Final report for GNC22-341
Project Information
Agricultural systems that build soil carbon and diversify our landscapes provide ecosystem services that benefit farmers and society at large. Perennial pastures with well-managed rotational grazing seem to offer the best opportunity for achieving these benefits, while also contributing to an agricultural system that is profitable and resilient. However, if we are to transform our agricultural system from one dominated by annual row crops to one dominated by perennial pastures, we need the perspective of row crop farmers to create a successful transition.
This work aimed to identify barriers and opportunities for row crop farmers to transition to perennial agriculture by exploring social norms around farming. This included listening to farmers’ motivations for their practices, future goals, and current challenges via semi-structured interviews and two farmer workshops. Specifically, row crop farmers in eastern Iowa and southwest Wisconsin were contacted using a snowball sampling approach, first beginning with farmer contacts known to the research team. Interviews were conducted with 34 farmers, with 22 and 12 farmers located in Iowa and Wisconsin, respectively. After preliminary analyses of the interviews, we held one workshop in Wisconsin followed by one in Iowa to share our initial interpretations from the interviews, receive feedback, and ask follow-up questions. This research was important in building relationships with farmers and identifying shared goals.
Through engaging row crop farmers in these conversations, we learned that farmers are striving for economic, environmental, and social goals simultaneously. Farmers used comparisons across space (e.g., neighboring farmers) and time (e.g., how the previous generation farmed) to assess if they were meeting these goals. Importantly, the environmental impacts of farming today were often described in comparison to prior practices, such as moldboard plowing, contributing to farmers’ sense of being good environmental stewards. Thus, this sentiment could limit the desire for change if farmers feel their environmental goals are already met. Some social goals farmers highlighted were maintaining small family farms and their rural communities, and when compared to previous generations, several farmers expressed a feeling of moving away from those ideals. Therefore, focus on these goals could be an important step in motivating change. However, most farmers did not view grazed perennial pastures as an economically viable farming practice, at least not on ground perceived as suitable for row crops. Rather, it was described as a practice better suited for marginal land.
Thus, these results illustrate that while these farmers have goals that align with the outcomes that could result from more grazed perennial pasture on the landscape, this practice is not seen as feasible. As a result, next steps should include collaboratively identifying which specific outcomes farmers and community members desire. By adopting this forward-thinking approach, rather than comparisons to the past, we can clearly define goals for these regions. These visions for the future can then facilitate conversations about what transitions are necessary to get there and if practices beyond conservation adoption within row crop systems must be part of the solution.
Through conversations with row crop farmers about transitions to sustainable agriculture, learning opportunities are present for both farmers and researchers. For researchers, two key outcomes of this work were to 1) increase knowledge of barriers and opportunities to transitioning towards more grazed perennial pasture on the landscape, and 2) strengthen relationships with row crops farmers. These outcomes would ensure more row crop farmer perspectives are represented in perennial agriculture discussions, which is important given that row crop farmers are often less likely to engage in these conversations. As a long-term outcome of this research, increased adoption of perennial agriculture is anticipated as strategies to address identified barriers are incorporated into transformation plans. We pursued these objectives by using semi-structured interviews and farmer workshops as an opportunity to ask to understand, listen intently, and value farmer expertise.
While the emphasis of this research was on listening to row crop farmers and learning from them, we also anticipated two learning outcomes for row crop farmers: 1) to reflect on the opportunities and limitations of our current agriculture system, and 2) to hear from and engage with other farmers, including those whose perspective may differ from their own. We aimed to achieve those outcomes through asking open-ended, thought-provoking questions during the semi-structured interviews as well as by offering an opportunity to come together with other farmers during an in-person workshop.
Cooperators
- (Researcher)
- (Researcher)
- (Researcher)
Research
First, we structured our interview guide. Our questions were informed by the theory of place-making, which explores how places are constantly being shaped and reshaped. Because this work investigates how the agricultural landscape in the North Central US could be reshaped to better meet the needs of people and the environment, this theory is highly relevant. In particular, it is useful for considering change at the regional scale, moving beyond individual action and instead emphasizing coordinated region-wide efforts. Specifically, it considers how social norms can shape behavior, practices, language, etc. in a region, and thus, how changes in social norms can reshape a place. Therefore, our interview questions explored norms around what it means to be a farmer in these places and what farmers want agriculture in their region to be like. Included interview questions are as follows:
- Why do you farm?
- What do you think makes a good farmer?
- Why do you feel a practice like rotational grazing is not a dominant agricultural practice in this region?
- What would you like agriculture to look like in this region 20 years from now?
Then, after receiving Institutional Review Board approval, we began reaching out to farmers to participate. We started with known farmer contacts and then used a snowball sampling approach. This allowed us to draw on the farmers’ networks and connect with folks we might not have otherwise known or thought to include. While initially intending to interview farmers exclusively growing row crops, since those viewpoints are often less present in discussions of perennial agriculture, our sample became much more diverse using snowball sampling. Overall, all farmers grew rows crops in some capacity, yet the farming operations ranged from dairies to hog farms to exclusively row crops, even including some farmers with livestock on pasture.
Six preliminary interviews were first conducted with farmers in eastern Iowa. This served as an opportunity to begin identifying social norms around farming that might influence sustainable agriculture transitions. It also allowed us to revise the interview guide based on the flow of these initial conversations and helped us identify new directions to probe as themes emerged from preliminary analyses. Official interviews began in the winter of 2023 to avoid busy harvest and planting seasons. Between preliminary and official interviews, I interviewed 34 farmers across two towns: one in eastern Iowa and one in southwest Wisconsin. These towns were selected because they were comparable demographically, but differed topographically, enabling us to examine if this impacted their conceptions of farming in their region.
All farmers were compensated for participating in the interviews. Each interview typically lasted ~1.5 hours and was paired with a brief tour of the farm. These interviews were audio-recorded. Farmers also consented to a potential follow-up conversation, which would allow us to further probe any questions that arose while analyzing the interviews.
After transcribing and reviewing the interviews, we identified preliminary themes. We then hosted two farmer workshops, one in each interview location, to share back our initial interpretations and get farmers’ feedback. This served as an opportunity to check how our interpretations resonated with farmers, have them participate in the sense-making process, and ask follow-up questions. We also invited the interviewed farmers to bring a partner or family member to engage in the discussion to broaden the perspectives we heard from. As a result, three additional farmers joined the workshop that did not participate in the interviews.
The main focus of our data analysis has been on the comparisons farmers are making in space (e.g., to other farmers) and in time (e.g., to previous farming generations) when describing their goals and practices. This focus emerged out of recognizing that most farmers were using similar comparisons to express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with agriculture today as well as which practices were best suited for their farms. Therefore, these comparisons seemed to highlight certain social norms around farming in these regions. We will continue to analyze the interviews and refine our interpretations while seeking feedback from the participating farmers.
Through coding semi-structured interviews and reflecting on conversations at two workshops with farmers, it seemed there were many similarities across the two interview locations. Therefore, the following results use data from and are applicable to both places. Future analyses may identify nuances between the interview locations.
Farmers are multidimensional
As farmers described their farming management and motivations, it became clear that farmers are striving to achieve multiple goals at once. These goals included growing the farm and improving efficiency as well as protecting the soil and setting up the farm for the next generation. Farmers also described wanting to produce a good product for the consumer and keeping fields and ditches weed-free for both landowners and their own pride. This highlights that farmers and farming are multidimensional. As an example, Farmer 14 shared throughout the interview:
First, “You know waste cost us money, too, so it's kind of a win-win [if] we become more efficient.”
Then, “…we try and keep waterways mowed up. I mean, that makes you zero money...there's pride in having a clean bean field and a clean cornfield…”
Finally, “We need to give the ground to our kids in better shape than we got it.”
This farmer was simultaneously weighing economic, social, and environmental aspects of their farm, which was reflective of how other farmers were thinking too. This demonstrates the complexities farming and contests the notion that farming is just about the economics. While economics are certainly still important, the idea that economics are the only thing that matters in farming was critiqued by Farmer 14 outright, sharing:
“If we [were] all about money, we'd be sitting in sitting in an office making six figures just having, enjoying our weekends, working eight to five but yeah, but you still have to make a living out here too.”
There is more to farmer decision-making than maximizing profits, and this also aligns with prior literature in this region (Leitschuh et al., 2022; Strauser & Stewart, 2024).
Through exploring the multidimensionality of farming, we also started to uncover areas of alignment and misalignment between crop farmers’ current practices and their long-term goals. Specifically, farmers often expressed a goal of caring for and preserving the land, and subsequently, seemed satisfied that their practices were contributing to that goal. On the other hand, several farmers expressed a desire to return to a more nostalgic view of agriculture (e.g., more small family farms) while recognizing how this conflicted with the present realities of consolidation and pressure to continue growing and increasing efficiency. Importantly, this sense of alignment between goals and practices, or lack thereof, seemed to be impacted by what farmers were using as a comparison for their current practices.
Better than the moldboard plow: Positive assessments of environmental stewardship
When assessing environmental impacts, many farmers described how their practices today are improvements relative to previous generations, i.e., comparisons in time. For example, they referenced how reduced tillage or no-till practices today are much better for the environment than moldboard plowing, as illustrated by Farmer 8:
“I mean, just compared to what things…you listen to the generation that's retiring, and it was moldboard plow, and we went across every acre, flipped it over every year planting. And granted, there [were] less acres that were being farmed. But I think what we do to soil now is a lot better. And I think the no-till on the scale of it has made a big difference.”
Thus, by comparison, this farmer feels they are doing a better job of taking care of the environment now. This same sentiment, that farmers take better care of the land now than they used to, arose across multiple interviews. For example, Farmer 28 also described:
“I think most farmers care about their land anymore. You take 30 or 40 years ago, there was, everybody was plowing. There was a lot of ditches, big ditches. But that's all changed for the most part now. And I didn’t see that stuff, but my dad said that, you know years ago people…it was bad.”
These comparisons are powerful because they give farmers a way to evaluate their desired goal to care for the land. In alignment with these farmers’ perceptions, there is strong evidence to suggest that practices, such as no-till, are better for soil health than moldboard plowing (Nunes et al., 2020). However, because these comparisons are practice-based, they don’t allow farmers to assess if they are actually meeting their environmental goals. For example, recall the environmental goal shared by Farmer 14:
“We need to give the ground to our kids in better shape than we got it.”
To ensure the land is left “in better shape”, an effective assessment is one that establishes clear outcomes paired with measurements that assess progress towards those outcomes. This might mean setting a soil health goal, such as increasing the amount of soil organic matter, and tracking that value over time. This is important because relative comparisons might show different results than tracking changes over time, especially with soil health (Dietz et al., 2024). Comparisons to the past were used not just to assess environmental goals, but social goals too.
The business of farming: Challenges present in aligning economic and social goals
When thinking about what it means to be a farmer today, farmers frequently described both a desire and a push to continue expanding their farms while also recognizing the value of many small farms with a diversity of practices. For some, this created tension in balancing these goals. As Farmer 9 stated:
“…every farmer wants to be bigger but yet, you still want to have the family farm. So it’s definitely a struggle there to balance that out. And yes, in 20 years, do I think you’re going to have to have twice as much acres as we do now just to stay viable or economical or..? Yeah. I do. Because it doesn't seem to be going the other direction.”
In particular, the tension that this farmer is describing between bigger farms and fewer family farms seemed to be exacerbated by a comparison to the past, where there used to be more small family farms on the landscape. For example, as Farmer 9 continued to describe their desire for small family farms, they expressed that it would be nice to “go back to the way it was.” Many farmers expressed a nostalgic view of farming in the past. This sentiment of wanting to return to how farming used to be was echoed by Farmer 15, while also recognizing the challenges to doing so:
“…given as the years go by, less margin, the farmer has to figure out ways to be more efficient. And part of that is with genetics. Part of that is with management. Part of that's with inputs. Part of that’s with feed, all sorts of different things. And if you're [going to] try to raise the cattle on pasture, well, what's the way to get more efficient? Grow some corn, which you can grow really good corn, feed it to the cattle, cattle get to market quicker, then you can fill up the feedlot again quicker. So I think that's just over time, that’s probably just how it's morphed. Because if everyone could, if we could go back to everyone having 350 acres, and just having a variety of livestock on your farm, that'd be awesome. But I just don't think that's feasible…”
While these farmers are making a comparison to the past similar to how they assessed their environmental practices, here the comparison seems to create conflict with the way agriculture used to be and what farming looks like today. In other words, their goals to have small farms with diverse practices are not being met by the way they are farming today. Furthermore, despite experiencing this tension, both farmers quoted here expressed a lack of belief that an alternative was possible given the economic realities of farming. Other farmers also attributed this inability for small farms to thrive to economic circumstances, with Farmer 11 sharing:
“…our dads, you know, farmed three, four or 500 acres. And they made good livings off that. Well, now a 1000-acre farmer is somewhat small…part of it is the equipment's gotten so expensive, you can’t afford to own a $700,000 combine and go through, you know, 1000 acres. It just doesn't pencil out.”
It seems that because of high input costs and narrow profit margins in farming today, farmers feel that getting bigger and more efficient is the only solution, making a return to more small farms impossible. It is worth acknowledging that many farmers also reflected on how these changes in agriculture have come with positives, such as improvements to the environment, as previously described, and to the safety of production. Nevertheless, given that farmers may be feeling constrained by their current circumstances, it warrants exploring how rotational grazing perennial pastures might serve as an alternative solution.
“The economics…are not there”: Grazing not perceived as a viable practice
When asked why grazing was not more prevalent on the landscape, farmers often expressed concerns about the economic viability of grazing. Within these explanations, farmers commonly used comparisons elsewhere in the world, i.e., comparisons in space, to relegate grazing to poor ground only, or in other words, to where you cannot grow good row crops anyway. Rather, they suggest that poor ground is the only place that grazing makes sense financially. As Farmer 6 describes:
“…the return on investment isn't there unless you go to like, for this region, if you go down south where, or even out west where they have 7000 acres of grass, you know that that's all it's good for. Then they're on the other side of it. They're making way more money off cattle being on grass than they can off corn and beans. In this region, we just, if we can grow corn and beans, we're going to. And if the land isn't suitable for it, then we'll go to pasture.”
This same sentiment was also expressed by Farmer 27 that grazed pastures are meant for ground less suited to growing row crops:
“I mean it’s all how you look at it, I guess, but I do think it's economically driven. If we go north of here, then there's some land that I look at the opposite. And I see it in row crops, and I think, ‘Boy, that'd be a lot better pasture ground for cattle to run on whether it's too hilly or timber, whatever. So I think it's an area. You know, you go to Kansas, and parts of Kansas, and they just don’t get enough water to grow a crop.” Then the farmer later concludes the thought by saying, “Right, wrong or indifferent, I think economics played into it was cheaper to dry lot cattle in this area.”
These comments seems to suggest that the lack of grazing on the landscape is largely economic. Rather, it only makes sense when you can’t do something more “productive” with the land, which includes growing row crops. While some farmers do point to other concerns, such as labor and years spent taking fences out in the movement away from livestock on pasture, overall farmers were skeptical of the economic viability of grazing. However, it is important to note there is evidence to suggest that grazing is profitable (Winsten, 2024) as well as evidence suggesting that row crops can be unprofitable (Brandes et al., 2016), especially with increasing input costs (Burchfield et al., 2022). Thus, grazing could be a strategy to meet farmers’ financial goals and there is likely more at play here than just economics. Farming practices are social and cultural. As Farmer 20 astutely describes, practicing grazing requires a mindset shift:
“…and I guess you could call it a mindset thing too. We have been conditioned as farmers to always get more milk, you know, get more bushels per acre, get more tons per acre, get more of everything, and the way you do that is not in a grazing system.”
This farmer recognizes that rotationally grazed pasture systems are not the most effective strategy to maximize production, which they contrast to commodity systems where you are always pushed to produce more. Grazing might require farmers to prioritize different things, which as mentioned above, can and does still include economics.
In addition to grazing aligning different priorities, farmers might also experience ridicule or skepticism for choosing to put flat, productive farmland into pasture. This particular scenario was highlighted by Farmer 8:
“…everyone in the area complains that they're ruining good crop grounds for pasture. Because I have that example within my area of a farm that was highly productive crop ground, and everyone says that's the best crop ground in the county. And now it's in pasture and they're wasting it.”
Because grazing is often thought of as a practice for marginal land, using ground that could be cropped for grazing seems like a faux pas as this farmer describes it.
Finally, perceptions of grazing also intersect with perceptions of land stewardship. As previously mentioned, it seems that farmers feel they are sufficiently taking care of the land when comparing their practices to previous generations. Therefore, they may not be motivated to try to a different practice, such as grazing, which touts many environmental benefits. For example, Farmer 3 states:
“I think we're doing a good enough job with soil health in our current crop rotation that I can, I know it would be better to pasture something and then rotate it back into crop. But we're doing a good enough job and the economics of pasturing land that can be cropped are not there.”
I think it is important to acknowledge that we did not do a thorough survey of each farmers’ conservation practices, so this farmer may be considering all the practices they have adopted to protect the soil when making this comment about “a good enough job”. Nonetheless, it does reiterate that farmers likely will not believe a sustainable agriculture transition, which could include grazing, is necessary if they already feel that their practices are sustainable, and the alternatives are outside the norms of the region.
Comparisons in farming powerfully shape perceptions of sustainability
The comparisons farmers are making matter because they shape norms of what change, if any, is needed and where that change should be headed. From these farmer interviews, when making comparison to the past, farmers seem to feel they are already achieving their environmental goals, yet they seem to feel unable to meet social goals, like maintaining small family farms, under current economic pressures. These comparisons on both fronts could lead to a lack of interest in sustainability transitions because either change does not seem necessary for environmental goals, or change does not seem possible for social goals.
In addition, many of the farmers interviewed did not view grazing as an economically viable practice in their region and instead suggested that it is more appropriate in places where row crops cannot be grown. This comparison is also a barrier to change because it is not part of the social norms in these regions to put flat, arable ground into grazed pasture. Thus, it is not considered a viable farming strategy. Critically, this effect of past comparisons on shaping future land use goals has been shown in other contexts too (Feola et al., 2023).
However, despite the ways these comparisons can limit a desire for change, the goals farmers shared are cause for optimism in themselves. Farmers are striving to care for their land and their communities, which means they are already aligned with the keys goals of sustainable agriculture as outlined by SARE (SARE Outreach, 2023). Therefore, moving forward, I believe researchers and advisors working with farmers must facilitate outlining clear, desired outcomes, including measurements to determine meaningful progress. In particular, this visioning process should be collaborative, with farmers and community members. These interviews laid the groundwork for these conversations by characterizing norms around farming in the region and identifying shared farmer goals. While these future collaborations must be cognizant of the economic tensions placed on farmers that can constrain decision-making, we should also explore how to support new possibilities for how farmers and rural communities can thrive.
References
Brandes, E., Mcnunn, G. S., Schulte, L. A., Bonner, I. J., Muth, D. J., Babcock, B. A., Sharma, B., & Heaton, E. A. (2016). Subfield profitability analysis reveals an economic case for cropland diversification. In Environmental Research Letters. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/0/0/000000
Burchfield, E. K., Schumacher, B. L., Spangler, K., & Rissing, A. (2022). The State of US Farm Operator Livelihoods. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.795901
Dietz, C. L., Jackson, R. D., Ruark, M. D., & Sanford, G. R. (2024). Soil carbon maintained by perennial grasslands over 30 years but lost in field crop systems in a temperate Mollisol. Communications Earth and Environment, 5(Article 360). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01500-w
Feola, G., Goodman, M. K., Suzunaga, J., & Soler, J. (2023). Collective memories, place-framing and the politics of imaginary futures in sustainability transitions and transformation. Geoforum, 138, Article 103668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2022.103668
Leitschuh, B., Stewart, W. P., & van Riper, C. J. (2022). Place-making in the Corn Belt: The productivist landscapes of the “good farmer.” Journal of Rural Studies, 92(May), 415–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.05.002
Nunes, M. R., Karlen, D. L., Veum, K. S., Moorman, T. B., & Cambardella, C. A. (2020). Biological soil health indicators respond to tillage intensity: A US meta-analysis. Geoderma, 369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114335
SARE Outreach. (2023). What is Sustainable Agriculture? https://www.sare.org/resources/what-is-sustainable-agriculture/
Strauser, J., & Stewart, W. P. (2024). Moving beyond production: community narratives for good farming. Agriculture and Human Values, January. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-024-10550-x
Winsten, J. R. (2024). Low-overhead dairy grazing: A specific solution to a vexing problem. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 79(2), 27A-31A. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.2024.0122A
Educational & Outreach Activities
Participation Summary:
Preliminary interview results were first shared via an oral presentation at the Ecological Society of America (ESA) annual meeting in August 2023. Following more in-depth data analysis, I gave an oral presentation at the International Association for Society and Natural Resources annual meeting in June 2024, the Rural Sociological Society annual meeting in July 2024, and the GrassWorks Grazing Conference in January 2025. In addition, we held two farmer workshops in December 2024 with participants from the two interview locations to get feedback on our interpretations of the results. Next, I plan to present at the ESA annual meeting in August 2025 and the ASA, CSSA, SSSA International Annual Meeting in November 2025 and to write a public-facing piece for the Eastern Iowa Farmer magazine.
In addition to direct presentations of the results, I have participated in several other outreach efforts informed by and/or related to this research. First, I spoke at two farmer field days in Wisconsin, one in June 2023 and one in August 2023, to promote the benefits of well-managed rotational grazing. At the August field day, a fact sheet was shared that summarized my on-farm Wisconsin research exploring relationships between soil carbon and annual row crops versus grazed perennial pastures. In November 2023, this research was shared in a flash talk for UW-Madison Chancellor Mnookin and College of Agricultural and Life Sciences Dean Gillaspy, and again in a second flash talk for Dean Gillaspy and UW-Madison Provost Isbell, highlighting interest among university leaders in sustainable agriculture. Next, I wrote a piece responding to the question of "Can cover crops and no-till reduce dairy greenhouse gas emissions?", published on Decode 6's website in December 2023, which provides accessible content on soil carbon and ecosystem services in agriculture. In August 2024, I managed a soil health station at a Soil Health Alliance for Research and Education (SHARE) field day. I also provided two guest lectures for UW-Madison’s grassland ecology course, to share about the need for and pathways to sustainable agriculture transitions. In January 2025, I attended the Practical Farmers of Iowa conference to network and connect with additional farmers. Finally, I submitted a piece to the Eastern Iowa Farmer magazine describing my research path and questions, which appears in their spring 2025 issue.
Project Outcomes
A critical outcome of this work is that it gives crop farmers the opportunity to articulate the goals and outcomes that are important to them, including characterizing what sustainability looks like. While many farmers certainly expressed a desire for environmental sustainability, aiming to leave the land better for the next generation, the discussions of financial pressures and concerns for community vitality also demonstrate the importance of economic and social sustainability. Thus, these interviews can support future sustainability efforts by informing change agents where synergies exists, such as shared environmental goals, and what barriers still need to be addressed, such as economic and supply chain constraints or incongruent social norms. In other words, this work will contribute to improved sustainability transition plans. Two conservation organizations in Wisconsin have already expressed interest in the results to inform their own work: Driftless Conservancy and Savanna Institute. A conversation about this work has also started with a member of Iowa State Extension and Outreach in the county where these interviews took place in Iowa.
This research also lays the groundwork for continued conversations about sustainable agriculture in these communities. Farmers’ voices can be incorporated into broader conversations about the future of these communities so that they can act collectively. This is critical because in order to achieve outcomes such as viable on-farm incomes, clean water, and thriving rural communities (i.e., economic, environmental, and social benefits), coordinated action is essential. Our research will contribute to these efforts through sharing summaries of the results with participating farmers to highlight both farmers’ struggles and shared goals.
From the interview results we shared, it is clear that farmers are interested in the sustainability of their practices and are striving to care for the land. In understanding how farmers assess their sustainability, we learned that the way crop farmers define sustainable agriculture might differ from how researchers, including myself, define it. In particular, the results highlight that farmers seem to be describing sustainability as making improvements relative to previous practices. For example, farmers often described efforts to reduce tillage as part of their conservation efforts. While not mentioned explicitly in the results, other conservation efforts included grassed waterways, cover crops, and variable rate application of nitrogen. These practices were seen as major improvements compared to moldboard plowing and blanket applications of chemicals. Thus, these farmers seem to be using a practice-based definition of sustainability, with practices today seen as more sustainable than prior practices. Those conservation efforts are important steps, and if we want to ensure those practices are sustainable and meeting farmers’ goals, it requires a focus on outcomes instead. Furthermore, if one of those outcomes was to build soil organic matter, for example, this might require a shift in how conservation is conceptualized, such as including rotational grazed perennial pastures, rather than adjustments to annual row cropping systems. As a result, setting outcomes-based goals seems to be critical for achieving sustainable agriculture.
A key goal for me in agricultural systems as a soil health researcher is maintaining or increasing soil organic carbon because of the many co-benefits it provides. However, from these conversations with farmers, it seems that talking about soil carbon might not be a meaningful way to motivate sustainable agriculture transitions. For example, as Farmer 1 shared with me, “…we're not at a point where organic matter’s driving a ton of decisions. Usually there's other dominoes to fall before that becomes an issue. But it's certainly something we track every field, that way just to keep an eye on what it is.” For this farmer, soil organic matter, which is approximately 50% soil carbon, was not a key motivator for their management practices. From our two farmer workshops, soil carbon also did not come up as something that was important to farmers. Instead, a more impactful approach might be to discuss what farmers want to leave behind for the next generation or what they want the future of their communities to be, but more research is needed to determine the best science communication approaches. We intend to explore this further in follow-up conversations with a subset of these farmers.
Finally, I believe these conversations with farmers were critical for building trust and empathy as well as helping me to develop skills around have challenging conversations. First, I am more aware of the challenges farmers face in changing their practices, including the realities of fluctuating markets and thin profit margins. Next, I am more aware of the criticism farmers feel they are facing from the public. Both of these points make it even more essential to be a good listener when having these conversations, and to be curious rather than critical when learning from farmers. Perhaps most significant, I am reminded from these conversations of the many shared goals farmers and researchers have, that I imagine are shared with community members too. We all want to leave the land better for generations to come while supporting the well-being of this generation of farmers. Therefore, sustainable agriculture research should be collaborative, where we value farmers’ expertise, as well as the perspectives of local community members.
One important outcome of this work is the opportunity it gives farmers to tell their story and to feel heard. After wrapping up one of these interviews, I received a text later that evening from an Iowa crop farmer thanking me for caring about agriculture and thinking outside the box. I have heard other farmers also echo this sentiment, indicating that it feels mutually beneficial to have these conversations.
Another moment of success from this work came from the farmer workshops. We asked participating farmers to rank their agreement (1 = strongly disagree, 5= strongly agree) with the following four statements:
- I learned something valuable from this workshop.
- This workshop felt like time well-spent.
- This workshop allowed me to share my own perspective, even if it differed from the researchers or other farmers.
- My perspective was reflected in the interview results.
Across both workshops, all scores averaged 4.3 or above, indicating strong support of these statements, though most exciting to me was that statement 3 received the highest support with an average rating of 4.7. Helping farmers feel comfortable sharing their perspectives was a key goal of these workshops. This felt especially important given that many farmers in the interviews expressed feeling criticized by the public for their practices.