Barriers to Change: Farmers' Willingness to Adopt Sustainable Manure Management Practices

Introduction

The most important job of Extension agricultural educators is to help farmers change behaviors to improve their lives and their neighbors' lives. Some livestock farms could benefit if neighboring farmers used their manure. Manure nutrient management is a practice that farmers can improve.

The study described here explored the potential for the transfer of manure to crop fields of neighboring farms. The population for this study consisted of all Calhoun County, Michigan farmers who reside in the Kalamazoo River watershed. The study looked at the barriers of changing manure management practices that inhibit distribution of manure to neighboring fields.

Extension educators are responsible for helping adults make behavior changes and identifying barriers that preclude adults from changing those behaviors. However, adults direct and take responsibility for their behavior and learning (Illeris, 2002). Adult learning is therefore a function of desire (Illeris, 2002).

An avenue for facilitating behavior change is the diffusion of new practices to appropriate audiences. Diffusion research considers factors that increase or decrease the chance that a group will adopt a new practice (Rogers, 1995). The diffusion of a conservation practices like manure exchange is different from diffusion of an innovation like the use of hybrid corn; there is not typically a short-term economic advantage to adopting a conservation practice (Pampel & Van Es, 1977). Pampel and Van Es (1977) found the predictors of the adoption of commercial practices were different from those of environmental practices. But Nowak (1987) determined that both economic and diffusion factors would predict the adoption of conservation practices.

Napier, Thraen, Gore, and Goe (1984) found that livestock farmers tended to use soil conservation practices more often than did nonlivestock farmers, while Featherstone and Goodwin (1993) suggested livestock farmers have a lower probability of investing in conservation practices as compared to nonlivestock farmers.

In another study, Napier, Camboni, and Thraen (1986) determined that farmers who used institutional information sources on a frequent basis were more concerned about environmental issues, a diffusion factor. Farmers who were concerned about the cost of adopting new technologies were more concerned about environmental concerns, an economic factor. Napier et al., (1986) reported that percent grain farmer versus percent livestock farmer were not significant indicators of the concern of environmental issues.

Odor can be a concern when farmers spread manure; odor is considered in this study. Kelsey and Vaserstein (2000) found that rural nonfarm neighbors were more than three times as likely to be concerned about odors generated by farms as they were to be concerned about runoff (Kelsey & Vaserstein, 2000).

Poe et al. (2001) reported that rural nonfarm complainants filed significantly more farm complaints related to odor (42%) than any other complaint category, including water pollution.

Poe et al. (2001) compared the per-cow cost at which a dairy farmer was likely to stay in business if they adopted all the practices called for by a comprehensive nutrient management plan implementation with the per-cow cost they were likely to spend to adopt practices called for by a CNMP. They (2001) reported that most farmers who were likely to remain in business after implementing practices called for by a CNMP were unwilling to pay for the costs in implementing those practices.

Research Questions

The study considered two research questions. Research Question 1 was:

How do all surveyed farmers respond to the following statements?

1. Farmers feel manure is too variable (not consistent enough) to be a reliable fertilizer source

2. Farmers are concerned that neighbors may complain about manure applications on fields not usually receiving manure

3. Odor concerns cause farmers to not apply manure on certain fields

4. Farmers are concerned that manure may contain weed seeds

5. Farmers are concerned with the potential compaction caused by manure application equipment

6. Farmers are concerned that manure applications could interfere with the timeliness of spring planting or other aspects of their cropping operations

7. Farmers would be willing to accept manure from a neighboring farm only if it were available at no cost

8. Farmers would be willing to accept manure from a neighboring farm at a cost, as long as the cost was less than commercial fertilizer

9. Farmers would be willing to accept manure from a neighboring farm at a cost, even if the cost was about the same as commercial fertilizer

10. Farmers would be willing to accept manure from a neighboring farm only if none of their time or labor were required to get it applied

11. Farmers would be willing to accept manure from a neighboring farm even if they had to supply some of their time and labor to get it applied

Research Question 2 was:

Are there differences between how surveyed livestock farmers and surveyed nonlivestock farmers, respond to those statements?

Results of this study can be generalized only to Calhoun County farmers within the Kalamazoo River watershed. It was assumed that the survey results were an accurate portrayal of surveyed farmers' perception of potential management of manure nutrients.

Methods Used

This study used a survey that was mailed to all Calhoun County farmers within the Kalamazoo River watershed (n = 349). To gain a deeper understanding of barriers to surveyed farmers utilizing manure nutrients, an open-ended question was included in the survey instrument.

The distribution list for the survey was compiled using the list of farmers at the Calhoun County MSU Extension office. It was determined whether an entry on the mailing list was within the Kalamazoo River watershed by cross-referencing each address with a map of the watershed. A weakness of this method was that any farmer who resides outside of, but farms land within, the Kalamazoo River watershed was excluded.

The survey instrument was developed by studying two similar instruments developed by MSU Extension agents for manure management programs. The questionnaire consisted of three parts:

• Filtering questions
• Likert-type statements and the open-ended question
• Personal data

Ms. Natalie Rector, MSU Extension Statewide Manure Management Agent, established face validity of the survey instrument by reading it and suggesting improvements. The survey instrument was edited and changed to reflect suggested improvements.

Cover letters and surveys were mailed on July 29, 2003. A pre-addressed, stamped envelope accompanied the cover letters and surveys. On August 8, 2003, a reminder postcard was mailed to nonrespondents, encouraging them to respond to the original mailing. On August 29, 2003, a second cover letter and survey with a pre-addressed, stamped envelope was sent to each nonrespondent.

Respondents returned 244 surveys (69.9%). Seventy-one surveys were unusable. The majority of unusable surveys were returned with the "I do not actively farm" response marked. Respondents returned 173 completed and usable surveys. The final, completed, and usable return rate was 49.6%.

Data were analyzed using frequencies and independent samples t tests. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences, version 12.0, was used to analyze the data. Any incomplete questions or confusing marks were treated as missing values; they were not included in the analysis.

Nonresponse error was controlled for by comparing the mean responses of early and late respondents, using an independent samples t test. Any survey returned on or before August 8, 2003, was considered returned by an early respondent. There were 126 early respondents and 47 late respondents. There was no significant difference in the mean response to any question when early and late respondents were compared, therefore results of this survey can be generalized to the entire population (Goldhor, 1974).

Findings

Research Question 1

Research Question 1 asked how all surveyed farmers perceive issues related to manure exchange. The responses of all respondents are listed in Table 1.

When asked if they thought farmers believed manure was too variable to be a reliable fertilizer source, 56.5% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed. The mean response to that question was 2.48.

Two questions concerned neighbor relations and odor from manure applications. The responses to these two questions were similar, as 64.5% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that neighbors may complain about manure applications on fields not usually receiving manure and 66.3% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that odor concerns cause farmers not to apply manure on certain fields. The mean responses to these two questions were 3.60 and 3.68, respectively.

Among all respondents, 64.2% agreed or strongly agreed that farmers are concerned that manure may contain weed seeds. The mean response to that questions was 3.57.

Three questions concerned manure cost, and 57.2% of respondents indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed that farmers would be willing to accept manure from a neighboring farm only if it were available at no cost. When asked if farmers would be willing to accept manure from a neighboring farm at a cost, as long as the cost was less than commercial fertilizer, 32.6% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed. Nearly 13% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that farmers would be willing to accept manure from a neighboring farm at a cost, even if the cost was about the same as commercial fertilizer. The mean response to those questions were 3.47, 2.88, and 2.38, respectively.

Research Question 2

Research Question 2 asked if there are differences between how surveyed livestock farmers and surveyed nonlivestock farmers perceive issues related to manure exchange. Survey responses by farm type are listed in Table 2.

Only one question differentiated between the two groups. When asked if farmers believe manure is too variable to be a reliable fertilizer source, 62.2% of livestock farmers either disagreed or strongly disagreed, as compared to 50.5% of nonlivestock farmers. The mean response by livestock farmers to this question was 2.30, as compared to 2.64 for nonlivestock farmers. There was a significant difference in how these two groups responded to that question at the 95% confidence level.

Conclusions

Research Question 1

Research Question 1 asked how all surveyed farmers perceive issues related to manure exchange. The results show that farmers rated manure variability as a low concern.

This is supported by open-ended responses, including: "Manure is the best fertilizer" (respondent 276); "I would be more than willing to have manure on our land if it were available. We use sludge even so after don't like all the new rocks!" (respondent 88); "Most Farmers that Don't Have Manure would like to Have it. To build ground up in spots." (respondent 146); and "It can help benefit neighboring Farmers to utilize manure from livestock producers and help to spread the application to other areas of the community." (respondent 159).

Farmers rated neighbor complaints and odor concerns higher than any other concern surveyed.

This supports findings by Kelsey and Vaserstein (2000) and Poe et al. (2001) that rural nonfarm neighbors of farmers complain about odors more often than they complain about water quality concerns.

This is supported by open-ended responses, including: "In some cases it would work and anothers [sic] cases it wouldn't. It really depend [sic] on the neighbors." (respondent 173); "I believe liquid manure should be Knife [sic] in ONLY!" (respondent 16); "It should be required that liquid manure be injected," (respondent 191); "Any liquid manure should be knifed into soil," (respondent 348); and "only if it is knifed in. I think all manure should be knifed in," (respondent 203). ". . . Odor control . . ." (respondent 136); "Odor . . . The houses are closer all the time," (respondent 33); and "Odors to neighbors," (respondent 125).

Farmers rated concern about spreading weed seed highly.

This is supported by open-ended responses, including: "Would be concerned of the spread of a noxious weed" (respondent 317); "The spread of forien [sic] weed seeds increasing your chemical use, and cutting yield," (respondent 181); "I wouldn't let just any farm do it because of the weed seed in the manure & the other debris some farmers have," (respondent 312); and "Bring weed seeds from one farm to another" (respondent 125). "There would need to be a way to insure uniformity, lack of weeds, diseases etc."

This perception does not, however, support data presented by Blackshaw and Rode (1991) that suggest that weed seed survival through rumen digestion and ensiling should be a minor concern.

As farmers were presented with increased potential costs of receiving manure, farmer interest in receiving manure decreased.

This is supported by open-ended responses, including: "Farmers are beginning to see some viable manure utilizing trading but money payment still seems rare," (respondent 281); "I'd accept another farmer's manure, but only at no cost to myself," (respondent 214); "Should the farmer with the manure have to pay the farmer with the land to spread manure?" (respondent 102); "I would not be willing to purchase equipment to do this myself (spreader & loader)," (respondent 149); "I find that providing manure disposal is a service to livestock producers--it should be low cost--I also feel the farmer who plants and shares with me should have first disposal rights," (respondent 143); and ". . . Cost . . ." (respondent 33).

This also supports the findings by Poe et al. (2001) of farmers' unwillingness to pay for practices associated with implementing a CNMP as costs for adopting those practices rose, despite having the capability of paying for those practices.

Research Question 2

Research Question 2 asked if there are differences between how surveyed livestock farmers, and surveyed nonlivestock farmers perceive issues related to manure exchange. Results show that livestock farmers were more willing to trust manure as a consistent, reliable fertilizer source than nonlivestock farmers.

Recommendations and Implications

Adult learners learn in different ways. As Extension educators work with people, their challenge is to tailor programs that meet the needs of individuals. The study described here and the following recommendations and does not male broad generalizations about farmers by trying to develop a recipe for educators to follow as they work with farmers to implement sustainable manure management practices. Rather, it is hoped that these suggestions will help educators understand challenges they may face, such as farmer concerns about spreading weeds seeds, economics, and odor and neighbor complaints, as they help farmers adopt sustainable manure management practices.

The majority of surveyed farmers indicated that they were generally supportive of the idea of manure exchange. Most farmers considered manure to be a consistent, reliable fertilizer source, although livestock farmers held that belief more strongly than nonlivestock farmers did. It appears that situational barriers primarily inhibit farmers' willingness to enter into manure exchange agreements. Three important situational barriers were:

1. Concern about spreading weed seed
2. The cost of transferring manure
3. Concerns about odors and neighbor complaints

Concerns About Spreading Weed Seeds

Extension educators should be able to help farmers successfully decrease their concern of developing weed problems by using another farmers' manure, considering data presented by Blackshaw and Rode (1991), which states that weed seed survival through the ensiling process and the rumen of dairy animals is a minor concern.

Economic Concerns

Livestock farmers providing manure may feel that they would be providing a valuable fertilizer for a receiving farm and that a receiving farm should compensate them. Farmers who may receive manure may feel that they would be providing a service to a livestock farmer by providing a location for excess manure.

Extension educators skilled in conflict resolution may be able to help farmers resolve these differences.

Concerns About Odors and Neighbor Complaints

The most important situational barrier was the potential for manure odor to generate neighbor complaints; livestock farmers and nonlivestock were equally concerned about this matter. A livestock farmer may be more willing to risk violating water quality standards by spreading manure in a remote field with a high phosphorus soil test, close to the barnyard, and away from neighbors, than to open himself or herself up to a complaint by having manure spread on a neighbor's field. Likewise, a farmer who could accept manure from a neighboring farm may prefer to purchase commercial fertilizers rather than risk potential neighbor complaints by accepting a neighbors' manure. Respondent 12, a dairy farmer, summed these final two concerns by stating: "Some farmers think we should Pay [sic] them for Putting manure on their Ground [sic]. Compaction, odor, and Reasonable [sic] commercial fertilizer costs suggest to them that they are better off without manure."

The decision to enter into a manure exchange agreement is complex. It requires an interaction between livestock and nonlivestock farmers. It can also not be assumed that a concern about weed seeds or neighbor complaints or even the cost of manure is the only factors inhibiting a farmer from entering into a manure exchange agreement. Highly productive farms must perform their operations in an efficient manner. The idea of complicating these operations by entering into a manure exchange agreement, especially when there are concerns about stressing relationships with neighbors, introducing weed seeds, and spending money on transferring manure may make the option less than appealing.

At the same time, the citizens of the United States have identified protection of water resources as an important goal. Extension educators have the task of helping farmers not only manage their farms to maximize profits, but also manage their farms as environmental stewards. Extension programming should take the direction of educating farmers less on the "rules" of manure management and more on developing the knowledge and skills necessary to develop successful manure exchange relationships. The first step in reaching this goal is to help farmers understand their role in protecting water quality.

References

Blackshaw, R. E., & Rode, L. M. (1991). Effect of ensiling and rumen digestion by cattle on weed seed viability. Weed Science, 39, 104-108.

Featherstone, A. M., & Goodwin, B. K. (1993). Factors influencing farmer's decision to invest in long-term conservation improvements. Land Economics, 69 (1), 67-81.

Goldhor, H. (1974). The use of late respondents to estimate the nature of non-respondents. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Education. (ERIC Document ED 083 309)

Illeris, K. (2002). Understanding the conditions of adult learning. Adults Learning, 14 (4), 18-20.

Kelsey, T. W., & Vaserstein, G. (2000). Farming and non farming neighbors: Conflict, coexistence and communication. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 55 (4), 462-466.

Napier, T. L., Camboni, S. M., & Thraen, C. S. (1986). Environmental concern and the adoption of farm technologies. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 41 (2), 109-113.

Napier, T. L., Thraen, C. S., Gore, A., & Goe, W. R. (1984). Factors affecting adoption of conventional and conservation tillage practices in Ohio. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 39 (3), 205-209.

Nowak, P. J. (1987). The adoption of agricultural conservation technologies: Economic and diffusion explanations. Rural Sociology, 52 (2), 208-220.

Pampel, F. Jr., & Van Es, J. C. (1977). Environmental quality and issues of adoption research. Rural Sociology, 42 (1), 57-71.

Poe, G. L., Bills, N. L., Bellows, B. C., Crosscombe, P., Koelsch, R. K., Kreher, M. J., & Wright, P. (2001). Will voluntary and educational programs meet environmental objectives? Evidence from a survey of New York dairy farms. Review of Agricultural Economics, 23 (2), 473-491.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.