{"id":1546,"date":"2020-04-14T13:36:11","date_gmt":"2020-04-14T20:36:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/?p=1546"},"modified":"2020-04-14T13:36:11","modified_gmt":"2020-04-14T20:36:11","slug":"research-update-nitrogen-management-adoption-rates","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/index.php\/research-update-nitrogen-management-adoption-rates\/","title":{"rendered":"Research Update: Nitrogen Management Adoption Rates"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p> <em>Note: This is part of Research Update series that highlights projects funded by the\u00a0California Department of Food\u00a0and\u00a0Agriculture (CDFA)\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.cdfa.ca.gov\/is\/ffldrs\/frep\/CompetitiveGrantProgram.html\">Fertilizer Research and Education Program<\/a> (FREP)<\/em> (<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.cdfa.ca.gov\/is\/ffldrs\/frep\/CompetitiveGrantProgram.html\" target=\"_blank\"><em>https:\/\/www.cdfa.ca.gov\/is\/ffldrs\/frep\/CompetitiveGrantProgram.html<\/em><\/a><em>).<\/em>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<br><em>The first update on this project\u00a0can be found\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/index.php\/research-update-understanding-grower-decisions\/\">here<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0(<\/em><a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/index.php\/research-update-understanding-grower-decisions\/\" target=\"_blank\"><em>https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/index.php\/research-update-understanding-grower-decisions\/<\/em><\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Project Title:\u202f<\/strong>Understanding Influences on Grower Decision-Making and Adoption of Improved Nitrogen Management Practices&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Project Leaders:<\/strong>\u202fMark N.&nbsp;Lubell, Jessica M. Rudnick, Sat Darshan S. Khalsa, Patrick H. Brown (University of California, Davis)&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Project Status:&nbsp;<\/strong>Complete&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Overview:<\/strong>\u202fThis FREP-funded project provides&nbsp;baseline data&nbsp;on&nbsp;adoption rates of&nbsp;nitrogen&nbsp;(N)&nbsp;management practices&nbsp;in&nbsp;California\u2019s&nbsp;Sacramento and&nbsp;San Joaquin Valleys&nbsp;and Delta&nbsp;regions. It&nbsp;also&nbsp;identifies&nbsp;behavioral drivers and&nbsp;constraints&nbsp;to adopting&nbsp;N management&nbsp;practices.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Background:<\/strong>\u202fCalifornia growers are being encouraged to adopt<strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>efficient&nbsp;N management practices&nbsp;to&nbsp;reduce risk of&nbsp;N movement into surface&nbsp;water&nbsp;and groundwater&nbsp;while&nbsp;maintaining&nbsp;economically viable cropping systems.&nbsp;Research over the past decade has identified many promising practices that can improve N management. Despite&nbsp;improvements&nbsp;in N management practices,&nbsp;the rate of&nbsp;practice adoption&nbsp;and barriers&nbsp;to adoption&nbsp;are not well understood.&nbsp;Thus, this project investigates&nbsp;possible factors influencing grower decision-making and identifies&nbsp;barriers to adoption&nbsp;in order&nbsp;to&nbsp;recommend potential incentives&nbsp;for practice adoption.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Approach:&nbsp;<\/strong>The researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with growers&nbsp;and water quality&nbsp;coalition&nbsp;representatives, hosted voluntary grower focus groups with real-time surveys&nbsp;and&nbsp;roundtable discussions,&nbsp;and&nbsp;designed a survey&nbsp;sent to ~5,000 growers by mail&nbsp;to assess social, political, and&nbsp;economic&nbsp;factors&nbsp;influencing&nbsp;decision making and adoption of N management practices.&nbsp;The researchers surveyed growers from the Colusa-Glenn&nbsp;Subwatershed&nbsp;Program (CGSP), San Joaquin County and Delta Water Quality Coalition (SJDWQC), and East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition (ESJWQC).&nbsp;Throughout the project, the researchers engaged with many&nbsp;partners and stakeholders to identify&nbsp;appropriate data collection&nbsp;methods,&nbsp;ensure that survey questions&nbsp;were&nbsp;well-designed to answer stakeholders\u2019 questions, and disseminated&nbsp;results to grower and stakeholder communities through&nbsp;outreach&nbsp;activities.&nbsp;They designed a survey data analysis method to determine key variables in each region that appear to influence adoption of practices.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Mail Survey R<\/strong><strong>esults:<\/strong><strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>Across all coalitions, the&nbsp;management&nbsp;practices&nbsp;with the highest reported&nbsp;adoption rates&nbsp;were&nbsp;split&nbsp;N&nbsp;application,&nbsp;leaf&nbsp;testing,&nbsp;and soil testing&nbsp;(Figure&nbsp;1).&nbsp;Higher overall adoption&nbsp;rates&nbsp;were&nbsp;observed for&nbsp;ESJWQC compared to CGSP and SJDWQC, respectively; however,&nbsp;ESJWQC had a lower response rate compared to the other two&nbsp;coalitions.&nbsp;Across all coalitions, there was higher adoption&nbsp;rate&nbsp;of fertilizer practices&nbsp;such as split application, leaf testing,&nbsp;and fertigation&nbsp;compared to irrigation practices&nbsp;(Figure&nbsp;2). Across all coalitions, there was higher adoption&nbsp;by perennial&nbsp;crop&nbsp;operations&nbsp;compared to annual crop&nbsp;operations&nbsp;(Figure 3) and higher adoption by very large&nbsp;farms&nbsp;(&gt;1000 acres) compared to small&nbsp;farms&nbsp;(&lt;50 acres) (Figure 4).<strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>These effects may be the result of higher crop values&nbsp;of&nbsp;perennial crops such as fruits and nuts, compared to agronomic crops, which affords greater capacity to invest in new technologies.&nbsp;Furthermore, the longer-term nature of perennial crop production yields&nbsp;greater returns on investments realized over time.&nbsp;Similarly, higher adoption by larger farms suggests&nbsp;the role of economies of scale on practice adoption, where the costs associated with practice adoption can be more readily distributed over larger farms.&nbsp;The&nbsp;survey results&nbsp;also&nbsp;indicate&nbsp;that&nbsp;the&nbsp;most commonly used&nbsp;information resources among growers included a&nbsp;grower\u2019s&nbsp;personal&nbsp;experience,&nbsp;Pest Control Advisers (PCAs),&nbsp;Certified Crop Advisers (CCAs), and other growers.&nbsp;However,&nbsp;preliminary surveys with PCA\/CCAs,&nbsp;found that&nbsp;the primary information sources&nbsp;for these technical advisors included&nbsp;University of California&nbsp;Cooperative&nbsp;Extension, Natural&nbsp;Resources&nbsp;Conservation&nbsp;Service,&nbsp;and CDFA FREP, elucidating an important information chain from more central information sources to on-farm, individual consultants.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The researchers found that a&nbsp;range of barriers impact adoption, including&nbsp;cost, uncertainty,&nbsp;and&nbsp;lack of&nbsp;technical knowledge&nbsp;about the practice. Farming&nbsp;priorities&nbsp;that may motivate adoption include benefits to&nbsp;crop yield&nbsp;and&nbsp;crop&nbsp;quality,&nbsp;as well as&nbsp;soil fertility. It is important to understand how these management practices affect&nbsp;profitability of the farm, which is always a&nbsp;major focus for&nbsp;growers.&nbsp;Growers identified urban activities, livestock operations,&nbsp;and&nbsp;legacy&nbsp;agricultural&nbsp;leaching&nbsp;as more significant sources of water quality impacts, as&nbsp;compared to current agricultural practices.&nbsp;&nbsp;Acceptance of agriculture\u2019s contribution to N pollution is found to be an important driver of increased practice adoption.&nbsp;Results&nbsp;also&nbsp;highlighted that growers report&nbsp;feeling&nbsp;a greater sense of control over on-farm N management, while they report less control over local water quality&nbsp;outcomes&nbsp;and associated regulations.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"aligncenter size-large\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"800\" height=\"458\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/PracticeAdoption.png\" alt=\"Bar chart of 11 types of practices adopted by these water quality coalitions: Colusa-Glenn, San Joaquin County and Delta, East San Joaquin, and other. \" class=\"wp-image-1547\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/PracticeAdoption.png 800w, https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/PracticeAdoption-300x172.png 300w, https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/PracticeAdoption-150x86.png 150w, https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/PracticeAdoption-768x440.png 768w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px\" \/><figcaption>Figure 1. Practice adoption for the Colusa-Glenn Subwatershed Program (CGSP), San Joaquin and Delta Water Quality Coalition (SJDWQC), and East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition (ESJWQC). Differences by coalition include higher overall adoption by ESJWQC compared to CGSP and SJDWQC. <\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"aligncenter size-large\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/PracticeAdoptionAll.png\" alt=\"Bar chart showing adoption rates of 11 types of practices for all respondents.\" class=\"wp-image-1548\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/PracticeAdoptionAll.png 800w, https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/PracticeAdoptionAll-300x225.png 300w, https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/PracticeAdoptionAll-150x113.png 150w, https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/PracticeAdoptionAll-768x576.png 768w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px\" \/><figcaption>Figure 2. Practice adoption rate for all survey respondents from CGSP, SJCDWQC, and ESJWQC. Across coalitions, there was higher adoption of fertilization (green bars) compared to irrigation (blue bars) practices. <\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"aligncenter size-large\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"577\" height=\"432\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/PracticeAdoptionPerennialAnnual.png\" alt=\"Bar chart showing 11 practices and adoption rates between perennial and annual crop growers.\" class=\"wp-image-1549\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/PracticeAdoptionPerennialAnnual.png 577w, https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/PracticeAdoptionPerennialAnnual-300x225.png 300w, https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/PracticeAdoptionPerennialAnnual-150x112.png 150w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 577px) 100vw, 577px\" \/><figcaption>Figure 3: Practice adoption for annual and perennial crop operations in study regions. Across coalitions, there was higher adoption for perennial crops compared to annual crops. <\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"aligncenter size-large\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/PracticeAdoptionFarmSize.png\" alt=\"Bar chart showing adoption rates by farm size.\" class=\"wp-image-1550\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/PracticeAdoptionFarmSize.png 800w, https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/PracticeAdoptionFarmSize-300x225.png 300w, https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/PracticeAdoptionFarmSize-150x113.png 150w, https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/PracticeAdoptionFarmSize-768x576.png 768w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px\" \/><figcaption>Figure 4. Practice adoption by farm size. Across coalitions, there was higher adoption by very large (>1000 acres) compared to small (&lt;50 acres) farm sizes.<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p>The survey results suggest that practices with a direct connection to fertilizer N management are more readily adopted by growers. Even though irrigation practices impact N leaching, a greater cognitive disconnect in the relationship with N management outcomes may contribute to lower adoption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The researchers recommend the following based on their study results: <\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>The relationship between irrigation and N management needs to be better understood by farm consultants and growers alike.<\/li><li>Focus N management outreach and education programs on PCA\/CCAs, the most common and trusted information sources that growers refer to. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/li><li>Articulate goals of the regulatory program in a way that is relevant to growers. <\/li><li>Reduce uncertainty around how the practices affect yield and farm profitability. <\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>This study\ncan provide valuable baseline data for the evolution of water quality policy\ndecisions and on-going outreach and education activities by a large network of\nagriculture extension actors. The results from this work point to clear trends\nand consistent themes regarding the need to make policy, outreach, and future\nresearch decisions within the context of farmer behavior and the needs of farm\noperations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Project Continuation<\/strong>: An extension to this project began in January 2019 to survey growers in the South San Joaquin Valley. Surveys will also be distributed to PCAs and CCAs to better understand their influence on the grower decision-making process and adoption of N management practices. Continue following the FREP blog for a research update on this project.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Note: This is part of Research Update series that highlights projects funded by the\u00a0California Department of Food\u00a0and\u00a0Agriculture (CDFA)\u00a0Fertilizer Research and Education Program (FREP) (https:\/\/www.cdfa.ca.gov\/is\/ffldrs\/frep\/CompetitiveGrantProgram.html).\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The first update on this project\u00a0can be found\u00a0here.\u00a0\u00a0(https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/index.php\/research-update-understanding-grower-decisions\/) Project Title:\u202fUnderstanding Influences on Grower Decision-Making and Adoption of Improved Nitrogen Management Practices&nbsp; Project Leaders:\u202fMark N.&nbsp;Lubell, Jessica M. Rudnick, Sat Darshan S. Khalsa, Patrick H. Brown (University of California, &hellip;<\/p>\n<div class=\"m-y-md text-right\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/index.php\/research-update-nitrogen-management-adoption-rates\/\" class=\"btn btn-primary\" aria-label=\"Continue reading the blog post...\">Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":1618,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_EventAllDay":false,"_EventTimezone":"","_EventStartDate":"","_EventEndDate":"","_EventStartDateUTC":"","_EventEndDateUTC":"","_EventShowMap":false,"_EventShowMapLink":false,"_EventURL":"","_EventCost":"","_EventCostDescription":"","_EventCurrencySymbol":"","_EventCurrencyCode":"","_EventCurrencyPosition":"","_EventDateTimeSeparator":"","_EventTimeRangeSeparator":"","_EventOrganizerID":[],"_EventVenueID":[],"_OrganizerEmail":"","_OrganizerPhone":"","_OrganizerWebsite":"","_VenueAddress":"","_VenueCity":"","_VenueCountry":"","_VenueProvince":"","_VenueState":"","_VenueZip":"","_VenuePhone":"","_VenueURL":"","_VenueStateProvince":"","_VenueLat":"","_VenueLng":"","_VenueShowMap":false,"_VenueShowMapLink":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,456],"tags":[455,36,405],"class_list":["post-1546","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-frep-grant-program","category-research-updates","tag-grower-practices","tag-nutrient-management","tag-research-updates"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1546","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1618"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1546"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1546\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1555,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1546\/revisions\/1555"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1546"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1546"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cdfa.ca.gov\/FREP\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1546"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}