Structural Conservation Practices in U.S. Corn Production: Evidence on Environmental Stewardship by Program Participants and Non-Participants

program participants and non-participants, and by selected ERS farm typology class across the 4-
State study area.

Characteristics of Corn Producers by Conservation Program Participants vs. Non-
Participants (in IN, IL, IA, and NE)

We identified significant characteristic differences between conservation program
participants and non-participants, and across farm-size classes. Using Phase II data, program
participants are defined as survey respondents that indicated they had a written conservation plan
for the field (or conservation tract), and who also identified either conservation financial assistance
programs in their conservation plan for the field or that conservation compliance applies to the field
[i.e., the field is registered as meeting the requirements for “Highly Erodible Land Conservation
Compliance (HELCC)”].^3,4 The definition of farm-size class makes use of the associated Phase III
ARMS follow-on data. However, because of the relatively small Phase III sample size for the 2005
CEAP-ARMS, we aggregated the ERS typology into two farm-size classes: (1) retired/residential/-
lifestyle farms plus farms with total sales < $100,000 and the operator’s primary occupation was
farming (‘low-sales’); and (2) farms with total sales ≥ $100,000 and the operator’s primary
occupation was farming (‘high-sales’).⁵

The 2005 CEAP-ARMS indicates that only about 14 percent of the farms growing corn (in
the 4-State study area) were associated with conservation program participation (on corn acres), i.e.,
most corn producers (86 percent) did not enroll corn acreage in USDA conservation programs (fig.

³ In addition to HELCC, conservation financial assistance programs included in the definition of “participants”
involved the following programs: Conservation Security Program (CSP), Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP), Klamath Basin Water Conservation Program, Ground and Surface Water Conservation Program, Wetlands
Reserve Program (WRP), Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),
Farmland Preservation Programs, and State Cost-Share Programs.

⁴ Phase II data was used to define conservation program participants versus non-participants: (1) to ensure maximum
use of CEAP-ARMS Phase II data (use of 380 integrated Ph. II/NRI observations versus only 226 integrated Ph.
II/NRI/Ph. III observations) when evaluating alternative conservation practice issues; and (2) because the Phase III
conservation program participation information applies to the whole farm, however, it does not necessarily apply to
the detailed field-level, Phase II conservation practice data linked to the NRI environmental data.

⁵ For the 2004 CEAP-ARMS (for wheat) data, three farm-size classes were defined. However, for the 2005 CEAP-
ARMS (for corn) data, because the sample size was much smaller, we were only able to redefine the ERS farm

<<   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >>

More intriguing information