Farmer Willingness to Enter into Manure Exchange Agreements: Differences Based on Age and Farm Size

Introduction

Phosphorus content of manure is an important consideration in the Kalamazoo River watershed portion of Calhoun County, Michigan. To help farmers change their behaviors in an effort to reduce phosphorus loading of surface waters, Extension educators must be aware of farmers' differing attitudes toward manure use. Specifically, the study described here looked at farmers' willingness to exchange manure from farm to farm based on differences in farmers' age and farm size.

A review of literature related to farmers' willingness to adopt conservation practices based on age and farm size shows mixed results. Pampel and Van Es (1977) compared profitable agricultural practices, or commercial practices, with unprofitable practices, or environmental practices. They found that predictors of the adoption of commercial practices were different from those of environmental practices. Variables relating to farm size predicted adoption of commercial practices accurately, but years farmed predicted the adoption of environmental practices inaccurately.

In another study, Napier, Thraen, Gore, and Goe (1984) considered factors affecting adoption of conventional and conservation tillage. They found that as the size of farm operations increased, farmers used conservation practices less frequently.

Finally, Featherstone and Goodwin (1993) studied factors that influenced farmers' decisions to invest in long-term conservation improvements. Their results suggested that farms with greater acreage had a higher probability of spending money on conservation practices. They also determined that older farmers, as a group, are less likely to invest in conservation practices than are younger farmers, as a group.

Survey Questions

To better understand farmers' perception of manure-exchange issues in Calhoun County, farmers were asked the degree to which they agree or disagree with 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 Questions

Responses were grouped, and comparisons were made between groups to answer the following research questions.

Research question 1:

• Are there differences between the responses of farmers 18 to 50 years old and those of farmers age 61 and older?

Research question 2:

• Are there differences between the response of farmers who farm fewer than 200 acres and those who farm more than 399 acres?

Limitations and Assumptions

Results of the study can be generalized only to Calhoun County, Michigan, farmers within the Kalamazoo River Watershed. It was assumed that the survey results accurately portrayed surveyed farmers' perceptions of the potential of managing nutrients by transferring manure among farms.

Methods Used

A survey was mailed to all Calhoun County farmers within the Kalamazoo River Watershed (n = 349). The distribution list was compiled using the list of farmers maintained by the Calhoun County Michigan State University (MSU) Extension office. It was determined whether an entry on the mailing list was within the Kalamazoo River Watershed by comparing each address with a map of the watershed. A weakness of this method was the exclusion of any farmers who reside outside of, but farmland within, the Kalamazoo River Watershed.

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

• Filtering questions,
• Likert-type statements, and
• Personal data.

The statewide manure management educator for MSU Extension established face validity of the survey instrument by reading it and suggesting improvements. The instrument was changed to reflect the improvements suggested.

Cover letters and surveys, with preaddressed, stamped envelopes, were mailed to potential respondents. A week later, a reminder postcard was mailed to nonrespondents, encouraging them to respond to the original mailing. A second cover letter and survey, again with a pre-addressed, stamped envelope, was sent to each nonrespondent about 1 month later.

Respondents returned 244 surveys (69.9% of those mailed). Seventy-one surveys were unusable, the majority of which were returned marked "I do not actively farm." Respondents returned 173 completed and usable surveys, making the final completed and usable return rate 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. Incomplete responses and confusing marks were treated as missing values, and 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. Surveys returned on or before August 8, 2003, were 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 whether differences exist between how surveyed farmers age 18 to 50 years and those age 61 and older respond to the survey statements.

Four questions differentiated between farmers' opinions based on age. Younger farmers were more concerned about manure containing weed seeds; they were also more concerned that manure application equipment may cause compaction and that manure applications could interfere with the timeliness of spring cropping operations. Older farmers indicated a greater willingness to accept manure only if it were available at no cost. Survey responses by age of farmer are listed in Table 1.

Research Question 2

Research question 2 asked whether differences exist between the response to the survey statements of farmers of fewer than 200 acres and those who farm more than 399 acres.

Three questions differentiated based on farm size. All three showed stronger agreement by respondents farming greater acreage. Lower-acreage farmers were more concerned with the potential compaction caused by manure application equipment. They were also more concerned that manure applications could interfere with the timeliness of spring cropping operations, and that manure may contain weed seeds. Survey responses by farm size are listed in Table 2.

Conclusion

Agronomic considerations were the dominant concerns separating younger farmers from older farmers and lower-acreage farmers from greater-acreage farmers. Specifically, both younger farmers and greater-acreage farmers were more concerned about:

• Manure containing weed seeds,
• Manure application equipment causing compaction, and
• Manure application interfering with the timeliness of springtime field activities

The data also suggest that older farmers were less willing to accept a neighboring farmer's manure if they had to pay for it.

These results support the findings by Napier et al. (1984) that as the size of farm operations increased, farmers used conservation practices less frequently. These results also support findings by Featherstone and Goodwin (1993) that older farmers are less likely to invest in conservation practices than younger farmers.

Implications for Extension

The results of the study described here were not surprising. Younger farmers with greater acreage are more concerned about practices they perceive to interfere with the efficient production of a high-yielding crop.

As Extension educators work with livestock farmers to manage manure nutrients in a sustainable manner, it may become apparent that exchanging manure with a neighboring farm is a desirable option, because of a lack of suitable land at the farm or for other reasons. The neighboring farmer, however, may resist the idea.

The results of the study should help Extension educators begin to identify barriers that preclude a farmer from entering into a manure-exchange agreement. Does the farmer show resistance because he or she is concerned about spreading weed seeds, compaction, or interfering with spring work? An Extension educator skilled in facilitating negotiations and in solving problems can help farmers address their concerns related to manure exchange.

For example, Blackshaw and Rode (1991) demonstrated that the seeds of many weed species do not survive both the ensiling and digestion processes and that the seeds that do survive these processes have low viability. Therefore, the prospect of spreading weeds from one farm to another through manure should, in most cases, be a minor concern. If a farm neighbors a dairy farm that harvests forages from fields heavily infested with weed species known to survive rumen digestion and ensiling, however, the recipient farmer should be concerned about spreading weed seeds through manure.

For all respondents, a concern that neighbors may complain about manure application and odor represents the most significant barrier to manure exchange. On this point, there was no difference between respondents based on age or farm size.

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 a 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.)

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.

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