbascd also to facilitate COIIUP'mricatioa with bulledn boards and oa-liae iDformatioD senicm. A complete line of software is projected at $2,500, although it cmrendy would cost signitkantly more. The pn,jr,c:doas of reducecl software prices are based apoa significant increases in computer ownership and 8Hepp and Olson (19SJ) point out that the iafQl'!Dation wda and the form tbe information is in can be quite c&fferent for different sizes of farms. While many technologies, in and of tbemselves, are me neutral ( e.g., most hybrids) the management available to exploit them may be quite different. Hepp and Olson noted that nearly half ofMidrigan's farmers (0.US of Agriculture definidoa) were part-time. While the percentage of land they farm is much smaller than their numbers, they can significmtly impact the landscape and groundwater. Typically, smaller and part-time farmers wanted much more "how to do it" information and lcs.1 concept and proceu information than full time and larger farmers.

PAGE 213

13 reductions in cost of produc:ing. delivering and servicing software.9 Both factors will contribute to bringing down the per unit cost of software; The S2,SOO projection may be at the lower end of the projections, and retlect only modest iDtegradoa in a sense. The cost of ~oping higher quality, more complete (and, complex), and more integrated and databate systems will be significantly gteater tbaa for much of the c:urrendy available software. Training and support c:osta will also iacrease. However, tbe "tools available to produce software and new concepts in software design are recturing software development aad maintenmn costs; dae factors should partially ameliorate the added costs. A by factor will be whether there will be a large enougb increase in the number of users to bring per mm costs don and make systems COit effccme. If we mame tliat tbe hardware and software lme a the year efl'ective &fe, tbe mual ownership cost would be appro1i111,1tely Sl,500, or S2.SO per acre. Pew aew uscn would buy a complete line .,f software, complete in the contest of the dccisbt.s that must be made on their farm. A much more typic:a1 approach would VP Planner), 'decision aid' spreadsheet templatea, and two the staac1 aJoae programs. Initially, many farmers parcbased too; howw:r, tbal would be mucb lesa commoa tlrm purcbasiag a spreadsheet. Components of a farmer's "lit cur decisjoa support system often mclude: (1) a field record ~em which.stares and recrietes measurements by &elcl such as soil type, soil nllbicm availability tests, pest problems, fertilizers and manure applied, herbicides, imecdcides, fungic:ictes, and aematicidcs applied, hybrid.1 and plant popalatioas used, tillage practices, and yields (and, perhaps, costs) by field; (2) crop management dedsion aids such a tbose whicb '1:COmmcnd fertimer applicadon rates aad timing pm soil mmieDt awi1ability tests, 9Software acquisidoa prices might look as follows: standard utmdes for managing tiles, recovering mes and 1- iug up the bard disk would total S200 to $300; a word processor would be S100 to $250; a spreadsheet and supporting 'add-ma' would be S300 and SSOO; cfecisioa aid" tem~ for the spreadsheet would be S100 to $400; an ICCOllllting program (geDeral lecfpr, enterprise accounts, payroll, accounts payable and accounts receivable) would be SSOO to S2SOO depending upon options (most 600 acre farm systems would be at the lower end of the scale); financial projections ( cash flow, profit and loa, and bafaace sheet) would be S200 to $2,000, aop field records would be S1SO to SSOO, and various stand alone (but, perhaps integrated with the crop field records data base) decision support modules such as fertilizer recommendations, pest auessm~t and recommendations, land rental and purchase decisions, machinery custom hire vs. lease vs. purchase decisions, and whether or not to participate in the Federal Government acreage reduction or conservation resene programs could total $200 to Sl,500.

PAGE 214

14 previous crop, manure applied, method of applicatior.., and yield goa110; and (3) an accounting system. A stand alone program for projecting finaacial documents such as cash Dow, profit statement, anct balance sheets might be pun:nased; also, spreadsheet templates ue widely available for that fmactioa. Tim configuration would be typical of the software used by college educated oae to three family farm me in the Tulare County, California suney. The iatrodacdoa of tbe more intemM, decisiora support actmdes aswriared with microcomputer systems typically would inc:re&1e management and cleric:al time requirements, not requirements (Harsh and Broo~ 1988). that is because few individuals without computers maintain the darab-sc or do the level of analysis dud i., associated with the apprarioas we !me described. Thus, the quality of decisions would be projected to imprme, bat both additioaal capal ud labor would be required to fadlitate the imprcwement. Addidonal ezpeaditma wou1d also be reqairecl for education, senic:e, ad such services u telephone time for on-line ac=sa and tbe COit of on-line access. The 600 acre farm was cbmen a a point of departan, because tJw L, a sm: at which many experts feel the value ol the adctidoaal decisioa support e c :eds tbo cost md, puticularly for multi-enterprise farms, for which tbe c:omplmridea of tbe farm opendoaa make it difficult to minreia and maaap information in one's iafonudaaal aequi,e-aam telame to aniF-menel caasidcradcm will iDcrease the wd for malriag more compr-cared .,==._., ar acqairiag consnlting iapat supplier services which meet tbosc requiremems.11 Many smPer and part-time farms may me computers as well, partly justi&ed by DOil-farm uses. They would a1so be apeded ro 1me Jess extemive agricaltura1 software aac1 mjgbt we11 me the hardware expenditure of appimia1ately half of what we me budgeted. Larger farms are more likely to ba~ more atensive hardware, lOedacarioaal programs c:oaclacted by Cooperadw F#emioa Serrice staff ad, to a signifioar extent private sector providcn, have focased upon geaiag gaowa1 to est.abfisb realistic yield goals. For mmple sec Beck (1988) and Bundy (1987). 11Maay iapat suppliers (e.g., farm supply dcalen) and crop c:oasultaDts are curready using microcomputer modela and suppoatiag data bases for mkh,g NaJ111eendadoaa on fertilizer ase ad timing ucl pesticide use decisiaas to farmers. la many cases. these dccisioas c:oald be macb more fine tuned (and, usually, result in lower fertilizer and chemical input) if better farmer data bases were available (e.g., good weed maps indicating type, scope, ancl presmre). ID some cases, CODS1alt1nts and dealers are providing the monitoring ud data base fmlctioa. This is also true for muy 1PM services aad cooperathes. Other ~aizanon aJtrmativm could be used for support of farmers who are too small to support their own decision support systems. The models and data base structures used by farmers and by input suppliers and consultants are sometimes the same. They differ primarily in how they are integrated and the amount of farm specific information that is available. Typically, one of the great!=St challenges is to improve the farm spcci.6c data bases.

PAGE 215

15 particularly including linkages into a more complete decision support system with interfaces to data recording devices, and perhaps more expensive software. Howcver, on a per unit of production basis, the cost may not be significantly larger than it is for the 600 acre reference farm. nese annual costs per acre may be placed in the context of cost of production of agricultural commoctities Costs obviously vary coasidcrably by type of farm and by farm me. A point of reference, however, is the a\'el'lgO aon-land cost of producdm for cash grain farms with 400 to 800 tillable acres in Michigan ia 1988; they were S205 per acre (Hepp, 1988). ILD. Pmate aad pabllc sector softwan veadon ud oa-llae data bases Table 11.3 gives a partial list of private sector software companies offering principally agricultural software.12 The table provides a sense of the range of companies and their geographic locatioa.13 Some of these. ,mdor,~ also sell hardware iDcluding tam-key ~/software systems (e.g., Pioneer Hi-Bred IDtemalioaal). T1lo private software ,enc1ors provide a wide range of software iDcludiDg accounting packages ( e.g., general ledpr, IC CD11Dfl teCefflble. rmll payable, payroll), crop &eld and lltestock record systems, financial -~ --1u.:. ---r.L-... of d -:..1-:~..a:.... -.:-1. I 1---.,!-.-.! de r--,-_.. ..... .. pl'"Y9I, u.uir.lel A:OSIOII .ua wuwue auuu ,ormn 1--, ,~OD --rmoDS, irripdoa schedu&ng. aad pest managem=. SCMra1 agric:ultural offer programs to wist farmers in pricing commodities, iDc:lwting access to on-line iaformadoa senic:es. Often, these senic:es may include data ...l.!-L. L-aw.Ill.. -~d wllMiill um grower CID ase m masmgecmon& Some m the companies (e.g., Darasphere and PBS) offer software package,, designed for use by c:onsukanrs, bank trust departments, and farm maaapment senic:e burea~ Some of these packavs are used of tbe 1elldors listed are members of the Association of Agricultural Computing CcDpanies AACC sell standards for agricaltaral software maDufactarers and distributon to follow as they ~p and market software and computer systems. It also takes OD projeas too large for iDdmdual companies such as market dcvelopmeat. coasamer (of their products) education wl coasumer a8ain. 13nm sectioa draws heavily on various iuues of Doane's Agrlcaltanl Compatlna and the North Central Computer Institute Newsletter and software data base. Doane's Agrlmltanl Computing serves as a software directory for the members of the Asmciation of Agricultural Computing Companies. It includes both AACC and non-AA.CC incumber ~ftware.

PAGE 216

16 on large commercial farms. The software ~ends to focus on accounting and financial functions, although there arc programs for irrigation scheduliq and pest managem~at consultants. Public sector wadon Most Land Grant Umersities make eltcllSffl: use of microcomputer programs ill their teaching ud senice actmties. Many computer programs arc also available through software distribution centers for a mode.,t price; typically, support services are not offered that are comparable to those provided by major vendors. Elamples of the types of software offered include cash t1ow projcc:tioa (spreadsheet templates and stand alme computer programs), farm lmsines., and financial maaagem traasirioaal planning (fom-year, whole farm fiaadal projectioa for farmers planning to make 07aizadoaal or i1m:stmmt cbaDges ill their farm bmness), crop field history clatelNc maaapment programs, fertilizer and lime recommendations, herbicide selcc:tion, sprayer c:alibradoa, plant disease diagnosis, 1PM applicadoas, irripdoa scheduling. crop storage decisiorw, multiple peril crop imurance purchase decision cvaluadoa, livestock radon cvaluadoa and formulation, livestock productmtyindcxes, livestock facilities scbedulmg, land rental and purchase altenudives (m and out), and siting of septic systems. This enumeration is merely of available dcdsioa support components 14 Federal (e.g., Soil Service/USDA) and state agency's (Departmeuts of Agricukure and Natani Resaarces) oftea make extemme use of microcomputer software microccJl!apater software wbm working with farmers and oa more general problems (e.g., watenbcd mnagemrmt). SCS/USDA bas se,,cral microcomputer programs and database management systems tbat are standard nadmwly. Some of these are used in evaluating altematnes for meeting the conservation compliance features of the 1985 Pood Security Act ( a.k.a Parm BDI). 14A mrectOl'J of agricultural software is maintained by the North Cealra1 Computer Imtitute located at the Umersity of W!SCODSin-Madisoa. In many instances, a larger number of states will aw a computer program that bas the same objcdffl: as a program ia a nearby state ( e.g., fertilizer remmmendarioas; herbicide recommendarioas). While some consolidation is taking plac:c, this is tbe outgrowth of the fact that the soils and crops grown often dift'cr significantly from state to state and that much of the software grew out of concepts, information, and worksheets in printed Pact Sheets tbat were state specific. Catalog., of available Land Grant Umersity software can be obtained by contacting the College of Agriculture Software Distribution Services in each state. Doane's Agricultural Computing provides a listing of some of the publicly available software, particularly that available &om land grant universities.

PAGE 217

17 On-llne agricultural services Table D.4 depicts a list of on-line agricultural services.15 Many university Cooperative Extension Services, in addition to the ones noted, offer some kind of educational and information services such as the status of pests in various areas of a state. Some State Departments of Agriculture besides thme listed may provide information serrices too, typically in areas such as weather and tbe status of pem.16 Also, there are more locally oriented bulletin boards that have not been cited. ne principal use of iDformadon senices at this time is in market informadoa, pricing advice on commodities, and to a leaer extent public domain decision support software available for down loading and data bases oa federal and state pes&icide regulations and related information. Ill. THE DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM CONCEPT AND MICROCOMPUTER APPLICATIONS FOR SUPPORT OF DECISION MAKING BY FARMERS The purpose of this section is to de\dop a more general ~y to fact1itatc: seeing computer program as a system, not just as a collection of stand alone computer programs, each independent of the next. This need originarn from at least two sources. ID the New York suney of farmers cited earlier, farmers stated they did not lib duplic:ame entering of Jie information, nor the manual entering of tbc output of one program as input into a second program. Second, and more important, the interdependencies among decisions that must be taken into account. This is particularly true of doing "What it1" scenario studies. Last, farmers need the ability to query their data bases in ways that permit them to better appreciate consequences of previous decisions for future actions. Similarly, farmers aced to be able to query data bases that are external to the farm data base for information on both tecbrric:al parameters (~ estimates of how a particular cropping system would be expected to work under their c:in:nmsta1XeS) and legal restrictions (pesticide label restrictions, beSt management practices (BMPs), mniDg ordinances -) 15rbe NCCI Quarterly, published by the North~ computer Institute located at the University of W-ISCOllml-Madisoa, and Doaae's Agrlcultanl Computlac attempt to maintain up to date listinp of software, on-line serrices and bulletin boards of interest to agricu1turalists, including farmers. l6niese activities have characteristics public policy specialists call public~'; that is, once the information is developed the cost of making it available to everyone is not much higher than the cost of making it available to a single individual. :l \ \ \ --~' '.'

PAGE 218

18 The section concludes with some examples of DSS that illustrate certain points and/ or relate to standard programs that have been enhanced to better deal with groundwater protection. Last, we'll outline general classes of relevant software that are c:urrendy available. DLA. Concept ot dedsloa support 111tems The DSS ctiscusman will begin with a standard overview of the dedsion ma)cjng process. Next, formal DSS tamnomy will be presented along with examples for illusttaliw purposes. Declaloa ... w,. procell Nowak (1988) provides a useful cbalJenge to what he regards the popular stereotype of the farmer as a pas.me recipient of information. He says: Coatrary to popular belief, the farmer is not aa empty sponge amioqsly waiting to be 611ed with valuable mights &om -experts. Instead, information t1ow to and among farmers is a very competitive, sperieftzed proc:esa. Most farmers face a situadoa of information overload rather tlrm iaformadon depmadoa. Farmers are bombardecl daily_ wit.la mfonnadon ._ seeds, fertilm:rs, pesticides, _mad,iacry, livestock, ad other farm iDpms. la additioa, tbey n:a:M: a compla stream of information on management stratep:s, marketing of products, opdoaa available under a multitude of government prop~ &nanrial rJanaing, tu pJannia& and data oa trends in agrica1tural markets. Further, farm and eclucariOIW 09aizadoas send newsletters, notices, and Pact Sheets. Cooperadves and farm supply dealers scad oat information on the latest pricingiafonnarion. farmers are informed about the latest gadgets 111d euendar tools tbat are supposedly a must for any farm operation. In addition, they receive their~ of juDk mail and phone solidtarioas (many c:1mify questioamires from uniwrsity researchers, gow:rnment agendcs. and agribusineu &rms iD this way): A widely med tm,nomy for desc:ribing tho makiag process (particularly, the desired process) i., as follows ( e.g., Bransford and Stem, 1984; Harsh, et. al., 1981; Huber, 1980; McCall and Kaplan 1985): L Identify problem(s) (dlaposls; implies the existence of an earlier goal setting activities); 2. Identify alternatives to solve problems (generate);

PAGE 219

19 3. Identify and mlluate the consequences of the alternatives identified, such as impact on expected net income, risk of faillfe, labor use, and environmental impacts ( e.g., risk of impairing groundwater quality); 4. Choose tho alternative that best meets the farm. falllily's goals; S. Implement and initiate follow throap and moaltarlag; 6. Rmew outcome of the choice and its implementation in order to add to farmer's "knowledge base. Most management experts find it useful to describe questioaa as either stntep: or tactical. Strategic decisions are longer-run in nature and infrequently made. They are broad in scope, haw= longer effectJ, and deal with the broad selection of means. Examples indude buying land, selecting the crop rotation that will be used as a reference point CM:I' the next the to ten years, and the broad form of the approach to pest management. Many strategic iaucs are fuzzy, not well structured, and tend to haw leu well defined data bases both internal and external to the farm. Tactical decisiom are made very frequently. They are tho means for implementing and modifying the strategic: game pla. They are more concerned with finding '1le best spedfic means to acbiew= goals, are more c:oncrmecl with timing. aad are much narrower in scope dum strategic plans. Examples are form, lcvcl and timing of fertilm:r app&carion or pest c:omrol approach lfflll the sb"atcgic: plan. Tacrical issues tend to be leu fuzzy, better Sb'lldl1red, and tend to more well defined data bases both external and iatemal to the farm. Typically" tactical decision support systems for crop produc:aon an, designM given a strategic plan -to follow a crop, seqamtially, through the season beginning with preparatory tillage and c:oarinuing through banest and marketing. Ia principal, tbe question is always -what is tbe best action to tab at this stage of the season, given what bas bappeaed so far, and taking into account the consequences of today's dedsiom and future decisions that must be mad,?" Dedlloll sapport 1,steau: tbe compoaeall A dc:cisioa support system must ha...a the capacity to facilitate dealing with both strategic and tactical mnagemmt questiom including the pneration of mnagemad: reports. Figure 111.1 providca an cm:niew of the components of a decision support system. 11le system must ba\'e moclela and databases to support both

PAGE 220

20 strategic and tactical dec:isioQS (the right side of F"tgUre WJ).17 Further, it must have component databases for the farm business including production, marketing. finance, personnel and environmental considerations (the left side of Figure III.l). The center of Figure IIL1 depicts the DSS model and the DSS data base DUIJUllellleDt modules. In a 'full-blown' DSS, for example, there will be a sh~ that the user (farmer) uses to manage the computer models and awodat"-Cl data haw required to pncrate the reports, 4UCIY the data bases, and get assistance for whatewr stage of the decision maJcing process in which the farmer is enpgcd. Currently, there arc no DSS with these properties in agriculture which cover most of the decisions that are made on farms; systems are emerging for decisions in a particular area such u weed c:ontroL 18 There are components of DSSs cum:ndy aYlilable for both the private and public sectors that haw many of the cbarac:teristics outlined. Por mmple, much of tho more complete accounting software is integrated (Le., gmera1 ledger, payroll, accounts receivable, accounts payable. tu preparation). Rudimentary production management DSSs are beginning to evolve where models such as fertilimr and herbicide recommmdations call a crop field record system for a description of the soil type of. the field ( could include components of the Soils 5 record maintained by Soil Consemdoa Senice/United States Dcpartmcat of Agriculture wl include additional mformadon on type, soil physical propcltics, esrimatcs of nutrient levels wl pH, and depth to groundwater; coaceivably, another data base would haw otber relevant mfonnadoa on the aquifer). These models are primarily DI tbe prototype stage. 17 Alter 1973, 1!779; Blackie and Dent 1979; Davis 1974; Emery 1987; Harsh 1987, 1989; Mills, ct. al. 1986; Murdick and M1IIIIOII 1986; Sprague 198); and Sprague and Carlson 1982 provide overviews of decision support systems and coacepts that led to their developmcat. ID tho corporate world, the concept often (but, not always) is used more narrowly than used DI this paper; their focm tends to describe DSS a an outgrowth of the shor,c:oa,inp of maaapm information systems (MIS). MIS focused upon generating structured reports useful for managemfl!Dt questions, bat less well suited to lea structured questions. Espert s,strml (e.g., Carrico et.al. (1989); Hanb, l988; Hayes-Roth, 1983; Michalski et. al., 1983; Parsyne md Oignel\ 1988; Stone ct.al., 1986; ucl Slaaer, 1987) wl ...-p1a1c bd'onaadoa 1J1tem1 (Appendix A) are treated a S11bset of decision support systems in this paper. Expert systems are based upon different principles wl solution strategies tbaa traditional algoridmuc approacbes but tbe objccthe is paerally the same. Thus, while the approach is an important milestone in moving forward in supporting decision making the critical point here is that they aist and 6t DI tbe standard DSS taxonomy. Ulite:lders who haw WOfked with integrated word processor, spreadsheet, and database management computer programs haw a flavor" of the concept. An objective is to be able to m"' etfortlealy around components, induding passing information back and forth. The overall program is the shelr that manages the components. D 1~-1

PAGE 221

21 There have been at least three drawbacks to the development of these full blown .models excluding environmental considerations. First, users ~ust be able to enter the system at any point. On one hand, experienced user's want to shortcut many steps. On the other band, new users only want to use portions of a Sccoad, model and data component integration is a significant task and requires a large market to justify the expense of its development. Third, there is not enough staadardi7.ation across state lines and few companies arc large enough to justify the potential development effort to generate an acceptable system. Development may come as more and more prototyping is done, as more standardization occurs, and as enough farmers begin to use computers to warrant a complete system u contrasted to stand alone models or component systems. Thus, the current focus is upon prototyping the concept, more and better stand-alone components, and integration on a limited scale. The retrieval of external information, often in a real-time19 mode, can be a key component of a full blown DSS. F'igure DL2 depicts components that are being prototyped at Mic:bigaa. State University's Dairy /Crop Parm at the K'cDog Biological Stadoa. 20 These include inf0"'Dado,, dlat is being elec:troaic:ally gathered &om tbe on-farm weather station, irrigation system measurements, 111d seleded aniuJ11mar1J monitoring components to farutato mnagem=: of the irrigated crops, iDclading both water ud chemical management ( chemipti,.,n). Tho iDfC)fflladoa is fed iiato a database which is called by the irrigation management module. Also, since some of the dairy wastes are in a liquid form, they ue iac:orporated using the irriptioa system. That requires informad.on on both the availability and nutrient coatent of the wastes and other components. 21 Software dmigners are moving toward a common strategy in the face of these c:oasiderations. The c:oacepts ol a model base, darabtusc, data co1lectioa network, aacl model and darablse maaapn are maintained. Three levels of intcgradon of DS components are coasidered: (1) stand-alone (typical of most of the 1st and 2nd 190n-tbo-fly. Zrhe Km data acquisition netWOrk is more extensive and expensive dum can be cmrent1y justified on l!Oands, b many components are cost eft'ectne and others may become economic as more simple apprm,111tioas evolve. 21Maintenance of some of th~ el~nic information gathering devices has been very problematic. Lightening strikes have knocked out components of the system at least once a year since prototyping was initiated.

PAGE 222

22 generation agric:ultural software); (2) parent-child structure for some components of a system;22 and (3) full integration of all (most) components. -i,ie move is toward parent-child structures where a parent program (~.g., a crop c:nterprise budget generator) calls a child program ( e.g., fcrtili7.er or peat control recommendations). Both the parent and child programs will accept information from either. keyboard entry or from databases such as field record systems or external data bases such as cbarac:teristic of products ( e.g., water solubility, soil adsorption, wlatility, or soil diuipation). ID.B Selected appllcatloas that Wustrate DSS lnipdoa Sclaedallaa: TIie lntegratloa Of Groundwater Protedloa lnlonaatloa There are a number of irrigation scheduling programs available in both the private sector and the public sector, including senic:es olfered by SCS/USDA. These emerged for a number of reasons, including the need for more eflicient use of water and energy. The following section describes a prototype irrigation scheduling program in the parent-child structure that is being developed at Micbipa State University (Vatosh and Harsh, 1989; Ritch~ 1986). Rw:bie also f~ OD tbe lew1 ud timing of Ditropll applicadom. This program includes a iDdex of tbo potendal for nitropD leaching beyoacl tbe root zone. Tabl:a DL3a and ID.3b depict two scrama from tbc computer program for a coarse soil in southwestena M"-cbipn Tbe refereace aop is com. The farmer's tactical IIUllllpmCDt objectiw is to maiataia soil moisture of at least 60CJr, of capacity, the right lrmcl part of Table IIL3a. When the grower irrigates, water is acldecl iD m attempt to bring the soil moisture content up to~-Weather forecasts can be taken into account in making this judgement. The ICt1lal pc:rrmt moisture cont.eat ia depicted; as well as a graphical represcntadoa; "pluses are ascd when the soil moisture COllb:llt is less than whereas astcriw arc used when more moisture is awilable drm soil lboisture capacity. We see that aa Jane 28 a 2.4 iDcla rainfall occumd whicb, given the ment of irrigatioD on June 26th pasbed the soil moisture content over and lead to pushing water (and, potentially nitrogen) below the root zone. That fact is depicted qwmdtative1y under the drainage and qualitatM:ly under the header nitrogen Jeac:hiag iDdex of Table ID.3b. 22Readers who use IBM and compabole microcomputers will recognize this concept in the form of hierarchical directories. l ~).J,\

PAGE 223

23 IILC. Classes or software that are currendy available and used In support of US farmer's decisions Our goal in this section is to place the various microcomputer models in the context of DSS and focus on crop and lm:stock production models relevant to groundwater quality. Fust, most models are stand alone with self-coatalaed databases, but they are moving .. toward being more parent-child oriented and model-database oriented. The interest of major regional agric:ulmral cooperadves and private secton companies will hasten this development if they can maintain viable systems. Note, these focus upon both dealers and farmers with the focus differing among companies. Second, most Land Grant Universities and many companies haw models for making fertilization and pest management dcc:isions; the move is to make these more sensime to environmental issues ( e.g. Beck, 1988; Bird et. al., 1985; Bundy, 1987; Doane lnformadon Services, 1988). A significant cbaOcnge for these developers is whether to incorporate explicit risk comideradoas in models w. ue research models to wist in the dcM:Jopment of label pideHnm, best management practices, zoning and suggestions for legislation. Many may opt for the latter posidoa, restricdag their &e1d models to the scope ~f ~-defined liabilities that the farmer mast take into account in decision making Tbird, there are group& taking mac:11 more of a whole farm, sttatcp: maaapment approach to the mJuarioa of farming s,stema. Por mmple, apprmimttcly 30 State Coopenme Extension and some lenders participate iD the use of tbe Uaiversity of U-nme,cnta PINPAK et. aL, 1988) system for mluadon of tbe impacts of abillame farming systems oa pro&ability and financial position. 23 Ikerd et. al. (1988/89) are ateacting this approach to tab more c:zplicit c:oasidcratioa of environmental comequenccs; it is a small, bat mcfai start that complements the stand" aloae component modeJs. 24 --------23 The primary use of.PINPAIC is in support of Laslcl Grant Uniwrsity ecbacadoaal programs. it is available to the public, bat priced such that it's not cost efredffl: em:pt to large wlume users. HO'ft't'a', PINPAIC has been saccessfully prototyped Oil ia.dividual farms. 24ne Ikerd/Hawkins (and, associates) approach complemema the admties of dcM:Jopers and users of stand-alone and parent-child modeJs. 11ley are de,eloping enterprise budgets ( e.g.. for com following com vs. com following in a Corn-COm-soybean-Wheat rotation) which specify the practices which will typically be followed to achiew particular objectives. This approach has the advantage that it builds upon methods widely used in farm management and by lenders.

PAGE 224

24 IV. GROUNDWATER PROTECTION IN AGRICULTURE ne potential for groundwater degradation arises &om at leut four farm-level operations: livestock rearing, cropping or pasture production, feecbtuffs storage and bandJing; and waste and fuel conrainm,:nt. Cooperation is needed among researchers and menders of information m the public and private sector, along with appropriate legislathe ruJes of the game, to develop economically. Wible management alternatives that protect groUDdwater quality. The DSS concept provides a systems &amework for analyzing a1rernative farming system de.,ign and management alternatives to assess both economic and environmental performance. DSS, including database and model base software, can provide amstance to ~., coa.wfranrs, input suppliers, public agencies mch u the SCS/USDA, and educators m meeting these objecmes. Specifically, microcomputers are ,my useful for calmfating formulas (and, more complicated models), interrogating databases, and searching and sorting. Farmers and thme who work with farmers greater capability in these areas than was true a decade ago. Often, hoM:,er, the iuue is one of do we understand what is going oa well enough to make the calc:ufations, md, if we can, do we bow how t:o place infonnation m a proper context? IV A. All lllamadw aample Par iJl1lltrad'9 pm(A1n, 111111110 that levela ol risk worired with groundwater degradation by any subst.aace or compound coald be dassi&d25 u follows: am L M'urimal risk of groundwater degradadon ( e.g., little chance of any substance or material "eld,mg groUDdwater am 2. Degradation with DOiie to minimal health risk (e.g.. addition of phosphorous, sodium, chloride, ) pvssmm, magaesmm Cm 3. Degradation with mhrimf to moderare health risk (e.g., add.idem of nitrate, natural organic pRXluds such &pin, petroleum produds, 111d some pesticides) risk 111essmmt dssifiratioas presented m this paper ue hypotbedcaL Many structures for mt assesan-.at will be developed in the future and are ~t upoa the drafting and implementation of groandwater protection laws at the state level and the needs of sped6c regulatory agencies to develop standards for enforcement and action. All enzDent example of the thought behind the development of staDdards, risk aaessmcnts and their relation to groundwater protection laws may be found in Belluck and Anderson (1988). Sec also Cantor et. aL (1987) for a discnssion of what we know about the health effects of agricultural chemicals in the groundwater.

PAGE 225

2S Cbm 4. Degradation with moderate to high health risks ( e.g., addition of viruses, bacteria and some pesticides) Cmnmdy, pesticide use is restricted by fcdcral and state "terms and conditions appearing on product labels:, and allowablo BMPs, also described as operating stall~ (Jacboa ct al., 1989; Roy, 1989). Most, if not aD, State University Cooperathe E:ltensioa Senica fact sheets and bulletins that S1IIDlll8ri7.e the lcpl conditions for pesticide use by crop/aoppi,Jg system. 'Z1 HOft'ler, in today's dynamic information CDYiroament, bard copy blletins may not be adequate because of the complexity of the rules that determine there eflcc:tne and safe use. Also, computer data bases maybe required to ensure timely de~ of availability, and Jabelling information. Information o~ pesticide labeling Crom the pesticide data base and spatial variability &om a geographic information system (GIS) component of a DSS could inform a farmer that the pesticide Gf economic choice is a Qm 4 risk because the chosen field is sandy and the pesticide bas bigb leachabi1ily. The DSS could then identify ID altematiw~ compound that is effecthe and less likely to leach, thus CDYiromnentally safe, but is ten pcrcem more expeashe. Thia shes tho farmer both ID environmental and cc:oaomic basis for making a decision. Geographic information systems, as referred to here, are compatcr-basccl mformadon systems having the capability to muipalate and analyze multiple layers of geographic data such as soil type, organic matter content. maay states, Jegislatioa ams which prohibit use of pesticides in areas in which pesticides appear in tbe gromadwater above minimum standards ( c:ona:ivably, zero) until such a time as groundwater monitoring no loap detects levels ill rms of staDdards. 'Zlpo, eample, in ~tdripo farmers, iDput suppliers and consultants can use Michigaa Sbtle University Cooperathe Emmsioa Jlulk:da, Weed Coatrol 111-Mk:hlpa, by J. ICcDs and IC. Rema (1989). The bulletin cfisomcs available herbicides, the "uses" they are labelled for ( e.g., crop, soil type, crop's tillage/planting method, metbod of herbic:ide app1bdon), labeDed applicadoa rates, wl apected efficacy in coatrolling specific weeds. The BuDeda is updar.td annaally. Ubwise, complementary prototype microcomputer computer programs for com and soybeans ha\'e been developed for Mh:hipn State University's Agricaltmal _lnlegratcd Mnagemaat Software (AIMS) library that permit the farmer, input sapplicr, coasultant, or cm Agent to identify tbo berbic:idcs or combination of bcrbiddes that will CODtrol the weed types and prmsmea faced alftll ftriables such a crop, previous crop, sncceeding crop, soil type, soil pb, tillage/planting IJSlem, time and method of herbicide application (pn:plant, at planting. post plant emergence), and weed pressme by weed. The computer program outputs the list of hcrbicidcs that meet these conditions (if any), their mtl./acre, and an estimated index of owrall control et!'ec:tiveness See Renner, ct.al. (1989). Many states haw, or initiating similar activities. Many private sector firms, including regional agricultural cooperatives are hr.ginning to offer such services to cooperating input suppliers. Sec, for example, Krause (1988,1989). The major private sector initiatives include linkages with manufacturers and formulators, sometimes resulting in updating of data b~ weekly. BEST COPY AVAILABLE l

PAGE 226

26 slope, land use, vegetation, dc!!!ographics and history in relation to management and planned land use challenges. Further GIS background is gM1l in Appendix A. King et. al., (1986) and Lybecker et. al., (1984) developed a prototype model that fits the framework described. The model reduces soil-applied herbicides by using weed seed counts to project weed problems rather than prophylacdc herbicide application. Nonchemieal (mttbanical) as well as cbemica1 weed control options are iDcluded. Although driven by economics, trade-offs in terms of higher weed populations, potentially lower herbicide loading and pro& dilferendals arc idcntificd for farmer selcction. A ns.,.based risk ascmsment can also help farmers choose between alternatm: activities. For example, a dairy or hog farmer might be faced with the choice between ming scarce time and tractor power to empty nearly full dairy or swine_. storage lagooas w. cultiYating a field where weods haw a good start. According to weather forecasts, rain is expected by the time one of the two operations is completed. The DSS analysis indicates a potenrial groundwater problem from either operation. If the field isn't cultivated to control the weeds before the ram prohibits 6eld and promotes further weed growth, it will require later treatment with a lnc:bable herbicide identified abcM as a Class 4 risk for grouadwater degradadoa. Howewr, if lagoon waste is spread and rainfall is snbstanrial, sipifirant amounts of aitrogea (as nitrate) may leach below the root moe and. probably to groUDdwater resulting in a Cass 2 risk for depwladoa.1.8 If the waste is not spread, lagoons may overflow, also resulting in a clasa 2 risk. Other factors being equal, the farmer may choose to cultivate immediately rather than spread lagoon waste, since this will negate the aeed for later herbicide application with its relamely higmr risk to groundwater. The~ mnagem,mt pracdces (BMPs) approach to decmoD making goes beyond the singular criterion of Jal,e6ng guide&nes to look at systems of crops, c:altural pvtices, and waste management schemes that arc acceptable given soil type and other re1eYaDt factors. Some BMPs are cmrendy a prerequisite for participation in fedcnl farm programs ( e.g., 1985 Food Sccarity Act), and are relatively amenable to eva1uadoa in a enviroament. Ill army states, Cooperative E1teasioa Semces and c:oasuJting groups are plaring alternative managem systems in a -whole farm perspective, with impDcatioas for labor scbecb!ling. finandng and management and quality coatrol skill requirement. For DSS applications to be f.ruitful in this environment, 28 The output might be similar to the irrigation example in Part m. Q:) C BEST COPY AVAILABLE

PAGE 227

r, IV.B. CURRENT CAPABILmES OF DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS Initial attempts to create ~SS as large s&eJls into which generalized software options programs could be incorporated ha\1e not been very succes.uuL Long dewlopment time, high cost, and lack of farm level specificity have worked against their adoption. The global approach has been largely replaced by a series of stand-alone, farm lews1 software modules designed to wist in specific decisions, some potentially related to groundwater quality. Examples mdude fertilizeJ' recommendations, manure management, irrigation and nitrogen application scheduling. crop produc:don and percmda1 crop "when to reseed" modules and various pest control and integrated pest management aids. A strong future of sudl modules is that they force farmers to reach decisioaa in a logical step-wise fashion and provide automatic prompting to make certain all pertinent data and factors are coasidered. Major factors r.,,,;mg DSS use today are the small ll1llllber of farms that ba\1e computer capabilities, and du-chaUenp of training farmers who lme computers to me them fm dedsioa support. Though computer, communicadon, and data collectian (e.g., weather station, scales) hardware recbaology bas progreucd, lack of hardware .........._._ impedes widespread me ol DSS software at tbe farm lewJ r'"Jring t,o electronic data collecdaa equipm-. MOit canea& DSS modules have &ale dat.abMo capability (umally iDc:orporaled as part of the staDcl a1oae program), require a bowlcdp that may bo cfiffim\t to mble in a timely manner ( e.g., the nitrogen coat.eat of 111111111e), require more byboardiag than most farmers like, ud are almost always being upgraded by tbe deftloper to provide additional information, prompts or dhnensioas. Keeping the prior purcbaser abreast of tbcse developments poses a real cballenglL DSS approaches to man..,.,em of pesticides ad otber orpaic compounds with clearly associated bcalth risb arc i1a their iDfaDcy 111d deftlopment efforts will focas aa tbia area fm some dme to come. W-atb present DSS approaches stractared aroand label and BMP requilemenrs, (u., where.label or BMP compliance didates tho derision). farmers are reluctant to tab n:spoasibi1ity far pn,blmas c:reatecl wbm approved directions are followed. Carnat D&1 capallllltles an COllltralaed. by a lack of detailed, wrUled models of water Oow thnap soil lllcl aeolollc formadas -to p,Nllldwater, ol die lwrt,blllty ol ftl'taas pesdddes ud nutrients Ill dUfenat soils, dJmatlc coadltlom ud pndacdOD systems ( e.g., see F"JgUrC IV .2 depicting fate of BEST COPY AVAILABLE

PAGE 228

28 organic chemicals).29 The dcvdopmcnt of these models, along with the challenge of constructing DSS modules that can accommodate the spatial variability of landscapes, even single fields, in the form of an.individual farm GIS, will provide a strong framework within which compm groundwater quality decisions, data verification and modelling will take place. 30 Parm-level OS., cammdy lack darabuel ud software tbat priorime groundwater protection. The demand for groundwater protection bas come from society as a whole, md from farmers themselves, as they better feCPBnizc risks and public c:onccm about conraminarioa31 PteSelldy, most decisim support systems are based OD ecoaomic: ratber tlrm environmental facton, but mepdoas are emerging. Computer models under deve1opmcnt in Florida, Georgia, and California (Bailey, 1985; Canel, 1984; Holden, 1986; Jenkins, 1989; Schwu1z. 1988) predict tbe Jeacbability and other properties of pesticides, akbougb they do aot include a nutriat compoaent. ee.Iopment of D1driem components in ~odels is imperatne, pm the known degradation of groundwater &om nitrate leaching. and poaible res,drant health hazards. Allapert system under dc,eJopment in Hautchmctts ('cnkins, 1989) wiD predict larbing rim of many pesticides ill different soils. A crop rerommendrian pidc tlllt wiD ser,a aa ildroduc:tion to this system for potenfilf aacn. will include a CDlllpc,aent far prorecdng poaaclwller Crom pesdc:ide coarmmarioPL 0Dc:e the drabese is deteloped aacl tbe system is ia place, development of a aamat ~poaent 11 planned. Such expert ~ental coasu1tws with geological, biological, and eDplCCring training are emerging who 1perializc in water qaalily ismes, iDcludiDg groaadwater data maapma systems far moaitoring ad permitting wells, predicmg coadidom under which hydrocerboaa may be geacnted, predicring tbe spread of a tmic: solution ( e.g., laud 'treatmcnt' site. lagooas), water' quality sampling protocol, mapping Uld pk,aina '>f laDdscapes wl aquifers, and pa9jo ,;.,. groandwater flow stream&nes See, aim, Alldenaa and Robert (1988) ad Beet (1988) far di.,,,,sions of "Soil IDformatioD Systems. Ia oar temimfogy, tbe sail iafarmaliaa system woald be a dacabese &le that would be tapped by production IMI cat modcfa These syatema are ia tbe prototype sap rclame to intep'lfed DS systcma; however, many systema of this type are ,ay mefal ira auppwt of consuking illpliOlt to farmcn. They pcmut access and provision of Vf%'J dcta,1ed aa specific iDformadaa ia a cma: effec:tne meaner~ Mach of tba c:arrent aeed is to dean up tbe infonnrion ia these databesca; mada of this wiD ocmr daring appfnrions as users raise questions. 30ro be; acnorkcd into a larger GJS oa a tonship, watcrsbed, aquifer or perhaps county basis. 31 As Senator Wyche Fowler (D-GA) bas stated, (filrlllers) dm't want their own miJies to drink from contaminated wells. They don't want to ship food to market that tbreateDed the health of American CODS111Ders. They want to bow bow they can address these probl..s without compromising their livelihood. (Fowler, W., 6/89). Sound federal and state replatioas, incentne programs and DSS programs which provide suggestions for alternative practices and data verification will help protect that livelihood.

PAGE 229

29 systems will be important in providing advice to farmers. W-lth the development of integrated, whole farm DSS, ezpcrt system information will possibly become building blocks for decisions based upon integration of whole systemcoasidcratiom. IV.C. 'Ille Near l'utare As recognition of tbe need for sustainable agricultura1 methods grows, of D~ will begin to incorporate an cmiroamcntal dimension into staDd alone modules for irrigadoD scheduling and for D'anaging nutrients &om fcrtili7.ers, lhatock manure, crop residues, legumes and other sources. According to the Bxpaimmt Stadoa committee oa Policy (ESCOP) Subcommittee oa Computer-Aided Agricaltma1 DecisionSupport Systems (~ coordiaadoa hu been provided for research and development efforts required to implement a ndoaal computer-aided agricultural decision-support system. The c.AADSS will utilim national, regional wl local seniccs of the USDA-Agricaltmal Research Semce, USDA-Coopcratffl: States Research Semce and USDA-<=ooperathe EJteasioa Service. Fundamental to that system is m cmiroamcntal camponent32 111ere will alto be aa effort to integntt ensdng and ewolviag modules wo a clatabete system that rm aoa-liat iafanudoa from SCta'l1 sources. Far eamplc, a field recard system may cambiM !*t year yield wl fettilizer lpF-adm dala with cw1eat year sail test results to create a fcmTrzarion strategy for the current growingseasaa. CJdiag of aitrogea, pbosphoroaa and other aatrields m the agricultural laDdscape may become well enough lllldentood to enable prescripcioD nlllrieat Dara on iadiviclua1 farms could be incorporated into tbe geographic iaformadon systems COll'poaenr of OS.,, allowing fumen to preci.,ely p1aa and manage ll1ltrieDts far maimam ecoaamic retmaand groanclwater protecdoa. Well-developed DSS programs for nutrient management sboald be ill opcndaa widlia tine to tea years. These programs wiD iacarpante such items as mtrogea release ra1e1 from 111111111e app-e-rerion, caver crops, legumes, and commercial &:rtilm:rs. The me ol I>&, clatabese ad iawmrory caatrol software, linked with dispoul a1rernathes and policy mreariva to recycle, caa significantly redace conrmmadon from fuel ud 011 tbe other had, the use of aD types of synd,cdc 111d Dal1lnl orpmc pesticides will likely c:ondnue to pose a cb1Uenge_ The mentality of "I a weed or bug. What c:aa I use to kill it?" will be slow to cbanpo 0llly toward the miclcDe to end of the 32Papcr by Don Holt, CAADSS Subcommittee Chairman, September 1:1, 1988.

PAGE 230

30 next decade may emphasis swing toward DSS approaches with stronger ecological bases. The tremendous diversity of compounds already in use an~ the need for a database on groundwater contamiuaats to support regulatory action make it difficult to use an ecologically based approach now. It will be scwnl years before the database~ be suf6dent to improve labeling to ret1ect gro~ quality threats by a wide range of pesticides and other compoands, or before strategic cropping systems are devdopecl for noa.cbendcal control IV.D Beyond The Year 2000 The &rst decade of the twenty-first century will see greater computer capabilities at the farm level and substantial aclvallces ill the use, analysis, and reliability of eledroaically collectr,d data. (Many rem'* scasiag and electromc: data capture techaologies already exist bat maay dmces are presently physically cumbersome or cost-prohibitive.) Database decision support systems ~y begin to be maintained and serviced by off-farm professionals ts farmm gain confidence in the tedmology. There will still be modular, stud-alone DSS on farms; but these may wei1 sen,: more and more as local swioas far cqaniring, saeening. transmitting and receiviag data aacl infc.wmadoa to and from a larger DSS buc far iDterpretadm 111d 09ninrioa. Farmer use of commercial daebues aad ns., for farm operations will grow, mac:ll u tbo 11111 of profmsioal ta scrricca bu. with ..,,1,aon, armaatability, aad 1epl liability playing key roles. For mmple, today soil ad well water samplca CUI be c:o1lected by tbe farmer or a commercial firm and aaalyzed DI a off.farm laboratorr, tho results, imerpretadoas. wl remmmendarioas can be electronically ,..,asmitted to the farm's database ID ten to twaty years, those results may be bandied by independent consnJtaatl who spedalize in ISSllnlll compliance. As a result of tedmologies wl models now J,egiaaiag to emerge, it may become possible to limit groundwater problems and still see an array of economically viable agricaltaral eaterpriscs OD the landscape. ~mayprovkteaew,moremllriaat-etlideatplalltcaltivarswbileimlovamewaysofmanaging ll1ltriems caa1cl be sugestecl by dccisioa support systems clirected as much at the demand for quality, conraminmt-freo food and feed II ll groundwater prot.ectiaa. Management systems based 011 the ecological principles necessary for the clevdopment of a susainabl.e agric:ulture may eliminate the use of toxic organic compounds. Poaibly, cfecisioa support models emerging DI this climate may project how well a crop w.i11 r,ow in comp:titioa with various weed or iasect populations and propose nonchemical control alternatives. J) i_) l, -J \.. BEST COPY AVAILABLE t. ... J~-. ~9 f .t;J-.

PAGE 231

31 Decision support management tools for livestock wastes, fuels, and other compounds that have the potential to degrade groundwater will have been ~oped and will begin to be adopted, monitored and regulated wit.bin tJus 20 year period. Farm-lewd databases will be based on imcntory control or handled as a part of nutrient loading and management models. Ultimately, DSS must pmtict the couscquenc:es for groundwater quality of any action on or inputs to the agricultural landscape. Databases could provide informadoa to a GIS which could model water flow through the entire hydrologic describing its tlow and location at any given time on a field, whole farm, watershed or aquifer basis, and predict the nature and amoUDt of contaminants entering the cydc at any given point. That system coulcl prescm the farmer with an may of management and their potential economic and emiroameDtal c:omequences in the form of a probability oa ri.,k profile, with the intent of providing methods of mtercepting or tmncadng groundwater degradadoa instead of simply bnentorying consequences. This could be projected for ar, area an appropriate period. Management practices aad options could be generated with 811 mteradffl: program component and the aid of expert systems. IV.E. Moaftariaa S,steml Of TIie l'utare Ultimately, remote sensing devices could be liaked to on-farm moaitoriag systems to CODmluously measure key operational parameters with a potential impact oa groundwater q~. Teclmology already exists m tbo areas of GJS, remote sensing anc1 dynamic -by wbicb nome dem,:ry rates 01r agricuJturaJ spayen for pcsdcide applicadoa c:aa be varied clec:troaically based oa soil type and &e1d coordinates (Lusch, D., 1989). In tbe future, if economics permit, speci&c iafonnatioo coald be fed to 811 on-board, computerbased GIS giving soil type, slope and other physical properties. A tracking device on tbe tractor coald bounce signals off a sateffire with c:mJima freqaacics and tbe tractors' positioa in tbe field could be known iD three dhncnsioas, at 1J1J time, witbiD ceadmeters (dynamic po-refermciag). Spray delm:ry rates could be aatomadcaDy aajUlted: lower rates for sandy soils, bare groaad or sreep slope; -higher rates for heavier soils, level ground cw tho oisr.ence of a crop to intercept spray. Tbil tedmology exists but is presently cumbersome ud cost-prohibithe. Trmpoaders now used on some farms ( e.g., ICBS Dairy; see Battelle, 198Sa, b) to iclentify aad record data on livestock as they enter a milking parlor or a scale, might be upgraded to reveal where particular animals BEST COPY AVAILABLE

PAGE 232

32 arc located in exercise lots, grazing pastures, or barns. By sending these data to a GIS, projections could be made by a DSS of the natural distnbution of animal waste over the landscape, and of the potential vulnerability of underlying aquifers to nitrates. The DSS could then plot trajectories so that liquid manure applications do not ow=rlap areas where wastes arc concentrated. Remote sensing devices as varied as satellites or tethered balloons with scaDllcrs could provide a fairly condnuous read-out of crop quality, moisture and nutritioaal stress, and other data useful for scheduling irrigation, nutrient and pesticide applications. Some of the information obtained at farm level could be utilized on a regional basis, for example, to aaea the implications of an alfalfa weevil outbreak first detected by one or more scaunen. DSS models could .provide probable paths of e,q,ansioo of the outbreak and suggest p05&ole treatments, the implications of delaying treatment, and probable risb to the environment as a result of the treatment. Remote sensing smd c1cctronic data traDsfer could provide input to GIS weed pQpulation and vegetation maps tbrougbout the growing season. These distribatiaas could be fed to DSS models designed to project how well a pen crop will compete for Wiler and nutriads ill a putic:uJar field. Ytelcl decrease., associated with weed compedtioa might be awided, e,m if no hcrbilidcs are applied, by carefully scbcduliDg planting and irrigation to ghe the crop a compedtm, edge over weeds. Sada 1K1Aip'11Jafy,ns may, iD fad, be more effcctM than herbicides. Remote sensing ,tma:s could also be used to dctcrmme the moisture sttes.1 of a cover crop to help the farmer decide when to tum that crop UDder and plant a cash crop ( e.g., before soil moi.wre necessary for cash crop growdl is too depleted by tbe c:ava-crop). On the other baad, if a re.1soaably heavy application of manure aiuogm is being trapped by tbe COa' crop and there is ample soil moisture, the growing season for the cover crop be c:lbmded_ to trap more Ditrogea and to reduce the amount of Dilratc lcacbing in the event of a beav, rain. Such a dctermiDadm coald be made directly with input to models &om aeutron probes in the ground. l

PAGE 233

r 33 V. EXAMPLE OF THE INTEGRATED DSS AT KEI J OGG BIOLOGICAL STATION The Dairy/Crop Parm at Micbigan State Univasitys W. K. Kellog Biological Station (KBS), (sec Figure V .1) is presented as a case illustration of the procesa ot iacorporadag aa integrated decision support system (IDSS) for use in farm management. The Dmy/Ctop Pum is a state-of-tho-art research, development, demoastratiaD uul education facility. While it is not a commercial farm in the strictest sense ( due to reJSCarch, demoastradon and education coastraints and, additioaal labor ia aeeded and funded by Michipm State Unnersity), the farm land base i.1 used to support tbe dairy berd aacl 759' of the operating budget is generated by dairy and farm producdoa. It is that componeac of farm opentioas which bu iupplied inccnm,e for the development ud me of enrisdng stand-alone software modules tad set tbe goal ol wholo-farm integratiion for the evolving DSS prototype. IDSS bu prosresscd on sewn! &oats oa the farm, thougb it is far &om the goal of a totally iategratecl prototype. Thougb army definitions ml levels of decisioa support systems ma,t exist, DSS as defined by tbe ICBS prototype will be a total iatepadaa ol eleclroaic data coDedioa, rem.ate sensing. geoarapbic iDfcwmadaa.,..., campater .. nledon .... aped system and utificial inrelJipace technologies; each tedmolog capable of standing tlaae but mare importudy capable of being a compoacnt ill a synergistic ......... iDtegnliaa illto I 'IID"POD mppo.1 IJIDIII. Canady II m, m dala acapisition ii aatam1ted ad iDputrAl clin:cdy to the computer system in_ the maiD o8ia=. Par iDltlra, ia tbe millring parlor, ictenrificadon trwpoaden OD each animal along with stntegic:ally plamd semon allow moaitoriag of milk prodvmoa. weigbt. movement aacl other func:dons on an iDdiviclual animal balis. T1lis immtory system is med to sappott Ylrioua dedsioas with reprcl to herd health probJema 111d OJP"'"I Dm lagiag ,lcvica tlm work olf tbo trwpoaden' fn:queDcy will automatic:ally record .__.__,.~-.... :-..a:..:..__. I for Rt. ofL-.:--.. tr borm -.L.!-L. UliaUl&ljlll, .......... 117 IIIUfflll .... IDJIDI e:lamr-, -,-UUYIII& MJma..o-~ oae wuarn mcreases milk proclucdoa. Thia record, added to tbe crmpar +trbnce, caalcl be relatecl to the eaw's body COlldition time, to mdicam wbcdler radm changes Ire required to meiamn t,he ,aun,rs balth and sustain .. cd milk producdoa. Ia tbe..., fntare, data wiD be ,utomedcally collected OIi temperature ancl humidity in the barn and Wltbia a year, automated metering devices will moaitar IM:stock water c:oasumption withib the barn. and water use for the automatic barn flushing system. (For an explanation of tho flushing system and manure JQ.7

PAGE 234

34 handling at KBS, sec appendix B.) These data will go into databases for nitrogen and irrigation scheduling. As it evolves, this component of the DSS program will help the farm manager decide, for example, whether to recycle more water for barn flushing (after liquid-solid separation), or switch from flushing to scraping temporarily, to avoid water use. Hanatecl feed is Mighed, and put into bins or silos. Weight and storage location are recorded along with field soarc:e, and on a &mited basis, feed quality determinations, in the DSS database Feed rations are then e1ectronically mmd in the feed center. F~ wagons carry formaJated radoas from tbe center to spec:ific groups of cows dCApated as either high or low rA'Oducers, three-times-a-day milkers, o, two-times-a-day milkers. Track scales automatic:ally record the weight of feed delherecl to each group and provide data used later ia milk procladioa and wmte handling lnipdoa scheduling programs use current and stored a=atbcr station information and factors related to crop growth to ..:comma riming. rate and frequency of applications. Soon options to allow a more prescribed app&catioP, and plac:em of nitiogea and other chemicals daoup tho irripdon system will be incarponb:CL Neatroa probes ill tbo &elda are attacbed to data loga's for eateriag cmaeut sail moistme data into the computer. These prototypes are redvdng reliance oa weather station data. W"dbia three to me years, spatial data Oil sail IIIIMtUre lllcl nitrate c:omcnt of soil warer (u measured with sadioa lysimeters) will be linked to OS., and GIS software to support oa irrigation ud chemical addidoas to sabacts of fields. A p'IDt has been receiw:d and work is progressing ia the development of. stadaa-wide GIS, wbida wiD be baecl OD the st.atioas' maillfnme computer. Each anit at m, (e.g., tbe Dairy, small plot research area, tbe Kellog Forest, or 1aboratorJ baecl facalty and tedmirims) be able to aa:esa tbo GJS from mm ofiica llltegratecl pest mamgemem data an presently obtained by 1PM scouts, eaterecl into the darabase and provided to dlo farm manapr ia tbe form of computer printed pest baOedns SoGII, data will amomtially be eatered into the computer base lllcl paphically dispaJed when die 1PM scout iet'IUIII frma the field. The farm manager will be able to overlay these visual images oa tbe GIS grid aacl relate tbem to data bases oa soil type, cropping wl irriprioa patterns, water md chemical applicatiom. rmpping plans or other information that contributes to better management decisions.

PAGE 235

35 Maps of soils in various stages of drying after a rain would reveal patterns of water retention. Patterns of insect outbreaks and weed spread could be recm:ded ewer a single season or over many seasons, and changes noted, to allow more precise awuagemcnt strategies. Many 1PM activities DOW focu., OD insect counts and damage aseessm-..nt, not OD the origins of outbreaks. Knowing that an old 6c1d or nearby orcbard is the wintering location of a particular insect can help focus and n:duce pesticide use, and thus protect groundwater resources. GIS and DSS at KBS will provide that data. The emphasis at KBS is on maaaging nutrients, pesticides and other mpull such that they do not escape the root zone. Ideally, they are either captured by tbe crop or by microorpaicms, iaactivated by the soil or some other 111ttb1nism, or degraded (see P-ipre V .2). Thus, it is important to scbedule and apply additives according to crop growth and nutrient needs. This requires careful meuuremadl of plant nutrient uptake and of nutrient levels in the soil profile. Momtoriag of nitrate or pesticide levela ia well water is carried oat to support long term impact asscssmats of surface activities, and to provide spedfic deriskm m,lriag mfannednn, AD 22 household, irrigation ud other wells at Km baw been sampled and aaalyzcd for ante lcvela. At least oae buadred wells bordering ICBS property (upmeam and dowastream in terms ol poaadwater flow) me bea sampled for comparisons. Tbcae data will be eatered into tbo dttbece 111d updated nnvUy. ShnDer iiaformadaa OIi key pesticides will bCl obtained oa tbe propaty IDd addccl to ti. drbese Ia addidon, a lab adjarmt to the dairy, ware lagoons, maaitoring wells 1IDdcr the lagooas, 111d sample wells ill a gnsscd warcrway leactiag ma tbe farm headquarters toward the late bDe been moaitared to m swoaal. _wl ,ear-to-year impam ol the liw=stoc:k operation. GIS data bws will corirain farm-scale bisraries of cn,ppilll, muare aad fertilizer app&adon, ud future pJaaa incl yield goals for tbe farm. Dnwiag oa tbe hiltorical darabne, tbe OS., will determine BMPs for mtropa appffcatioa, with aacl witboat manure app&cadon, ad sngest manapmeat opticaa based OD both ecoaomia ad groaadwarer protcctioa. DSS software will be ascd for better m,n.,,.,,_ of liquid and sollcl manure. Rcplar aaalysis of liquid appBcatiol by 10lume lllcl ~pasitian wiD be pat iiato tbe dabbesc When waste is applied through irripdoa, ;rs applicadan will 1-spariDy trac:kecl tbroagh GJS liDkecl software. E.uually tbe GIS capability will allow precision applications of llllllmes, fertmmrs and cbenticaJs, based Oil a number of factors that call for spatial variability data. The GIS database will allow tracking 111d graphic display of past spatial variations in

PAGE 236

36 landscape management activities, to help choose future DSS generated altcmatiw:s. The consequences of decisions can be projected in time as we.II as space with GIS technology. Superimposing projected crop sequences oa a GJS base, for example, will enable a farmer to make improw:d nutrient, pest management, and --.:ft ... d v~awvuaa J:CSIODS. Remote sensing ,:apabilitica now being dc\dopcd at KBS will add inlom,adon to GIS and DSS databases on moisture-nutrient-and pest-rclatccl plant streues. Most farm-scale remote -.cnsing i., now accomplished by contract aircraft on a fly O\'er basis. To support DSS database actiYity, the use oC spedn1l scanning and dynamic geo-referencing mcl other tedmologies will become 11ecet11ry. Uso of these technologies. for indmdual farm decisiom is some time away, bowe,er, and the senice sector rather than tbe individual farmer may collect the VI. FUTURE DIRECTIONS AND POLICY OPTIONS Tho dcw:lopment ol ,,,,,,;,,em federal, state aad local policy is ncces1ary for gromulwatcr protection. The fedenl gow:ama..mt has dolepted mada ol tbe n:spamibility for groaadwater to iDdividual states where the focas ia oa prewadoa acf edacedae mbcr drm n:mmfiario& The hip COit of remcctiedon wl lack of remedial mcdlads pme I malt, nece,,;,,,,, die empbail ad pretmtiaa aad e
PAGE 237

37 use of maximum contamination level guidelines (MCL's) to the development of state land use plans. Point source contamiaarfon of groundwater is more easily addressed than non-point source because monitoring becomes mare difficult and the source less identifiable. Tim is tbe case in agric:ultmes contnbution to coatamiaadoa. Maay agric:ultma1 practices lead to coaramiaadoa of groundwater: nitrates f.rom manures and crop residues, orpaic coataminurs from pesticides, etc. State legislatures belie'le one method of addrwing ~e ooatammati"!l "CmJftiag &om farm practices i.1 the msdtutioD of best maaagem,s prac:dces (BMP). Flcxmle incenme programs are needed to attract farm participation in adherence to BMPs. If tOhmtary efforts are aot made, it is feancl that BMPs may become maadarory.34 0regoa ha 09nizecl a strategic water muapmeat: group to develop a state wide land use plan. Mnmesota baa forged ahead with plw to tab lwl out ol agricultural productioa where there i.1 imminent danger of pesticide coatamii,ad9n. Idaho has prepared a groundwater plan to be implemmted by state agencies. Apia, many states are pursuiag Jegislation alteraati,a, based upoa the tenant o! education and pm,:ntion and JIGl remediation. Al moaitoriag. sampling, aad 111odeP-"'1 capacity improves. aoa-poiDt soarces of rural pow.dwatar polladaa wiD be addrased 1lllder rules similar to tbose govaaiaag l'Qiat sources. The pracat flany ol acdvity to gather groaadwara' iafarmadoa c:aald result iD a bedclash at the farm IIMI. Fear ol patendal 'cpl Jiabi1itJ 111d potendal paaidte ldiaa c:aald iDdace ~ers to refuse access to their land far 111CJ11itariaB 11111 sampliag. A nedonal S11ft1SJ Im iadnr.e-1 tbe more paticidcs a farmer 1JSCSp the slrOager dlll farmer oppa1ea replatioa aacl reslricdaa al pesddde use. Farmers do reqe,ize that problems witb puuadwater CO"CamiMlion exist wl 60Cf, lme iDdicated t-, woald me he t.ednrical euistence to reduce fertilizer ad cl,emical use. The qaemOII tbell beaJ mes oae ol eafarceable repladoas, al wlm lae1 those rfllllldoaa Ire to be caforced ad tbe IChac of peer. (Wes&alO to protect commoa aqaifcrs. 3S Rta17 ad permit ldiaa sboald evolve at tho farm level to imme tbat eqaivaleDt rules ad rep'8drm apply to aD farmen. Tbalo who mMap oa die be::: of maximum yield, with DO reprd for the eavinMmem, ca pal a aamber of good marf11L7S oat ol bM1:s1 by poll,Jdna sbuecl aquifer (common property resoarce problems). Reguladoas wiD be necessuy far tbe protecdoa of emiroamentally sound 34tany Moranai, National Conference of State Legislatures, Denver, CO. l'rescmtadon to the Midwest Groundwater Quality Protection CbalJeage, St. Charles, IL, NO\alber 1-3, 1989. 3SnamEsseb, Center for ~eatal Studies, Northern Dlinois Uaiwrsity, DeKalb, Dliaois. Presented at the "Midwest Groundwater Oua:lity protection O,allevge, St. CwJes, n.., November 1-3, 1989. 'vi)~, -.J._ J BEST COPY AVAILABLE

PAGE 238

38 farming enterprises as they are for groundwater protection in general. DSS supported management decisions and independent verification of the effectiveneu of DSS supported practices can help protect environmentally sound farming enterprises from ruisance or class action lawsuits as well as unfounded or generalized regulatory action. future policy decisioas 111d regulatory adioas will likely require exteasi,,e computer-based data sets, maintained by pa11mental agencies or private coatracton, and electtoaically accem1>le to individual farmers and those who work with farmers. Extensive baseline data on groundwater quality are needed at the onseL Depending on the groundwater policy adopted, the appropriate agency(ies) would be given permitting, monitoring and regulatory respoasibility. Al dara bases grow and regulations, on a statewide and local basis, become more meDSM, standards must be set far spedfic: parameters. Data digitizaooa for aquifer locations, slope specificatioas and common indicators of soil type, crop varieties and ocher variables must be standarda.ed. Policy at the sate level must set those standards ( e.g., 1ocalion data that adheres to the State P1-Coordinate System in Michigan). Policy mast also set fartb mapment striidaaes for die coopendoa of ma agencies charpcl with monitoring, edacadall and remccfiadon acdvidcs to cmare accesaibi1ity from agency based iaformadon systems or D&1 to starewicle chebhescs, e.g., the itarewide pouadwater data base (SBDB) or the M.icbipn Resource lllformtioa Sarvey (MJRIS), md die erbanp ol iDformadoD belWD agenda ml the private sector. Most importaady, federal and stato latnres must set policy 011 tbe appropriadon of fuada for tbe clevelopment of data bases, gavamneDt apacy OS,. educadoa programs and researcb to deal witb tbe gromadwater iuue. Limits 011 c:aalribadom to pollDdwarer qaality degradadoa will aced to be establilbed, and arrays of acceptable enterprise and c Mat pracdc:es defined. Using DSS tools, tbe farmer can tbaa agrepte various fflMlpmeat syltcma that_ are emiromDCDlllly safe into whole.farm operadoaa1 protocols. All lffllJ ol tedmofosical tools wi1I be available to wrify the arecmacsa of the farm maaapmau plan, raging from simple imentory amals to dye marking of pesdcide/fertilizer app'Cldons 011 an iDdividual farm buia far iateashe chemical tww:kirag These kinds of tc'Ols, liabd widl elecboaic dctecdoa, idcnrificadoa and data dmc:ea. offer tbe opportuaity for legal and repl.lmlJ protec:tioa of gromaclwarer and the farm enterprise alike. To achieve these goals, exteasne DSS developments are needed at the farm, consultant and institutional levels. The private sector may be much better orpnized to police itself than various government agencies. For example, portable analytical capabilities could be used by private licensed and bonded consultants to w:rify the etfectiveneu of many pnctices. It is pouiblc to construct DSS based institutional capabilities to provide mch senic:e at I reasonable cost.

PAGE 239

39 APPENDIX A. Geographic lnformadon Systems (GIS) Spada! variability is a rcaJ cftallenp in farm lewl management; one that demands creativity and skill in the tadic:al dedsioD making of indmdual farm managers., Decision support systems, with input &om a Geographical Information System (GIS) component, will greatly augment the farm manager's ability to make informed demiom with regard to such problems as soil type, ia variability across the landKape and its effect upon the movement of p'aticidcs, nitrates, fuels and other talic compounds into the groundwater. GIS bas been del~ (Dulker, et al., 1989) u ...a system of hardware, software, data, people, orpnmdoas aacl iDstitutional arrangements for collccriag storing, analyzing and disse,ninatingiaformation about areas of the eart11, wbicb may be u small as a lad parcel, (e.g., a subarba lot, stand of trees or farm field), or as large as tbe earth (Carter, 1988). As with an computer-based mfcn,adoa tyStems. a major advantage is the GJS capacity to simaltaneoasly coasidcr maay nla of iDformadoa. As Parker (1988) baa inclicated, the human memory may repter two or three layers of infonnation ai oae time, but tbe cb11Jeaps ol. spatial data may require manipulation and analysis of dazeas of la)a'S. A GIS am work with as many layers as computer hardware will allow. 111d resoarce m1n11,111aat a rrl,:s, at all lnels of gu;eaaameal (Spect,um, 1989). GJS C111 provide timely, problem-specific, s;ada1 iaformadaa wbich foaters and mbances tbe decisioa making process; expanding oppart1lllides far redaciDg the COit of critical -activity. A. relevant eample may be the necessity to make a decisioll wbedlcr an app&cation 9f Jagooo waste to a particular 6eld is possible and II wllal level of risk for groundwater depadadoa. A farmer bu ~izetf tbc hnminent aced to empty animal waste lagoon and aeeda to make a dedsiaa wbctber it is possible to apply it to _, ol the farm fields. AC C = ie tbe GIS will provide -ability to simaltaneoasly coasider such importaDt factors sbowD ia Pigare A.1: Cmrlay 0111 Water: tbe prmimity of a pea ficlcl to any surface water (river, lake, pond) aacl relatM: polidaa to tbe lfOIIDClwater aquifer. Cmrlay two Soils: soil type and orpnic: matter c:oatent-atrecring the leacbability of waste nutrient components; soil slope-affecting waste run-off, which may didate application rate and method. Subsurface geology, aquifer data, etc.

PAGE 240

40 Oftrlay three Land cover: existence and type of cover crop or cash crop; growth stage, eic. Docs the capability exist for up-take of nutrients supplied by the manure? This affects the decision whether to apply 1DJ waste at all and the rate at which it is applied. 0ftrlay roar Boundaries: &e1d location may indicate a proximity to residences. Given indications of a wind, a decision may rely upon whether odor could become a problem. Owrlay lhe Land use: patme, cash croppiag. fallow; implicadou of waste application to each. This information, used ia c:oajunction with III analysis of manuro nutrient content could sene as input to aa espert system OD animal wasto management wbicb could tJiea predict the risk involved in manure applic:adoa with reprd to phosphorus coataadnadoa of smfaa: water and nitrate coalaminatinn of groundwater. As Parker (1988) aptly puts it, tbe lllOlt impor(lnl aspect of GIS, and other DSS far that matter, may be that ...Mmb:a made iD computer simaJri~ are mucb lcsa paiafal and apeasiae tlrm mistakes made OD the ground. far tbe -.adaa of GJS crmponeall into macla lupr I>&, are mclent in examples tbmlpoat tbe body of tbia paper. ~ugestcd wa am amancrable wl Ylried a the creativity of potential users. As GIS becomes more refined Uld remote sensing frdmalosies become more ecoaoadcal they will became imegnl puts of mach larger iategrated DSS liabd to commoa cta,abasm, to be ac:ceucd by individual L. ...._ __ ... --- lliDII ffllNprs. priftte CQIIS1HPDfS, iDstibUioal --.. -.u.1 agenc,a BEST COPY AVAILABLE

PAGE 241

41 APPENDIX B DaJry Barn Flush Cleanl111 System and Manure Management at KBS Slurry &om the manure Bush system operating in the barn and miJJrinS parlour is fed through a liquid-solid separator in the waste-handling building. The solid componeot is composted and used as livestock bedding or mulch, while the liquid is rec:yded for further barn flushing or is shunted to storage lagoons and subsequently applied to crops. Solid manure and bedding is scraped from the staDa when cold weather make., the Busher system iD.operathe. and is always scraped &om the heifer and maternity barns, calf butches and exercise lots. Several manure products are land-applioi. Composted solids used as lhestock bedding and mulch are generally low in easily decomposable nitrogen compounds. Record keeping aad ilfflmtory c:oatrol will be tbe focus of decision support systems related to them. Tbeso applkariona will iDc:orponre dara OD tbe IIDOllllt proclucm, its moisture, aittogell llld other nutrient coatenr, required time for compoering to a safe temperature, wl Jorarioa of appJirarioo (with regard to previous Liquid manure and slurries from ho1diag lagooas and tub are app&ed m IIUIIIY ways: via surface aloading from a tractor-drawn tank, and wrioaa iDjecdoa aad irriprioa systems. Ia all cases. tbc composition, amoum IDd dimibadoa ol mamn amogca mast be c:arefully moaitored, along with tbc W>lmae of liquid applied. The 1e,e1 of nitrogea applied tbrougb tbc center phoc irripriaa system is often quite low, and this system sena mainly to trwfer water from lagoons to crops. la arid to semi-arid ,egiona, applicarioa 11 based aa crop water needs. Howeve:a, in IIUIIIY humid to semi-arid rep,111 such as Km, use of tbc system is based oa tbe wcl to tnllsfer water fna fall lagoom to a small lwl bae. Ew:n if tbe total aittogell wda of a crop are not ar.eeded, maaapm,u of the application to coiacide with a crop's muimum capadty for uptake becomes a real c:balJc:nl& Applicadoa ol. too m~ water with low Ditrqpm content may result m mtrato leaving the root :mDO before tbo crop CID utilize it. Noaetbelea, tbe dedsioa to apply maJ be weipteci beaily bJ tbe aeed to empty stanp paada to prewmt overflow into lakca or streams. BEST COPY AVAILABLE

PAGE 242

42 Table JU Applications la 1986 by Tulare Couaty c..nronua Farmers Wbo Own Compaien1 Application ACCOUDting (e.g., general ledger and cost accouming) Spreadsbeet (e.g., LOTUS 1-2-3) Payroll Prodw:tioa control ~--=d c1s .n:uuua&UU mnpmaltecnaoa u Crop/lheitot,k management Percent 75 5'J 67 22 30 17 9 1 Parm types iDc:luded &e1cl crops, wgetal>le crops, tree crops, srapes, nursa,, dairy, beef, and other liw:stock.. llefred b11siresses mariared _with tbe farm iDduded pecking sheds, other safes, farm management coasnking. pest mnagem-m acmc:c, 111d other senices. BEST COPY AVAILABLE

PAGE 243

43 Table JU Probability of Spreadsheet, Accouatla& aad Prodactloa Decision Aid Ur5 la 1996 ror a 41 to SOYear-Old Farmer with No Farm-Related Baslaess la Tulare Couty, CA. Trees Dairy and Gross FJClcl Trees and and FICld Field Revenue Trees Grapes Cropl Grapes Cropl Crops Sgraad1beat I.Ill ($) Bia SchggJ J;docatigg 100,000 om O.Q5 OJ)4 o.u 0.04 0.09 500,000 0.08 a.as G.05 0.12 OJ)4 0.10 1,000,CXX> o.os o.os a.as OJ3 OJ)4 0.11 4,00(l,CXX> O.Q2 0.01 O.Q2 OJ)4 0.01 0.05 Q)Qea&fpqrigp 100,CXX> Q.28 0.23 o.i,e o.35- 0.16* 0.29 ,000 0.31 0.24 o.21 0.39 Q.18 0.34 1,000,000 0.31 0.24 0.22 0.42 0.20 o.JS 4,00(l,CXX> om O.Q5 OJ)6 0.13 0.06 0.15* AccQuntlng YII Ba School Eduation 100,CXX> 0.06 o.m O.Q3 cur 0.00 0.09 500,000 0.12 0.08 OJ)6 o.i,e 0.01 0.15 1,000,000 o.22 Q.1,. 0.13 o.21 OJ)4 0.22 4,00(l,CXX> 0.73 o.,oe o.sz- o:rr o.sr 0.11 Q,Qea gdpgrigp 100,CXX> Q.14 0.08 0.111 0.31 0.01 0.26 500,000 Q.28 G.19OJ6 0.44 .. OJJ3 o~ 0.46 ~ 032 o.sr-Q.09 a.so 4,00(l,CXX> G.91 a.- o.86" 0.93 OJ12~ o.oo PtodvctJoo PactsJoo Aid usa Hiah School Edpeadop, 100,CXX> 0.004 0.000 a.cm cum OJJ23 0.008 500,000 OJJ07 0.000 cum cum OJJ37 0.012 1,000,000 0.012 Q.001 0.004 0.004 0.061 0.021 4,00(l,CXX> O.o99 a.an OJM4 OJD4 o.a 0.174* O!hem Edpearigp 100,CXX> OJJ31 0.002 0.011 0.011 CJ.126 0.054 500,000 0.045 G.003 O.Gl.7 0.016 0.111 0.079 1,000,000 Q.068 0.005 O.tlZT 0.024 0.256 o.11s 4,000,CXX> Q.280 a.an 0.154 0.108 O.'TZr 0.434** 1 depicts probability is between 0.10 and 0.299 (10 to 39.9 percent) depicts probability is between 0.30 and 0.499 (30 to 49.9 percent) depicts probability is between 0.50 aad 0.699 (SO to 69!J percent) d.'--\1 depicts probability of 0.70 or greater (?O pc:n:CDt or 7> ~) BEST COPY AVAILABLE

PAGE 244

44 Table 11.3 Private Sector Software Companies Provldlaa Agrlcullunl Sortware36 AB Consulting Co., Inc. Agri-Powcrl Computer Systems Calvert Computer Systems. Inc. Lincoln, NB Pendleton; OR Athena, OR ABC Systems. Inc. Ag-Ware, Inc. CAPA Software Corp. Western, NB Kearney. NB Saskatoon, SK S7H OVl Canada Ag Computer MKT Agway Parm Computer Systems. Center for Parm Management Tuscola, IL Agway Data Services. Inc. St. Paul. MN Syracuse, NY AG PLUS Software Alfa Laval Agri. lac. Chan's Easy System Ida Grove, iA Kansas City. MO Colome, SD Agpro Software, Inc. All Star Computer Senicc Chcrrygarth Parms Software, Inc. Phclpst~n, Ontario LOL 2PO Canada Woodford, VA Auburn, IN Agribusiness Computer Strategica American Business Analysis Chicago Mercantile Exchange Glastonbury, CT Amarillo. TX Chicago. IL Agri-Com Systems. lac. Arp Software C-1-L Agvcnturo Chambersburg. PA Premo.CA London. Ootaria N6A 41..6 Canada Agricultural Software Coasultanll, Inc. Arbasas Systems. Inc. CISCO (Commodity Info. Scniccs Co.) Kingsville. TX Little Rock. AR Chicago. IL AGRI data Atlantia Software, Inc. Climate Assc11mcnt Technology. Inc. Latham, NY Spokane. WA Houston. TX AgriData Resources, Inc. Babson Bros. Co. Computer Agri-Vcnturc Milwaukee. WI Whcatridgc, CO Peguot Lakes. MN Agri-Data System~ Inc. Loren Beonctt Computer Friend Phoenix, AZ Davis. CA Quincy, IL Agri-Education, Inc. Blue Sky Softwar:e Computerized Service & Design Stratford, IA Cotton, WA St. Onge, SD rr, 36 Extensive, but not necessarily complete. Some companies leave 1he indus1ry each year; mergers and buy-ouls are currenlly under discussion.

PAGE 245

BLANK PAGE

PAGE 246

45 Agri-Management Services. Inc. Brubaker Software Computer Power Unlimited Statham, GA Lafayette, IN Bancroft, IA Compu Trac, Inc. Daa DuPort & Auociatca PBS System New OrlMOS. LA Saa Praack:t(\ Aledo, IL Control Data Corporatioa Efticicncy Rcaourcca, Inc. Prcd'a Miao-Ware (Sec Doane information Scnicca) Oakville, IA Amboy, MN Country Computing EMS Software General Parm Services Bridgeton, IN Plc111D1 Grove, CA Ithaca, NY Countryside Data. Inc. Pum & Porcst Software Great Plains Software l~aho Palls. ID White Bear Lake, MN Pargo. ND Crop Data Mgt. Systems PumComp Bobby J. Hall &. Auociatca Maryville, CA Logan. ur McComb, MS Cybcr-S~n. Inc. P.A.R.M. Computer 0-ultiaa Harvest Computer System Buffalo, MN Garfield, WA Alexandria, IN Dairysoft CUstom ~o Parm Crcdil Bub of Spriagfielcl HCI La Jolla. CA Parm Crcdil Baab of St. Paul Hutchinson, MN Pana Crcdil Bank of Baldmoro Springfield, MA Dairy Solutiona by MRB, Inc. Zephyrhills. FL Pumcr'a Software Exch~ Auoc. Heber Software Fl. Colllas. 00 Concord. CA Dalex Computer S,acms. Inc. Mound, MN Parmbaad Computer Systema. IJd. Herd Management Systcma. Inc. Milchcllvillc, IA San Antonio. TX Data Management Auoc.. Inc. Shippcnsbur& PA Farmhand Software, Inc. Hi-Plains Systems, Inc. Pcolcavillc, MD Amarillo, TX Datasphere Computer Systems. Inc. Portland, OR Pum Info. Services, Inc. Hobar Publications Waterproof, LA St. Paul. MN Decision Support Software. Inc. McLean, VA Parm Management, Inc. Holm-Dietz Computer Systems, Inc. New Lenox. IL Prcsno, CA OHi Computing Service (DHI-Provo) Holstein Association Provo, UT P .A.R.M.S., Inc. St. Johnsville, NY Brattleboro, vr ,., D'Laubach Carter, MT .:> ,,. i},)? .. ,.

PAGE 247

J.B. Holler Market Master Pro-Ag Software Co. Valley Computer Systems Durham, NH Columbus. OH Luray, KS Clovis, CA Homestead Computer Scrvlccs. Ltd. MarkctSoft Red River Computcn Wcstfalia Systemat Winnipeg. Manitoba'. Chi~o, IL P~go,ND Elk Grove, IL R3T 1T6 Canada HowardSoft Markcmew Software. lac. Red Wang Businca Systems. In~ La Jolla, CA St. Cbarlca, IL RedW-ana.MN D.R. Hutchinson Consukanta Memory Systems. Inc. Resource n Corporation Housloo, TX Skokie, IL Carlisle, MA ICM Computer Systems, Inc. Mlcrostar Software Ltd. Response, Inc. Wcn~tchcc, WA Nepcu. Ontario IC2B 7J6 Canada Jackson, MN llliNct Software, Univ. of IL MicroVcst RusscU Associates Urbana, IL Macomb, IL Lo Sueur, MN Illinois Parm Bureau Modular Elcdronia. Inc. Sage Systems Bloomington, IL St. Paul, MN Lovelock, NV ln-Tl!C Equipment Co. N-8quued Computina SL. Benedict' Parm Dayton, OH Silverton, OR Waelder, T,c lntegraled Controia Inc. Nutrldoaal Software S,.acma Settler Computer Tcclmologica. Inc. Milllowo, NJ Blkhut, IN Regina. SK S4N 5W5 Canada Iowa ParD\ Busincsa Alsoc. Orange Softwaro Shoebox Computer Scnicca Ames, IA Premo.CA Danville, KS Jones Agricomp Scniccs, Ltd. PD Incorporated Smida & Associates Calgary, Alberta TOM OBO Canada Fairfield. CA St. Charles. IL Josalli, Inc. Pioneer Hi-Bred lnlcraational. lac. Software Tcclmiquca of Colorado, Inc. Enka, NC Urbandale, IA Ft. Collins. CO Lassen Software, Inc. Post Rock Compulina. Inc. Specialized Data Systems. Inc. Paradise, CA Luray, KS Madison, WI Uvcslock Tcdmology Mgt. Valley Agricultural Software Sycamore, IL Tulare, CA (~) l/ ()

PAGE 248

..J :,J:-) Table 11.4 Oa-llae Apicultural laformatloa Scnlcea System Name Spouor ACRES American Parm Americaa Agric. Commualcatioaa Sys. Bureau Pcderatioa Park Ridge. IL agUneSt. Louis. MO Agrlbuslaeu U.S.A. Pioneer Hybrid Data Bue Mgt. Johnston. IA AGRICOLA National Agricultural Library Information Syatema Division Bcl1sviUc, MD AgrlData Network Milwaukee. WI AQS II Commodity Newa Senicca, lac. Leawood, KS ATI-Net Calif. Agricultural Technology Institute Calif. State Uaivonity Fresno, CA Doane Information Scnicca Pioneer Hi-Bred lotcnaatioaal, lac. USDA/NAL AgriData Reaoura:a, lac. Commodity Ncwa Senicca CATI 47 Primary Osen Mcmbcn of 36 partidpatiag state farm bureaus Info. retrieval. market data analysis and AgriVisor trading advice. weather, legislative developments, all USDA market reports. Agricultural ComputlDI nows-Electronic mail, ag software reviews, public domain letter subscribcn ag software. cash commodity, futures, & options prices. Agribusiness Farmers. agricultural rcsearcben nationwide Nationwide Nationwide market advice and analysis, major USDA reports, Washington reports. lndcxca & abstracts from morethan 300 business & gov't. publications, complete from Jan. '89 to p,esent. Pull text of USDA statistical reports. Updated every week. Info. retrieval (primarily agricultural research), information and university Cooperative Extension publications. B11sioess dcdsioa Wo.; Ag Ed Network, market aclvisorics, cash & futures prices, gov't. commodity DeWI. Grain and llvatock futures and cash prices, weather, and financial information. California fumen and aationInfo. on Calif. agriculture, public domain software, wide bulletin boards, electronic mail, teleconferencing. DRAGNET Delaware Dept. of Ag ia Delaware ag professionals Bullctioboa,d, public domain farm mgt. & agronomic software for downloading. Delaware Dept. of Agriculture Dover, DI! EXNET Ames, IA cooperation with the University of Dcleware Cooperative Extension Iowa State University Extension Service Iowa extension services and farmers Integrated pest management, farm and home eoonomics info.,~ rq>011' dcdronic mail, USDA

PAGE 249

l I FACTS Ag Computer Network W. Lafayette, IN FAST Alachua, FL Purdue University PAST (Florida Agricultural Services and Tcdmologica) 48 markets. Indiana far111en ancl extension Ag data basca for Indiana, decision aid programs, offices problem solving programs. Info. retrieval. Southeastern farmcn & horNational Wcalhcr Scnkc clata. updated cw:ry 30 min. liculturista Includes forccasta. IR tracking of hurricanes, severe thundcrstormL Grassroota Winnipeg Manitoba R3H OR9 Grassroots lnformatioa Scnicca North America-wide, mainly agricultural and financial Market prica. stock market quotes, advice, & analysis, various reports &. newsletters. Instant Update Cedar Palls, IA NPIRS User Senicca, NPIRS Entomology Hall. Purdue Univcniay West Lafayette, IN Profcuional Parmen of America, Inc. Purdue University SCAMP Cornell University 1PM Program NYS Agricultural Blpcriment Station Geneva. NY The Soun:e McLean, VA Source Tclccomputing 0,rp. UMCBBS Columbia, MO Univ. of Missouri-Columbia USDA EDI Senlce USDA U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Washington. D.C.Computcr Systems House Salt Lake City, trr Nationwide Nationwide Info. retrieval. commodity prices. market advice and analysis, commodity optiona, weather. news wire. Federal&. ltllo pcsdddc registratiom. related chemical info., all hrwdous chemicals, MSDS (Material Safety Data Sbcell). EPA'aPDMS (Pemddc Documentation Mgt. System). New York elleuion officca. Info. rctricvr..t. peat forecasting. weather forecasting. New York atato agcndca. coop. pest/crop/weather reporting, elcc. mail. Macintosh institutions. and farmen IBM bullelia boards. aationwidc. Nationwide Missouri and midwcstern ag profcuionals Info. retrieval. commodity picea. USDA reports, elec tronic mail. Utility programs. aprcadshecll, daily &. weekly info from Univ.
PAGE 250

49 Ftaure DU Components of a Decision Support System Data 1ues Parm Family uul Personnel Emiroament Data Base Model Base Model Bases Models for making Stratep: decisions ( e.g., sclecQcm of cropping sequence and general approach to pest manage-Maaagement Management meat for the amt S )an) System System Dedsloll Mabr (farmer) L ldead&es problem(s) ( diagnosis) 2. Iclend&es lltemama to solve problem& ..-------------..... Models for makiog Tacdcal decisions (~ sclcctioa of berbic:ides in a pardcular year, pea c:roppiDg sequence ad obsened weed problems) Models for doing nnsacd._. processing and prlatlas standard reports ( e.g., fineadal n:c:onls;, tax records, irrigation scbectuling ,:ecords, field records, livestock n:c:onls and reports of emiroamental moaitoriag) 3. ,ctenri&a tbe caasequeaces of tho altc:rnaliva ictenrified, sac:11 a impact OD apected aet income, risk of failure, labor asc, aacl eaviroament (e.g., risk of impairing groandwarer quality) 4-Cboases tbe alremadve amoag die altemama dial me beea kfendfied that best meets tbe farm family's goals 5. Implements 111d inidares follow tbrougb and moaitoriag 6. Reviews outcome ol the choice mcl irs implementadoa iD order to -1 to farma's "kllowledge base a Data bases contain data that relate to the farm (Internal data) sucb as laformadoa coatalned la a crop fteld record system aNI an aternal to the l'arm such u laformadoa oa pesticides the grower Is coasicleri111 uslas0, Lj L\ '= Q'--\9-

PAGE 251

Rgure 111.2. Example of a data acquisition network for DSS 1 1 lo Don] MILKING PARLOR MIik 'l1lal;tcta C'ow11:wb:w c::.ttle 'J.1'dglOlhal-Cow ~1Nidan amaaraaHDl,MONm>IINC (-.. 1J I II J c111c __ _, dr rt I lowdllC ... ..., .. __ B ;::,,,,, FEEDCENTER ,_..,. f'offllUllltad P-.dl-.-.w ..... 1 ~,, ICBS COMPUTER CENTER CMl:lalo.taa... 0 :hi A 5e JIU r<: ModallS i I liiil i nnl 49a .,,,.""' .,,,.,,' Dff$itit IRRIGATION SVSTEM SoiMaistaaw Watlet"~ ON-FARM WEATHER STAnGN NrT......,....,. Hlffldty Sollu"Pad1-.X. Rainfall --Soeed SalT.........,._ EXTERNAL DATA SOURCES f"\ '--\~ BEST COPY AVAILABLE

PAGE 252

Figure 111.3a igatlon Sch. Prog. 49b Irrigation Scheduling Prototype Model: ~mponents of Model Input (Ver. 1~ OBT) Time: 17:37:10 Date: 07/15/89 Page 1 KI:CHIGAN STATE UHrVERS:tTY :tRRIGATION SCHEDULING PROGRAM aclpladan and Sol Molllln Racan:I Latitude: 42d4411 Longitude: 84d29m nn: Black OTA Farm Field: Center Pivot crop: corn -----~ ----------------------~------------------~---Wthr Mean crop ET Rain Irrig. Deplet. PMC PM Graph MI ate Type Temp.(P) ----:tnches -------I o M 100 -----------------------------------------------------I ---------------1122 1123 .1124 ,25 1128 11127 128 11129 in 30 1 ~3 :4 ~5 8 ~7 8 Act Act Act Act Act Act Act Act Act Act Act Act Act Act Act Act Act :al Season 73 69 66 68 71 67 67 65 67 64 64 67 68 72 68 68 69 .23 .21 .19 .21 .22 .20 .19 .19 .21 .19 .19 .21 .21 .21 .21 .21 22 Data 814GDD 7.53 1.50 2.40 1.50 5.40 4.50 .90 1.11 1.30 1.51 .23 .43 -.19 .01 .21 .40 .60 .81 1.01 le22 -.07 .15 .37 76 I I I I I I I I I I I +++ 70 I I I I I I I I I I I ++ 65 I I I I I I I I I I I + 60 I I I I I I I I I I I 93 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 88 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 104 *********** ******** 99 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I 94 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 89 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 84 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 78 I I I I I I I I I I I +++ 73 I I I I I I I I I I I ++ '57 81IIIIIIPII + 101 *********** ******** 96 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 90 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -----Legend: Act ET Rain lrrlg Deplat. PIIC II ---------Actual Input data vs. projected' Input data Evapotransplratlon Inches of moisture supplied by rainfall Inches of moisture supplied by Irrigation Inches of moisture the soll Is away from being saturated Moisture, percent of fleld capacity Target moisture, as a percentage of field capacity, at which lnigatlon Is Initiated Pit Graph=. Moisture, percent of field capacity. BEST COPY AVAILABLE

PAGE 253

49c Irrigation Scheduling Prototype Model: Components of Model Output :sa:msam:-=-a---~----:::a:m.aw:::ii=:a:n=:ies:111au:ana:N:aa1--.... ._.~-alWW ... _iaai~__. .... iasaw.a:----==--i:ma:-=-==== ===== :,raclpitatfon and Vlad Record =arm: Black OTA Farm Latitude: 42d44m Longitude: 84d29m Field: Center Pivot crop: Corn --IT -~----~------~----------~~--------~~--------~~-~------...----~--~-~-~--~-~~----Wthr Rain:tall Irrigation Drainage N Leaching PMC Yield ate Type Inches Inches Inches Index I bu/A ---------~-------__. ............ ...,__,.. .. ~-----~----------------------------------,22 Ac:t 76 180.0 -_23 Act 70 180,0 124 Act 65 180.0 _25 Act 60 180.0 -_29 Act 1.50 93 180.0 _%1 Act 88 180.0 Act 2.40 1.78 ** 104 180.0 _29 Act 99 180.0 -_30 Act 94 180.0 1 Act 89 180.0 2 Act 84 180.0 3 Act 78 180.0 4 Act 73 180.0 s Act 67 180~0 8 Act 1.so .07 101 180.0 7 Act 96 180.0 8 Act 90 180.0 al S.1011 ,_ 5.40 4.50 3.11 --N UIChlng Inda Inda d nftrogen getting below the root zone. ~l L\'v BEST COPY AVAILABLE C. -d~ \

PAGE 254

' Q) u {'.) a: UJ <( z Q 0 UJ 0 FIELD CROPS INSECT MANAGEMENT (FCIM) SOFTWARE w u..: a: a: w en ::> -MODEL DRIVEN OR GENERAL INFORMATION -ABOUT FCIM SOFTWARE -ABOUT IDSS SOFTWARE -ABOUT 1PM -LIFE HISTORY -DAMAGE -BIO-CONTROLS RECOMENDATIONS -CULTURAL -BIOLOGICAL -CHEMICAL I~if "~.{;;;;:,:;;,;+yv ,.ii;. r,? l\\~,wwrw : ir _s_ou_R_c_E_s _____ .-... ---. .... }i.!:i.)J\:iil)I!II!;li ii "WRAPPER" -DIRECTS CALLS TO INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL DATABASES -

PAGE 255

Figure IV .1 Groundwater Contamination by Nitrate C,-.. c.. ~ ~ d~.J ... BEST COPY AVAILABLE v

PAGE 256

Figure V .1 Dairy /Crop Farm Layout at Michigan State University's Kellogg Blologlcal Station .. .. MONITORING WELL (/J MONITORINO SUCl'ION LYSIMBTBR WATER-WELL MONITORED &C'JftHtLO WIU J ,~-,.. ,.,.,o,~UA. "' snrr1,t \i \ .. \ 1/) ( / -) / ~'--_; Irrigated field crops 11,1111.fA e CZ> (/) ...................... .. .... -~ -BEST COPY AVAILABLE

PAGE 257

49g Figure V.2 FATE OF ORGANIC CHEMICALS BEST COPY AVAILABLE

PAGE 258

4911 Figure A.1 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAM eou ,..,_ .. ,,,,,,,. _....,_ _,.., ----}oi,wtl ....... Conceptual View of 'Map Overlay C3 . B : : : : 2 . . . BEST COPY AVAILABLE .,

PAGE 259

'Lind UM 49i Figure A.2APPLICATIONS TO POTATO PRODUCTION Figure A2 considers three factors: weather, land use, and soils. The resulting summary depicts the resultant combinations of each of these factors. BEST COPY AVAILABLE L ~J ':, .. /

PAGE 260

so GLOSSARY Algorithm: A computational procedure for performing a specified task, such as sorting a set of names into alphabetical sequence. Artlllclal latelJlaence: The branch of computer science that deals with the use of a computer to perform bumanlike functions, such as diagnosis See also Expert System. Data: Numeric values, textual characters, and graphic images, generally retained in the clatab-.sc in raw form prior to yocesvng Ullo information for operational or decision making purposes. Data entry: The function that deals with the input and editing of data entering the tnnsaction yocessing ,ystcm or other components of a DSS program being used ill interactive mode. Database: The collection of machiae-readable data maintained as part of a managem.--nt information system; the co1ledioll of data described by the system's data dicdonary. Datahue .......... SJStem: A system software product that provides a variety of fimdioaa aeeded to access, maintain, and protect the o,pnizarim's darabue Declaf sappart system: A computer-based system designed to wist a dttisioa maker(, farm family) to make better, faster, or cheaper decisions. Dynamic aeo-nfe,endaa: A process using remote sensing devices to provide the real time loc:arion of any entity in three dimensions. Current capabilities (satellites, signal transmitten, etc.) can provide location within cendmeters. Elednalc maB: The trammissio111 of text (or poaibly images) in interpersoaal commuaicariofl ow:r a telec:ommaakatioas llCt'Work, allowing either a sim11fraaeoua commsadon or (more t;pically) message storage with retrieval OD clemancL Espert IJIWU: A brancb of arti6cia1 intelligence that deals with complex clecisioa processes defined in terms of a series of ndc., dud: mimic a humaD expert. Extenal stonp dmce: A clata storage device that permits the computer to read stored data into its main memory (where all computadon takes place) and write the results of computarioas back !mo the device; magnetic clisk and tape are currently by far the most wicfely used forms of external storage.. Geop-aplalc laformadoa system (GIS): A system of hardware, software, cfara, people, O'pnizations, and imtitutional ammgcmcmts for coDecring. storing. ana1ynag, and diswninaring mformarioa about areas of the earth. Requime functionality for a GIS coasisrs of: (1) the ability to create, edit, and delete geopapbically structured data; (2) tbe ability to link locadoaal md attribute clara; (3) the ability to perform spatial mlysia funcdoas, inducting analytical map CMrlay of mulriple data themes wt network analysis; ( 4) the ability to display geographic information. Geographic data editing aad network analysis are both factahrect 1,y use of a topological data structure that describes objects u points, lines, and areas and records the relarioasbips of incidence and c:mmecdvity amoag them. lalormadoa: Processed data used for decision maani; a reprmcnt.atioa of reality, often in coa.clcascd form, that reduces the unc:ertaiaty about the true state of nature. Integrated system: A system having tight coupliag and/or extensive resource sharing among its component parts.

PAGE 261

51 Interactive system: A system that provides a dose dialogue between a human and a computer, with the human issuing commands or posing questions and the computer responding appropriately (usually within a few seconds or even a &action of a second). laterface: The boua.dary between two subsystems that interact with one another, or bct\'ICCD. a human aa.d a computer system. Lud lalormadoa system: A geographic information system having, as its main focus, data, t0a.ccming land records. La,-: A conceptual grouping of data types that share common characteristics. Syn: theme. Local ua aetwon: A telecommua.icatioas network used to lia.k devices (computers, printt,rs, etc.) within a relatively small geographic area (generally within a radius of one kilometer). Lyslmeter: (i) A device for measuring percolation and leacbing tosses &om a columa. of soil under controlled conditiom; (Ii) A device (or measuriag pins (precipitadoa. aacl c:oadensatioll) and kme.1 (evapotJwpiration) by a columa. of soil) Mapedc dJslc A direct access storage medium for storing files and other parts of the database, ia. which data are recorded magnetically oa. a n:votving disk. Mapedc tape: All mrma1 sequential ac:cea storage medium, generally used for storing large sequential 61cs, backup files, and an:bival data. Malatnme: A powe.ful computer, almost always linked to a large set of peripheral devices ( disk storage, primers, etc.), aa.d asecl in a maltiporposo cmiroamem at the corporate or major divisioDal le\d. Men 1rTNnt lat~ SJ1'!5-(MIS): A. ~puter-bued iDformatioa system used ia. tbe operational management and decisioa ma~ of aa orpmzatiOII. Meaa: A list of aJtemame acdom or data values preseated oa a display scr=a to allow a user to select among the proposed options during a dialogue with the computer. Mlcrocompater: A small, reJatM:ly iaexpensi,,e computer, usually dedicated to use by a single user; a personal computer or ~a.. Minicomputer: A medium-sized computer, usually scniDg a reJatnely small orpnmtioaal unit or dedicated to a fairly aarrow speriHzed task. Model: A mathemadcal or symbolic representadoa. of real-world environment, used to predict the consequences of alternative courses of action in order to choose the best alternalive. Ntraa probe: A device wbic:h measures biometric soil water content. Olr-llae aonp: Dara storage a.at conneded automatically to a computer; storage that requires human iDtervatioa in order for the computer to access t.be data. Oa-Dae aonp: Data storage c:oaa.ected to a COIDP.uter iD a way that permits automatic access to the data without 1JJJ human mtenention. Operatlaa S)Stem: A basic system software product for automatically 11.1aaagiag the operations of a computer, which dcm with such matters as controlling acces., to the computer, setting priorities among multiple users, allocating computer resources, and handling input/output operations; often termed the "traffic cop of the system. BEST COPY AVAILABLE

PAGE 262

S2 Opdcal disk: A direct acccu storage medium in which data are recorded OD a rcvoiving disk in a form that can be sensed by opti~ means (e.g., photoelectric sensing of rctlected laser-generated light). The principal advantage of such storage is its ability to store a very large wlume of data in dense form and at low cost; the principal disadvantages are its reladwly slow access time and (m some applic:adons) the noDerasability of the medium. Opdal ICIDDina: 11le USO of an optical semol' to n:ad input data. Penoaal computer: A microcomputer (or workstation) to a single mer at a time. Prop-am: A set of statements or imtructioas in a computer language that is intended to accomplish a specilicd task when executed OD a computer (possibly after &rst being fl'ansfareci into macbine-hquage form); to create a program. Prototype: An interim application program, generally with less than 'full blown' capabilities, which is implemented reJative1y quickly and at low cost to demonstrate a funcdoaal capability, provide an unambiguous fmu:tioaa1 specification, sene as a ,cbiclc for orpaizarioaa1 learning, and (possibly) evohe ultimately into a fully implemented~ Real-time pnceu: A physical proccsa in which conttol is emrcised by a computer system within the (scnerally short) time span aeedecl to tab correctne acdoa and maintain stability of the proceu. Seuor. A devico that responds to a physical samulus ( e.g., electrical coaduc:tivity, beat, light, pres.1ure, a particular motion, or sound) and tw'lasmits a messap to a controller (regulator) computer for use in ewluating whether a process is oa target w. whether iapms need to be modified. Slmaladoa: Use of tho computer to mimic tbe operadoa of a physical proa:ss to am1yze its behavior under coadidoas, often with the objecthe of searching for a set ol deasioa variables tbat lead to sarisf1ctory or even near-optimum performance.. Software: A c:ollectM term far computer programs. Sofb,an......,... A set of disc:ipliaed methodologies for improving the reliability and lowering the cost of developing and maintaining compucer software. System: AD entity composed of interactiag subunits that ba,e a commoa pmp(* or set of global goals. Turakey syatem: A complete system ready for operation (requiring tbc user merely to "tum on the key"), ind.acting hardware, system software, and app6carion programs. Updatfaa: Oanging the databae to retlec:t all of the coasequences of a t,ansac:rioa / ,,,. ,, .___,/ ,../..,_.)-

PAGE 263

S3 BIBLIOGRAPHY Agricultural Integrated Management Software, Miqgcomputer HmJwve Stapdard,,, Cooperative Extension Service and Agricultural Experiment Station, Micbigan State Uniwrsity, February 1989. Alderfer, R.D., Factors Effecting Suc:ce.1sful Use Of On-Parm Computers ID North central Tndiaaa, Unpublished Masters Thesis, Purdue Uniw:rsity, May 1985. Aldrich,J.M. and w A Knoblauch,. smm of Nc;wNork Farmers ug Op-Fang Computers, Cornell University, A.E. Ext. 82-19, 1982. Aldric:ks, J.S., Agn Source: T'u Information System for Crop Technology, in A&risbemieJ, apd Groundwater. Re,wurcc,, and Stratezies for State and Lgc;aI MangemenL Proceedinp of Conference Sponsored by the Freshwater Foundation, US Geological Suney, Soil Coaservatioil Service-USDA, Extension Servicc USDA, and US Environmental Protection Agenc/, St. Paul, MN., October 24-25, 1988. Alter, S., A Tamnomy On Decision Support Systems, Sloap Mapap;mept Reyic;w, Fall 1973, pp. 37-56. Alter, S., "Why Is MmComputer Interaction Important For DecisioD Support Systems, Intmfams February 19?9, pp. 109-115. Anderson, J.L and P.C. Robert, "Soil Sum:ying Information System: A User Friendly Soil Information System, In Aa:icbemicals and Groundwater; Re,wurq;s and Strateaisa for Stare and Lgc;aI Manapment, Pro=edhtp of Conference Sponsored by the freshwater Puundadoa, US Geological Suney, Soil Coaservadon Service-USDA, Extension Service-USDA, and US Environmental Protection Agency, SL Paul, MN., October 24-25, 1988. Aadenoa, i.L aad P.C. Robert, "Use Of Computerized Soil Suney Reports wl County Extcnsio11 Offices, in Proc=ctmp of 2n4 Jntmatignal Coofemc;e op Cmnputers ip A&risPltm:e Extepsiop Programs, Lake Baena Vma, Florida, February 5-6. 1986. UDM:l'Sity of G~ Florida. Anon. "The Manapm.-.nt Dilfereaa= Future Information Needs of Commercial Farmers, Arthur Anderson ad Co., Oicago. n.. 1982. Anon, "IDSS: Building Better Tools, Aa:jcgltpral Enaues;rin1, Vol 69, No. 5, July/August 1988. Bailey, G.W., LA. Mulkey, and R.R. Swank, "Environmental lmplic:adoas of Coaservation Tillage: A Systems Approacb, ID P .M. D'Itri ( ed). A Systems Amzrgac;h tg Consen;atign TdJam, Lewis, 1985. Batte, M.T., G.D~ Scbnitkaey, and E. Jones, "lafo.,,,adoa Usage By Commercial Ohio Cash Grain Farmers: Sources, Uses, and Adequacy Of Marketing Information, Selected Paper Presented at the American haoriadon of Agric:uJtura1 Ecoaomics, KnoDiDe, TN, July 31-Augast 3, 1988. Battc:lle Columbus Laboratories, Commumcatioa and Information Managemcnr: Backgroand Paper No. 22 in Ot&e of Technology report, Tc;chnolog, Public Policy, apd the Q,naiJlr Structure of American Agic;gltgre.. Office of Teclmology Assessm-mt, U.S. Congreu, November 1985a. BatteUe Columbus Laboratories, "Monitoring and Control Animal Agriculture, Background Paper No. 23 in Office of Technology report, Technology, Public PoQQ', apd the ChanlUJI Strpctme of American Agic;gltpre. Office of Technology Assessm~ U.S. Congreu, November 198Sb. Battelle Columbus Laboratories, 9Telecommuaicatioa, Background Paper No. 25 in Office of Technology report, TechnoJoa, Public Policy, and the Changjn1 Stmgure of American Al[icutrure, Office of Technology Assesmlcnt, U.S. Congress, November 198Sc.

PAGE 264

54 Beck, R.H., "Soil Tee: A Computerized, Soil Specific Fertiliz.cr Application System, In Resources and Strategies for State and Local Manam;ment, Procccctinp of Conference Sponsored by the Freshwater Foundation, US Geological Survey, Soil Conservation Senice,-USQA Extension Service-USDA, and US Environmental Protection Agency, St. Paul, MN., October 24-25, 1988. Bclluck, B.A. and H.A. Anderson, -W-1SCOasiD's Risk As~sm-.Jlt Based On Numerical Groundwater Standards Program, In AajchemiqJI and Qmgpdutec Bc;,wwc;m pd Strategies for State and Local Mapapment, Proceectinp of Conference Spoasored by the F~ Foundation, US Geological Survey, Soil Coasemdoa Service-USDA EJtemion Scmce-USDA, wl US Environmental Protection Age,Jq, St. Paul, MN., October 24-25, 1988. Bult=-, G. and E. Hoiberg, fannm Adgptjpg Computers Bit qy Bit, Paper J-10666, Iowa State University Agricultural Experiment Station, 1983. Bi~cienc;, Special ls.me: Integrated Pest Management. Vol.30, No. 10. 1980. Bird, G.W., R.L Tummala and S..H. Gage, -rbe Role of Systems Science and Data Base Management Systems in Nematology, in J.N. Saaer (eel), Adyanq;d MeQodomo Trigte, vom., Academic Pre., 1985. Bird, G.W., The Integrated Pest ManagemflJlt Expericncc, Reform and Inngyatiop of Sgt;pq; and Education; Plamrig for the 1990 farm BQL by Senator Leahy, Chairman, Committee '>II Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, United States Senate. Black, J.R., J.W. Pease, J.H. Hilker and 0.B. Hesterman, A Software Design Proc:esa For Extension Teaching Software, F .s. Zuzueta ( cd)" SermJd Iaternational Cgnfen;uc;e gp Computers ip Aajcgltpral Extension Pmm,ns, Uanenity of Florida, 1988. .. Blackie, M.J. 811d J.B. Dent, (ccQr lpfqnpatign sncems fgr Al[ic;g)tun;, Applied Science Publisbers LTD, 1979 .. Blodgett, J., V. Smida. l',eseararioa at tbe Midwest Gromadwatcr Quality ProtcctioD OIJengp., St. Charles, IL, November 1-3, 1989. Bransford, J.D. and S.S. Stem, The Ideal PrpbJem Sglyer; A Guide for Imm;qying DJinkia1o I r,ming and, Crgtiyity, New York, 1984. Bandy, LG., "Dcffldopment of ~atrogea Management Model: Potendaf For Sitc/Spec:i6c Groundwater Protcctioa, inAl[icultpgl Qemic;als and Groundwater Protegigg; Emer&PJI Mana&mPenC and Policy, In Procee,Jinp of Coafcrence, Sponsored by Freshwater Founclari911, US Environmental Protection Agency, National Agricultural Chemical Associarion, Unm:rsity of M'vaaesoa Ccatc:r for Agricultural Impacts On Wat.er Quality, M"mnesota Department of Agriculture, St. Paul, MN., October 22-23, 1987. Bum, AJ., T.H. Co..ucr, wl P.C. Jepsoa, lntgrated P;st Management, Ac:adrmjc Pres, N.Y.1987. 474 pp. Bart, J.P., -n.e Role Of~ Managem-m Practices: In AgricplturaJ Qemie!a apd Qroupdwater Prptectigq; Ems;rgipg Mao1FDe11C and Pgliq, In Proceedinp of Conference, Spoasored by Freshwater Foundation, US Emiromncntal Pl-otcdion Agency, National Agricultural Chemical Aaociarioa, Unm:rsity of ~ncsota Centerfor ~ic!dlural Impacu On Water Quality, ~ncsota Ocpartmcnt of Agriculture,. St. Paul, MN., October 22-23, 1987. Cantor, IC.P., A. Blair, and S.H. Z.abm, "Health Effeus of Agrichcmicais in the Groundwater: What Do We Know?" ID Al[icgltpral Qemira!! and Qrgggch,'ltet Prptectiog: Emggg Man1FJ1ept and Policy, In Proa:edinp of Conference, Sponsored by Freshwuter Foundation, US Environmental Protection Agency, National Agricultural Chemical Am>ciation, Unf'Yel'Sity of Minnesota Center for Agricultural Impacts On Water Quality, Department of Afculture, St. Paul, MN., October 22-23, 1987.

PAGE 265

ss Carrico, M.A., J.E. Girard, and J~. Jones, Buildin1 Knowledp Bassi sncems; PmJapio1 and Manamog Rule Based Amzlicatigns, New York; McGraw Hill, 1989. Canel, R.P., c.N. Smith, L.A. Mulkey, D. Dean, and P. Jowiser Usea Manual for Pesticide Rostor Zone Model (lRZM), U.S. Environmental Protectioa Agency, Athens, 0A, 1984. Carter, J.R., A Typology of Geographic Information Systems, Tec:baiQJ Papers, AC,M/ASPRS Appual Cggys;ptigg, Vol. S, St. Low.,, MO, pp. 207-215. 1988. Davis, G.D., MaunGPJenC Information Systems Cgnc;cptual fqupdadgp, Stmc;tmw and Deyelopment, New York: McGraw Hill, 1974. Doaae Information Services. Aa:jcultugl Computin~ 1988 Al[is;ultun; Software Directaa, Doane Information Services Newsletter for Computer Users in Agriculture, March 1988. Dueker, ICJ., "Multipurpose Cadastre: Terms and Definitions: Technical Papers, ASPRS IAQM Annual Qummtiog, VoL 5, April 2-7, Baltimore, MD. pp 94-103. 1989. Emery, J.C., :)fanaBDJent Information Sntems; De Critical Strare;ic Resource, Oxford University Press, 1987, New York. Esseks, D., Presentation at Midwest Groundwater Quality Protection OaDenge, SL Charles,~ Ncwember 13, 1989. Fowler, w., "Law-Input, Svstamable Agricu1tme sm Introduced ID Senate: Alt;rpacm; Agricpltm:e Nen, VoL 7; No. 6; JUDO 1989 Harsb, s.B., -Parm Level Information Systems Por Deci.,ion Making, Centro Di Studio Sulle, Rivevazioni Caahb-11 Aziencta&, Bolope, Italy, Pebraary 22, 1989. Harsb, s.B., -rhe Role Of Expert Systems As An Pmnsbt. Tool Por Maaagem,:m Education, Presented at North Camal Regional Parm Management Extension Workshop, May 1988. Harsb, S.B., "Modem laformadoa Systems For Agriculture: 11lcoraica1 Concepts And Practical Applications, Paper presented at JAAA/CAAA./ AASS "International Sympmium for World DcMlopment Strategies, held ill Beijing, Peoples Republic of China, October 2.1-29, 1987. Harsb, S.B. and R.C. Brook, "11le Integrated Support Systems Project At Micbigaa State University: F.S. Zumeta ( eel), Second Iatematioaal Conference on Computers ia Agricultura1 Extension Programs, Unnasity of Plorida, 1988. Harsb, s.B., J. Hilker, J. Co1111or and G.D. Schwab, Manama, De fang BJWJJSSL Prentice Hall, Englewood Ciffs, 198L Hawkins, R.O., D.W. Nordquist, R.H. Crawn, J.A. Yates, and K.s. Klair, flNPACK; A Computem;ed Farm fio1us1i Plannin1 and Analysis Packet, Center for Fmancial Mamgement, University of Minne.,ota, 1980, Version 7.0. Hayes-Roth, P., D.A. Wattermaa ~d D-8. Lcnat, Bw1ding Expert Systems, Adisoa wcwey, 1983. Hepp, R. and T .M. Olson, Information Needs and Sources for Small Michipg farmers, Agricultural Economics Report 372, Michigan State University, 1980.

PAGE 266

56 Hepp, R., Project Leader in Farm Management, Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State University, personal communication 1988a. Hepp, R.,. Busjnes., Analysis Summary for Ca;sb Qraip Farms; 1988 TELFARM Data, Agricultural Economics Report 512, Michigan State University, 1988b. Holden, P.W Pesticides Jn Qmunsfwater Quality; Js.,ues and Problems Ip Fogg States, Wasbingrnn, D.C.: The National Academy Pres, 1986. Holt, D.A., Bmzort Qf Experiment Station Qa Policy (Escop) Support Committee Qg Computer-Aided Aa;jqltura.1 Qeci,,ign-Sugport Systems, Research and Development Required to Implement a NationaJ Computer-Aided Agricultural Decision-Support Systems. CAADss, Sub-Committee Owr, September rt, 1988. Holt, DA.-Cgmguters.ln Production A&riculbns Science, ?28:422-427. House, W.C., (eel), Decjsjon s,umgrt Smems Data Based Oriented, Vser Qmloped Djsigline, New York: Petrocelli Books, Inc. 1983. Huber, G.P., Mangerial Dec;i;sjgn Mafring, Scott, Foresman and Company, GlemMew, Illinois, .1980. Jackson, G.W., S.A. Jones and B. Webendorfer, "Farmstead Assessments and Means to Manage Quasi-Point Source of Groundwater Contamination, Dnft Paper for OTA, January 1989. Jackson, G.W., Agricultural Management Practices To Miaimke Groundwater Coaraminariou And A Site Specific: Farm Assemneat Procea, ID Aa;ic;pltpral Chemiql5 apd Grggpdwatc;r Prgtectiop; Emerging Mapapmqt and PoQc;y, Proc=~Hnp of Conference, Spoasored by freshwater Poonctarioa, US Emiromnental ProtecdoDAgeat:/, NatioaalAgricultural Chemical AssodariO'I, Uanasity of Mimu:sota Center for Agricultaral lmpadl on Wat.er Quality, ~IJIDesota Department of Agrica1ture, St. Paul, MN., Oc.tober 22-23, 1987. Jenkins, J., NPURGE, Per telephone di.cn1ssion with Dr. Jeffrey Jenkins on May 2S, 1989. Department of Entomology, University of Mauachusc:tts-Amherst. Mauachusetts. 1989. Kells, J.J. and IC.A. Renner, 1989 Weed Control Qgide for field Cam-Extension Bulletin E-550. 1988. King, R.P., D.W. Lybecker, E.E. Schweizer, and R.D. Zimdahl, "Bioeconomic Modelling to Simulate Weed Control Strategies for Continuous Corn Zea May,, We;d Sci~ 34:972-79, 1986. Krause, R.A., "Crop Data management Systems Computerized Pesticide Recommendation System(ACPS) for Meeting California's Pesticide Regulation OaPcnp, in Agjchemisaf1 agd Grgupdwater; Resoun;es and StrateJies for State and Lgca1 Manm,nc;nt. Procecdiap of Conference Sponsored by the Freshwater Foundation, US Geological Suney, Soil Conservation Scmc:o-USDA, Extension ServiceUSDA. and US Environmental Protection Ap.q, St. Paul, MN., October 24-25, 1988. Krause, R.A., "Computer Program Maker Law Compliance Easier, Ambusinea Fieldman; A News Mapzinc for We-,tem Al[iculturaJ Peg Contrpl Adyiws and Qperatgg,. March 1988. Landis, DA, S.B. Harsh, J.R. Black, R.C. Brook and R.J. Harmon, "Field Crop Inset Management Module, Paper presented at Workshop on Use of Computers in Integrated Fest Management, Las Vegas, NV, April 1989. Lazarus, W ~-and T .R. Smith, Adoption of Computers and Consultant Services by New York Dairy Parm~rs, Joumaf of Dairy Science, 71(6):1667-7S, 1988. --r; :) j ~-

PAGE 267

S1 Lusch, D., Telephone conversation with Dr. David Lusch, Center For Remote Sensing. Michigan State University. June 7, 1989. Lybecker, D.W., R.P. King, E.E. Schweizer, and R.L Zimdahl, "Economic Analysis of Two Weed Management Systems for Two Cropping Systems, We;J Sciepce, 32.-90-95, 1984. McCall, M. w. and R.E. CapWlt What Em: It Take-,; Pes;wop Makers At Work, Prentice Hall, Englewood CliiTa, N.J., 1985. MtcbaJski, llS., J.H. Davis, V.S. Bisht, and J.B. Sinclair, Computer Based Advisory System for Diagnosing Soybean Diseases in Dlinois: Special Report gp Plant Qisues, American Physiological Society, 1983, pp. 459-463. M:ills, H.D., R.C. Linger, and A.R. Hevner, Principle:, gf Jnfonnatjgg Systems Aggis apd Design, Academic Press, New York, 1986. Moranai, L, Pfeaentation ~ational Conference of Sate Legis1atun:s, Denver, CO. and Midwest Groundwater Quality Protection Challenge, St. Charles, IL, November 1, 1989. Murdick, R.G. and J.C. Mumoa, MTS Cgnq;pts and Qaim, 2nd ed., Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1986. Norton, G.A., Analysis of DemioD Making in Crop Production, Aa:P:Ecosntems, 3:27-44. Nowak, P., AgricbemicaJs and GroUDdwater: A.uumpdoa About Parm Information Processes, 1nAa:jchemicals and Qrpugdpter Protectjgg; Rc;,wmc;es and Stratgic;s for State and Lgql MagagemenL Proceeding., of Conference Spoasored by the Freshwater foundation, US Geo1ogic:a1 Survey, Soil Coasenation Service-USDA EDCDSioa Service-USDA, and US Esmroamcma1 Protedim AgerJ.q, October 24-25, 1988. NRC, Replating Ps;,tic;ide,, in Fggd; The Qelgy Paradgg. \Vebingron, o.c.: Tbe National ~cadcmy Press, 1987. Oflice of Tcc:lmoloiY Assessm-m, Congress of the Uaited States. Pr,st Mppapmept SbJltelies ip Crpp Prgtec;tign. Vols. I ct D. Waslringt'WI, D.C. 1979. Parker, D.H., -no Unique Qualities of a Geographic Information System: A Commentary, Phgtoarammetric Enaumiu1 and Remote SeNin1, VoL 54, No. U. November 1988. pp.1547-1549. Parsayne, K. and M. Chignellr Expert Systems for Experts, Wiley: New York, 1988. Puder, D.S. and D. 7-clbermall, Computers In Agricaltare: EYidellce Prom Tulare CoUDty, California," Amedc;an JgumaJ o( Aa:jc;ultupl &pngmiq, Vol 10, No. 4, 1988, pp. 1190-802. Renner, IC.A., J.R. Black and E. DeVuyst, SO)'HERB; Hcdzic;ide Optigm Prqmup For Weed Cgntrgl An IDtcgrated Decision Support Computer Program, Venioa 4.0. Cooperative Extension Service and Agric:ultaral Experiment Statioa, Micbipn State Uaivenily. 1989. Ritc:bie, .J.T., "Using Computerized Crop Models for management 0ecisions, 1pcern,tigpal DLG Cona:m for Anmuer Tec;hngl90, Hanover Federal Republic ol. Germany, May 1986. Rot7. A. and J.R. Black, "Workshop to Evaluate the Potential of DA YPOSYM a Decision Support System Component for Use by Growers and Lenders, U.S. Dairy forage Center/Agricultural Research Service/United States DepmbDent of Agriculture, 1989. Roy, S.P., "Wellhead Protection Information ud Resources, ID Aajchc;mic;ala agd Grpundwatec Resources agd Strateme-, for State apd LgqJ Mangement,. Proa:edinp of Conference Sponsored by the Freshwater Foundation, US Geological Survey, Soil Conservation Service-USDA, Extension Service USDA, and US Environmental Protection Agency, SL Paul, MN., October 24-25, 1988.

PAGE 268

58 Scherer, C.W. and J.P. Yarbrough, An Evroination of the Adoption of Microcomputers by Farmers m Iowa and New York, Presented at Land GQmt University North Central Regional Committee 90 Confe~ncc on Agplication of Computer Technology to Communication Proc;esss, Minneapolis, MN, April 1984. Shneiderman, B., Desja,ing Th; User Jnterfaq;; Stratgies for Effectiye Human Computer Jgteragion, Addison ~essley, Reading, 1987. Sinclair, J.B. and R.S. MicbaJski, -Soybeag Plant Qiseas Djppgsis, IlliNet System of Dlinois Cooperative Extension Service, PPAT P 117, 1986. Slatter, P.E., Buildin1 Expert Systems; CQIUitive Emulation, Halsted Pres.,, New York, 1987. Spectrum, GIS Training at Michigan State, Center for Remote Sensia& Micbigan State University. June 1989. Sprague, R.H. and E.D. Carlson,. Builsfln1 Effec;tjye Decision Sumzort Systems, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1982. Sprague, R.H., A framework for TI,e Development Of Desjsjon Sum,m:t Systems, MIS Quarterly, December 1980, pp. 1. Stone, N.D., R.N. Conlsoa, R.E., Frisbie, and K.D. Lob, "Expert Systems in Entomology: Three Approaches To Problem Solvin& Bulletins of the EgtomolQ&Y Soc:ietY, 1986. pp. 161-166. Sutherland, A. W .. Systems; AnalYP3, Administration, and Op;rations, New York: Vannostrand and Reinhold, Co., 1975. Swartz, M.S., "I Joking '31:ograpbic Information Systems with Simuladoa Modeling for Risk-Bendit Analym In Potato Production, Master thesis, Department of Resource Developmcmt, Michigan State University, Eat I amring, ML 1988. us Congress, omce of Technology Awssmem, technoloff, Ppblic Poliq, apd The Qappg Strgc;twe of us Aa:jcgltpre, OTA-P-285,US Government Printing Oflice, Washington, D.C., March 1986. Vttosb, M. and S. Harsh, Irrigation Scheduling. Agricultural Integrated Management Software, Version 1 Beta tat, Cooperame Extension Service and Agricultme Experiment Station, Midripn State University. June, 1989.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID ENZBWFP1K_N1K4KF INGEST_TIME 2017-06-05T16:57:54Z PACKAGE AA00055701_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES