Marginality Principle - Principles of Sustainable Soil Management in Agroecosystems - page 43

are socially constructed, based on personal observations and experiences, the shared
knowledge of other farmers, and exposure to scientific information (Coughenour
and Chamala 2000). There are both analytical and affect heuristic components to
these decisions. The experiential system relies on affect, a subtle form of emotion
to make rapid, automatic evaluations to efficiently navigate a complex and uncertain
world (Slovic 2009). The analytical component requires deliberative evaluation and
purposeful mental processing of facts and information and is highly time consum-
ing, so the farmer must believe that the time invested in reevaluating and changing
current practices must have some benefit. Taken together, “…affective and emotional
processes interact with reason-based analysis in all normal thinking and indeed are
essential to rationality…” (Slovic 2009). Thus, the farmer selects crops and devel-
ops a production system based on his/her knowledge and experience with a particu-
lar field, its drainage conditions, the soil capacity to hold moisture, his/her existing
stock of equipment, the current climate, and economic conditions (Coughenour and
Chamala 2000). The extent to which the farmer defines increasing soil nutrients
and improving soil structure for a particular crop as a goal will influence whether a
conservation approach or conventional tillage system is used. Conservation tillage is
defined as at least one-third of the previous crop residue remaining on the soil sur-
face, compared to conventional tillage, where crop residue is removed or turned over.
That is, if the land manager believes that the soil conditions are at risk in the short term
(and possibly long term) of not being fully capable of producing the desired crop, there
is a higher likelihood that some type of minimum or mulch tillage, no-tillage, stubble
mulching, or other conservation tillage will be utilized (Coughenour and Chamala 2000).
Lasley (1987) reports that there is some evidence that farmers perceive that conserva-
tion tillage provides considerable advantage in wind erosion control (64%) and reduction
in soil erosion due to water runoff (65%); however, a much lower percentage of these
same farmers perceive that there are considerable overall profitability (15%) or yield (3%)
advantages (Lasley 1987). This suggests that farmers are likely to view conservation
tillage as good for the environment and long-term retention of their soil but without
much economic or production value.
A number of researchers have examined farmers' adoption of conservation best
management practices (BMPs) and the factors that compel or constrain their capac-
ity and willingness to protect soil (Prokopy 2008). A study by Kurzejeski et al.
(1992) of Missouri land use intentions and attitudes about the USDA Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) found that 22.7% of farmers reported that their enrollment
decision was based on soil erosion concerns, followed by profitable use of the land
(18.4%), low risk associated with payments (14.9%), retirement (14.3%), wildlife hab-
itat (11.9%), reduced labor/more free time (10.8%), and an easy way to meet conser-
vation compliance (7%). About 49% included wildlife concerns as part of the mix of
their enrollment decision. Hua et al. (2004) found that conservation tillage decisions
by Ohio producers were mainly influenced by age, education, conservation compli-
ance requirements, and attitudes, as well as owner-operators being more likely than
renters to adopt practices. This finding is consistent with previous studies by other
researchers' (Norris and Batie 1987; Lynne et al. 1988; Featherstone and Goodwin
1993) examination of Kansas farm-level economic and BMP adoption, which show
that nutrient BMP (soil testing and split N applications) had positive economic effects