IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/usdami/323865.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

USDA Conservation Technical Assistance and Within-Field Resource Concerns

Author

Listed:
  • Rosenberg, Andrew B.
  • Wallander, Steven

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) program provides conservation planning and field-level assessments of conservation strategies, partnering with a network of county field offices, conservation districts, and State agencies. The CTA program supports these efforts with more than $700 million per year in Federal funding. A similar amount of technical assistance funding is provided to directly support the planning required to enroll land in the USDA’s working lands programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (USDA, Office of Budget and Program Analysis, 2019). The CTA program and the working lands programs help reduce soil erosion, improve water quality conditions, and address other resource conditions referred to as resource concerns. This bulletin looks at how many fields in several major commodity crops have self-reported, on-field resource concerns and whether the producers received technical assistance to address these concerns from USDA or other sources. Using field-level data from the Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) for soybeans, wheat, oats, and cotton, the analysis focuses on within-field, predominately soil-related concerns—such as water-driven erosion, wind-driven erosion, soil compaction, poor drainage, low organic matter, within-field water quality concerns, or some other concern—that are self-reported by survey respondents. Respondents report that 49 percent of fields represented have at least one resource concern and 26 percent have multiple resource concerns. Of the fields represented with at least one concern, only 24 percent received technical assistance. Fields with three or more respondent-reported concerns are more likely to have received assistance. The largest source of assistance is the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), but other USDA agencies, cooperative extension, and non-USDA entities also provide technical assistance. Notably, 25 percent of the fields having received technical assistance for at least one resource concern obtained assistance from multiple sources.

Suggested Citation

  • Rosenberg, Andrew B. & Wallander, Steven, 2022. "USDA Conservation Technical Assistance and Within-Field Resource Concerns," USDA Miscellaneous 323865, United States Department of Agriculture.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:usdami:323865
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.323865
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/323865/files/eib-234.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.323865?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roger Claassen & Eric N. Duquette & David J. Smith, 2018. "Additionality in U.S. Agricultural Conservation Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 94(1), pages 19-35.
    2. Bergtold, Jason S. & Duffy, Patricia A. & Hite, Diane & Raper, Randy L., 2012. "Demographic and Management Factors Affecting the Adoption and Perceived Yield Benefit of Winter Cover Crops in the Southeast," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 44(1), pages 1-18, February.
    3. Meredith J. Soule & Abebayehu Tegene & Keith D. Wiebe, 2000. "Land Tenure and the Adoption of Conservation Practices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(4), pages 993-1005.
    4. Jeffrey Gillespie & Seon‐Ae Kim & Krishna Paudel, 2007. "Why don't producers adopt best management practices? An analysis of the beef cattle industry," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 36(1), pages 89-102, January.
    5. Wang, Sun Ling, 2014. "Cooperative Extension System: Trends and Economic Impacts on U.S. Agriculture," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(1), pages 1-8.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rosenberg, Andrew B & Wallander, Steven, 2022. "USDA Conservation Technical Assistance and Within-Field Resource Concerns," Economic Information Bulletin 327357, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. Elizabeth Canales & Jason S. Bergtold & Jeffery R. Williams, 2020. "Conservation practice complementarity and timing of on‐farm adoption," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(5), pages 777-792, September.
    3. Rosenberg, Andrew B. & Wallander, Steven, 2020. "Conservation Practice Adoption and On-field Resource Concerns," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304563, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Hand, Michael S. & Nickerson, Cynthia J., 2009. "The Role of Cost-Share Rates and Prices on the Size of Conservation Investments in EQIP," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49257, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Claassen, Roger & Duquette, Eric & Horowitz, John & Kohei, Ueda, 2014. "Additionality in U.S. Agricultural Conservation and Regulatory Offset Programs," Economic Research Report 180414, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    6. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    7. Boyer, Christopher M. & Lambert, Dayton M. & Larson, James A. & Tyler, Donald, 2017. "Investment Analysis of Long-term Cover Crops and Tillage Systems on Cotton Production," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258525, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Borchers, Allison M. & Xiarchos, Irene & Beckman, Jayson, 2014. "Determinants of wind and solar energy system adoption by U.S. farms: A multilevel modeling approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 106-115.
    9. Obubuafo, Joyce & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Paudel, Krishna P. & Kim, Seon-Ae, 2008. "Awareness of and Application to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program By Cow–Calf Producers," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 40(1), pages 1-12, April.
    10. Chowdhury, Iftekhar Uddin Ahmed & Wang, Tong & Jin, Hailong & Smart, Alexander J., 2020. "Exploring the Determinants of Perceived Benefits of Rotational Grazing in the U. S. Great Plains," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304487, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. David J. Pannell & Roger Claassen, 2020. "The Roles of Adoption and Behavior Change in Agricultural Policy," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 31-41, March.
    12. Lee, Seungyub & McCann, Laura, 2018. "Adoption of Cover Crops in Soybean Production," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266576, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    13. Nyaupane, Narayan P. & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Paudel, Krishna P., 2012. "Economic Impacts of Adoption of Best Management Practices by Crawfish Producers: The Role of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 41(2), pages 1-13, August.
    14. Che, Yuyuan & Feng, Hongli & Hennessy, David A., 2023. "Will adoption occur if a practice is win-win for profit and the environment? An application to a rancher's grazing practice choices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    15. Sawadgo, Wendiam & Zhang, Wendong & Plastina, Alejandro, 2019. "What drives landowners’ conservation decisions? Evidence from Iowa," ISU General Staff Papers 201905230700001082, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    16. Dependra Bhatta & Krishna P. Paudel & Kai Liu, 2023. "Factors influencing water conservation practices adoptions by Nepali farmers," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(10), pages 10879-10901, October.
    17. Nyaupane, Narayan P. & Gillespie, Jeffrey M., 2009. "The Influences Of Land Tenancy And Rotation Selection On Crawfish Farmers’ Adoption Of Best Management Practices," 2009 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2009, Atlanta, Georgia 46174, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    18. Sawadgo, Wendiam & Plastina, Alejandro, 2021. "Do cost-share programs increase cover crop use? Empirical evidence from Iowa," ISU General Staff Papers 202101010800001084, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    19. Diego Ferraro & Daniela Blanco & Sebasti'an Pessah & Rodrigo Castro, 2021. "Land use change in agricultural systems: an integrated ecological-social simulation model of farmer decisions and cropping system performance based on a cellular automata approach," Papers 2109.01031, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2021.
    20. Erika Ribašauskienė & Diana Šumylė & Artiom Volkov & Tomas Baležentis & Dalia Streimikiene & Mangirdas Morkunas, 2019. "Evaluating Public Policy Support for Agricultural Cooperatives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-15, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness; Crop Production/Industries; Environmental Economics and Policy; Farm Management; Industrial Organization; Production Economics;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:usdami:323865. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.usda.gov .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.