Conservation Security Program Research Articles

Limited Access to Conservation: Limited-Resource Farmer Participation in the Conservation Security Program in the Southeast

The paper examines the joint adoption of conservation tillage, crop rotations, and soil testing by small and limited-resource farmers in the Southeast. The objectives are to determine the potential eligibility of small farmers for the Conservation Security Program, examine socioeconomic factors affecting adoption, and assess the interdependence between adopting different conservation practices. Results indicate that conservation management, ethnicity, and farm characteristics affect practice adoption. Of the producers surveyed in the study, 7% meet Conservation Security Program eligibility requirements, while the other 93% have less than a 20% likelihood of adopting the needed practices to qualify.

Ecological modernization and the US Farm Bill: The case of the Conservation Security Program

This paper examines the debate surrounding the inception of the Conservation Security Program (CSP) under the 2002 US Farm Bill as a possible expression of ecological modernization by examining the discursive contributions made by official actors, social movement organizations, and producer organizations. Based on this analysis, the CSP embodies different expectations in terms of ecological modernization. Social movement actors view the program as a pragmatic solution to environmental problems created by productivist agriculture. Official actors and farm lobby representatives argue that the program should serve to create the pre-conditions for the eventual commodification of the natural resource benefits resulting from agricultural activity. These divergent discourses create multiple expectations of policies – reflecting both traditional productivist and post-productivist regimes. Using an ecological modernization framework allows us to see both the commonalities and differences in these approaches, and provides insight into the ways in which discourses surrounding global agri-environmental policies might play out in states' different political, social, economic, and ecological contexts.

Are Natural Resources Conservation Service Range Management Investments Working at Cross-Purposes With Wildlife Habitat Goals on Western United States Rangelands?

Wildlife conservationists and agencies have recommended managing rangelands for vegetation heterogeneity to improve wildlife habitat, particularly for many grassland birds. However, range management focuses on livestock production and associated practices and structural items (fences, water developments) that are applied to improve livestock distribution. This article assesses the occurrence of livestock distribution–oriented grazing management in the spending and applied practices of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the federal agency charged with assisting private landowners with implementation of US Department of Agriculture conservation programs. NRCS applied practices and spending both suggest an emphasis on livestock distribution and associated structures, with almost 20 million ha of prescribed grazing systems, 10 000 km of fence, and 127 000 water facilities implemented in 17 western states with assistance from NRCS programs between 2004 and 2007. Ninety percent of funding for 2005 Conservation Security Program grazing enhancements supported investments or management related to livestock distribution. We suggest that increasing the emphasis of NRCS conservation programs and financial assistance on maintaining or increasing compositional and structural heterogeneity of vegetation, rather than on livestock distribution, could be an approach that unifies livestock production and wildlife habitat objectives. In particular, including vegetation heterogeneity as a central goal for upland wildlife habitat management could be a key opportunity to increase incentives for heterogeneity-promoting management on privately owned rangeland.

Cost Share Programs for Florida's Agricultural Producers and Landowners

SL-264, a 4-page fact sheet by Rao Mylavarapu, Kelly Hines, and Alyssa Dodd, describes several conservation programs included in the 2008 Farm Bill — the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), Grassland Reserve Program (GRP), Wildlife Habitats Incentive Program (WHIP), and the Conservation Security Program (CRP) — which may be of high interest to farmers, ranchers, land owners, agricultural consultants, local decision-makers and extension agents. Includes references. Published by the UF Department of Soil and Water Science, October 2008. SL264/SS485: Cost Share Programs for Florida's Agricultural Producers and Landowners (ufl.edu)

Negotiating a political path to agroforestry through the Conservation Security Program

Temperate agroforestry systems have faced obstacles to adoption despite their multiple environmental, economic, and social benefits. In part, these obstacles derive from the typically small scale of agroforestry systems relative to large-scale mainstream grain agriculture, which in the US is supported by strong commodity subsidies. One promising option for promoting agroforestry on a policy level, and thus for making it more appealing to landowners, is the Conservation Security Program (CSP), which provides payments to farmers for sustainable conservation practices on working lands. CSP was first passed in 2002 and has many supporters; however it has also faced opposition, delays in implementation and funding caps. CSP proponents have thus promoted its expansion in current and future Farm Bills. Since CSP is one part of the Farm Bill clearly suited to promoting agroforestry practices, supporters of agroforestry should consider joining coalitions around CSP to ensure that it includes explicit provisions for advancing agroforestry. In addition, CSP and agroforestry proponents alike should develop a strategic plan to market the expansion of CSP to policy makers. Specifically, a broad and strong coalition based on ideological common ground (e.g., attention to the notion of a family farmer) and on situational factors (e.g., potential international pressure from the World Trade Organization to reduce commodity subsidies) might be sufficient to push CSP into an expanded role in current and future Farm Bills.

Soil Carbon Sequestration Strategies with Alternative Tillage and Nitrogen Sources under Risk

This study examines the economic potential of using either no-tillage or conventional tillage with either commercial nitrogen or cattle manure to sequester soil in continuous corn production. This research uses stochastic efficiency with respect to a function to determine the preferred production systems under various risk preferences and utility-weighted certainty equivalent risk premiums to determine the carbon credit values needed to motivate adoption of systems, which sequester higher levels of carbon. The results indicate that no-tillage and cattle manure increase carbon sequestration. Carbon credits or government program incentives are not required to entice risk-averse managers to use no-tillage, but are required to encourage manure use as a means of sequestering additional carbon even at historically high nitrogen prices. New environmental rules for confined animal feeding operations may increase the demand for land to apply manure as a primary nutrient source and participation in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Conservation Security Program, and a carbon credit market to obtain payments to offset some or all of the costs of manure application.

Agricultural Subsidies in Developed Countries: Impact on Global Welfare*

A considerable amount of criticism has been levied against the United States for the 2002 Farm Bill, which will be renewed in 2007. Many proposals have been put forward on what this new farm program should contain, as analysts are now more aware of the linkage between agricultural policy and international trade. According to Thompson, the new Farm Bill and future trade talks will have a significant impact on one another, whether they are on parallel tracks or a collision course. But it is not only U.S. farm policy that is facing criticism; European Union farm policy is under attack, as well. Having recently lost the World Trade Organization (WTO) challenge over cotton brought against it by Brazil, the U.S. government is acutely aware of the connection between agricultural policy and trade, and is attempting to reduce its budgetary outlay for agriculture with the 2007 Farm Bill. For example, from 2006 to 2010, the United States is considering reductions of (1) US$1.29 billion on all farm payments; (2) US$282 million for Step 2 of its cotton program; (3) US$1.09 million from shifts in its advance direct payments; and (4) US$821 million in the Conservation Security Program (Schuff). The United States reduced its total direct payments and overall subsidies beginning 1999, but they began rising again in 2003 (figure 1). Meanwhile, EU direct subsidies have trended upward since 1995 (figure 2). Also, U.S. and EU farmers enjoy hidden subsidies, as well. For instance, U.S. commodities, such as sugar, are protected through import quotas that require little direct monetary assistance from the federal government. The magnitude of

Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration in Cotton Production Systems of the Southeastern United States

Past agricultural management practices have contributed to the loss of soil organic carbon (SOC) and emission of greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide). Fortunately, however, conservation-oriented agricultural management systems can be, and have been, developed to sequester SOC, improve soil quality, and increase crop productivity. Our objectives were to (i) review literature related to SOC sequestration in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) production systems, (ii) recommend best management practices to sequester SOC, and (iii) outline the current political scenario and future probabilities for cotton producers to benefit from SOC sequestration. From a review of 20 studies in the region, SOC increased with no tillage compared with conventional tillage by 0.48 +/- 0.56 Mg C ha(-1) yr(-1) (H(0): no change, p < 0.001). More diverse rotations of cotton with high-residue-producing crops such as corn (Zea mays L.) and small grains would sequester greater quantities of SOC than continuous cotton. No-tillage cropping with a cover crop sequestered 0.67 +/- 0.63 Mg C ha(-1) yr(-1), while that of no-tillage cropping without a cover crop sequestered 0.34 +/- 47 Mg C ha(-1) yr(-1) (mean comparison, p = 0.04). Current government incentive programs recommend agricultural practices that would contribute to SOC sequestration. Participation in the Conservation Security Program could lead to government payments of up to Dollars 20 ha(-1). Current open-market trading of C credits would appear to yield less than Dollars 3 ha(-1), although prices would greatly increase should a government policy to limit greenhouse gas emissions be mandated.

Crop Rotation Effects on Soil Quality at Three Northern Corn/Soybean Belt Locations

Do extended crop rotations that include forages improve soil quality and are they profitable? Our objectives were to determine (i) how crop rotation affected soil quality indicators, (ii) if those indicator changes were reflected in soil quality index (SQI) ratings when scored and combined using the Soil Management Assessment Framework, and (iii) how SQI values compared with profitability. Soil samples were collected from three long‐term studies in Iowa and one in Wisconsin. Bulk density (BD), soil pH, water‐stable macroaggregation, total organic C, total N, microbial biomass C, extractable P and K, and penetration resistance were measured. The indicator data were scored using nonlinear curves reflecting performance of critical soil functions (e.g., nutrient cycling, water partitioning and storage, and plant root growth). Profit was calculated by subtracting costs of production from potential income based on actual crop yields and the 20‐yr average nongovernment‐supported commodity prices. Extended rotations had a positive effect on soil quality indicators. Total organic C was the most sensitive indicator, showing significant measured and scored differences at all locations, while BD showed significant differences at only one location (Kanawha). The lowest SQI values and 20‐yr average profit were associated with continuous corn, while extended rotations that included at least 3 yr of forage crops had the highest SQI values. We suggest that future conservation policies and programs reward more diverse and extended crop rotations, as is being done through the Conservation Security Program.

Effectiveness of RZWQM for Simulating Alternative Great Plains Cropping Systems

The Root Zone Water Quality Model (RZWQM) is a comprehensive agricultural system model with the capacity to predict crop–environmental response to varying soil and crop management systems. Our objective was to evaluate RZWQM for its ability to simulate a 2‐yr winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)–fallow (WF) rotation and a more complex wheat–corn (Zea mays L.)–fallow (WCF) rotation under tilled and no‐till (NT) conditions on a Weld silt loam soil in semi‐arid northeastern Colorado. Measured data from all phases of both rotations were compared with simulated values using root mean square error (RMSE) values to quantify the agreement. Soil water in different layers, total soil profile (180 cm) water contents, and grain yield were accurately predicted with RMSEs ranging between 0.055 and 0.061 m3 m−3, 4.6 and 7.1 cm, and 244 and 867 kg ha−1, respectively. Leaf area index (LAI), evapotranspiration, and biomass predictions were less accurate with RMSEs between 0.7 and 1.6 cm2, 5.5 and 9.7 cm, and 1027 and 2714 kg ha−1, respectively. Greater soil water and crop yield measured for NT compared with conventional tillage (CT) were simulated reasonably well. Predicted soil organic C was greater in the surface 0.10 m for NT compared with CT after 11 yr. Although the crop growth component of RZWQM needs improvement, especially with regard to LAI, we conclude the model has potential for simulating alternative crop rotations in the central Great Plains. One potential application for RZWQM in this region may be to predict viable cropping opportunities for evolving conservation programs such as the Conservation Security Program (CSP).

Agriculture at a Crossroads: Ensuring Conservation and Income Support in the Farm Bill

While most farmers take steps to enhance natural resources, times of low prices and high costs may create difficulties for farmers who wish to spend resources on agriculture conservation. Consequently, farming can have a harmful effect on natural resources. Because many farmers rely on income support payments, and most income programs do not require farmers to utilize environmental conservation practices, environmental degradation continues. To ensure adequate protection of water quality, soil quality and wildlife habitat, and to provide income support for farms of all sizes, politically feasible legislation is needed to link income payments with conservation practices. This article follows the outline of atraditional policy analysis to examine four policy options for the farm bill the Conservation Security Program (CSP), Flex Fallow, the Conservation Reserve Program, and conservation easements. The options range from conservative to liberal, with differing environmental and income impacts. Policy options for achieving these goals were judged using the following criteria: effectiveness in achieving conservation goals,' effectiveness in supporting farmer income,' political feasibility,' and strength of the linkage between conservation practices and income payments. Based on this analysis, CSP is the best option for the farm bill, because it is a compromise approach to achieving the goals of this analysis. This evaluation is presented as a policy analysis in order to provide a systematic technique for identifying solutions to current farm policy problems. The elements of a policy analysis traditionally include formulating a problem, identifying policy alternatives, forecasting the future, modeling the impacts of alternatives, and comparing and ranking the policy alternatives.