How do Midwest farmers perceive soil health management? Using qualitative interviews to understand attitudes about, expected benefits from, and the practices used to improve soil quality

Rachel M. Irvine and Matthew K. Houser, Environmental Resilience Institute, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN

Background/Question/Methods:
Soil health (SH) is a focal interest at the intersection of climate change and agriculture. Climate in the Midwest is changing at an accelerating rate and is predicted to increasingly harm agricultural production (USGCRP, 2018). While crops may initially benefit from higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 (USGCRP, 2014) and an extended growing season (Hibbard et al., 2017), altered precipitation regimes will cause agricultural productivity to decline (Feng et al., 2016). By mid-century, Midwest farmers will face more variable and extreme weather events, including both intense precipitation events and periods of drought-like conditions– all within a single growing season. SH has garnered attention as a potential climate mitigation and adaptation approach to ensure agricultural sustainability (Wirth-Murray and Basche, 2020) since SH affects the vulnerability and resilience of crops. Farmers are important stakeholders in SH outcomes, and this study contributes to the existing literature on farmers' SH management through examining how farmers perceive the favorability of SH, the benefits they hope to achieve by improving SH, and the management practices they employ to do so. We focus on the context of the Midwestern agriculture system and draw on semi-structured interviews with 90 farmers across Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan.
Results/Conclusions:
Preliminary findings from this study indicate near unanimous agreement amongst farmers regarding the value of SH, particularly in terms of its benefits for improving crop yields, and somewhat for its ability to help crops withstand extreme weather events. However, farmers’ underlying reasons for valuing SH differed. Some farmers intentionally promoted SH as an end in itself, and others did so as a means to achieve higher crop yields and greater economic return. Similarly, the practices farmers reported using to achieve SH varied widely, and often included strategies which did not align with scientifically documented approaches to increasing SH. These differing approaches to building SH appeared to be related, at least in part, to farmers' interpretation of SH. These results shed light on farmers’ current perceptions of SH management and highlight that while favorable attitudes on the topic abound, SH’s potential to promote mitigation and adaptation in the agricultural sector may be limited based on how farmers are actually managing to achieve greater SH. Our results suggest the potential for improved outreach and policy to better inform farmers about and motivate more effective SH management strategies in the Midwest agricultural system.