Women own or co-own almost half of the land in the US Midwest and women landowners are playing an increasingly important role in production and financial decision-making. Despite their growing influence, women landowners are less engaged in conservation programs and networks, primarily due to inadequate access to conservation services and resources, leading to a scenario where men continue to dominate participation in both governmental and private conservation initiatives. The existing body of literature further echoes this disparity, with women's perspectives and voices markedly underrepresented in the United States' conservation discourse. Aiming to bridge this gap, this article delves into the attitudes of women landowners toward conservation using a 2021 survey conducted with 135 Iowa women landowners. The survey sought to shed light on their interests in various conservation topics, their concerns regarding conservation decision-making, and their preferences concerning the sources of information and the methods through which educational content is delivered. We find that women landowners are most interested in government conservation programs, followed by soil erosion control, soil fertilizer improvement, and cover crops. We provide statistical evidence that more women operating landowners are interested in conservation topics and concerned about conservation issues than women non-operating landowners in general. We further explore the variations in conservation interests among women landowners, considering their demographic and farm-specific characteristics, to highlight the diverse perspectives within this group. Additionally, we examine the preferred channels through which women landowners wish to receive educational information, offering valuable insights for policymaking and extension services. The results underscore a preference for a mix of delivery methods among women landowners, with a particular inclination toward virtual platforms, such as periodic (e-)newsletters and webinars, and printed materials such as fact sheets or infographics, over traditional in-person formats. This nuanced understanding of women landowners' educational preferences and conservation interests serves as a foundational step toward fostering more inclusive conservation programs and networks that effectively engage and represent women in the agricultural sector.

Making woody mulch (WM) from organic waste is one solution for repurposing waste. Our work had two primary objectives. First, we wanted to destermine the current use of WM as a soil cover, barriers to use, benefits, and possible motivations for adopting the use of WM by home and commercial growers for cultivating crops in Barbados and the Baltimore-Washington, DC metropolitan region in the USA. To accomplish this objective, we administered a survey to growers in both regions. Second, we wanted to determine the benefits of using WM in agricultural production for sweet potatoes (both regions) and Hungarian hot wax peppers (USA). We measured whether WM influenced crop survival, crop yield, crop nutrients, weed mass, and soil characteristics in replicated plots covered with a layer of WM or left bare. Growers reported that expense, availability, and ease of application were barriers to using WM. Despite the barriers, many growers were using, or had previously used, WM and reported myriad benefits, including improving plant yield and/or nutrients, preventing weed growth, maintaining soil moisture and reducing irrigation needs, improving soil fertility, reducing soil erosion, reducing compaction from heavy rain, and maintaining soil temperature. Our data from replicated field trials verified some of the potential benefits reported by growers. WM in some cases promoted higher crop survival and yield of sweet potatoes, suppressed weeds, conserved soil moisture, and maintained higher soil temperature. Understanding which crops benefit from WM and the longer-term effects of WM on crops and soil are deserving of future study.

This preliminary mixed methods study utilized an online survey and phone interviews to examine the benefits, challenges and user experience of farmers utilizing hydroponic shipping container farms (HSCFs). Due to the novelty of this crop production method, and thus the relatively small number of commercial farmers adopting this technology, 12 commercial HSCF businesses, of 46 identified online and via social media, participated in this study. Because population size was small, and 11 of the 12 farms had been in business a very short amount of time (two years or less), the following results are preliminary. The results showed that HSCFs gave farmers the ability to produce locally, sustainably and in new areas. Seventy-five percent of the farmers (n = 9) strongly agreed or agreed that the HSCF helped their farm become more productive, did everything they expected it to do and was efficient. Most participants were satistifed (n = 8; 66.7%) with their HSCFs; one was very satisfied (8.3%), while others were neutral (n = 1; 8.3%) and dissatisfied (n = 2; 16.7%). Participant expectations were most met regarding incorporation of technology, reduced resource use and efficiency; however, 50.0% of the farmers (n = 6) disagreed or strongly disagreed that the HSCF was profitable. Some farmers reported that HSCFs are efficient in production, although their units were not as productive and profitable, nor as user friendly as they expected. Regarding HSCF challenges, power usage and startup costs were ranked most highly, while finding labor was the least challenging. Following phone interviews with three profitable farmers, it was revealed that their success was due to growing local food that was in demand by their community. While this study identified several challenges of HSCFs, this technology may have benefits, for example in areas with limited arable land and water resources, and may offer some farmers a way to be profitable, especially by tapping the growing consumer demand for local produce.

Researchers interested in describing or understanding agroecological systems have many reasons to consider on-farm research. Yet, despite the inherent realism and pedagogical value of on-farm studies, recruiting cooperators can be difficult and this difficulty can result in so-called “convenience samples” containing a potentially large and unknown bias. There is often no formal justification for claiming that on-farm research results can be extrapolated to farms beyond those participating in the study. In some sufficiently well-understood research areas, models may be able to correct for potential bias; however, no theoretical argument is as persuasive as a direct comparison between a randomized and a convenience sample. In a 30-cooperator on-farm study investigating weed community dynamics across the state of Wisconsin, we distributed a written survey probing farmer weed management behaviors and attitudes. The survey contained 59 questions that overlapped a large, randomized survey of farmer corn pest management behavior. We compared 187 respondents from the larger survey with the 18 respondents from our on-farm study. For dichotomous response questions, we found no difference in response rate for 80% of the questions (α = 0.2, β > 0.5). Differences between the two groups were logically connected to the selection criteria used to recruit cooperators in the on-farm study. Similarly, comparisons of nondichotomous response questions did not differ for 80% of the questions (α = 0.05, β > 0.9). Exploratory multivariate analyses failed to reveal differences that might have been hidden from the marginal analyses. We argue that our findings support the notion that the convenience samples often associated with on-farm research may be representative of the more general class of farms, despite lack of bias protection provided by truly randomized designs.

A phone survey was administered to 1,195 growers in six states (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, and North Carolina). The survey measured producers' crop history, perception of glyphosate-resistant (GR) weeds, past and present weed pressure, tillage practices, and herbicide use as affected by the adoption of GR crops. This article describes the changes in tillage practice reported in the survey. The adoption of a GR cropping system resulted in a large increase in the percentage of growers using no-till and reduced-till systems. Tillage intensity declined more in continuous GR cotton and GR soybean (45 and 23%, respectively) than in rotations that included GR corn or non-GR crops. Tillage intensity declined more in the states of Mississippi and North Carolina than in the other states, with 33% of the growers in these states shifting to more conservative tillage practices after the adoption of a GR crop. This was primarily due to the lower amount of conservation tillage adoption in these states before GR crop availability. Adoption rates of no-till and reduced-till systems increased as farm size decreased. Overall, producers in a crop rotation that included a GR crop shifted from a relatively more tillage-intense system to reduced-till or no-till systems after implementing a GR crop into their production system.

This study evaluated implications of increased bollworm problems in a 20-county area of the Texas High Plains relative to cotton yields and economic impact. Results did not indicate a serious effect of bollworms upon lint yield when insecticides were used for control. However, estimated annual reduction in farmer profit due to the bollworm for 1979-81 was over $30 million. Yields were estimated to decline about 300,000 bales without insecticide use and about 30,000 bales with insecticide use. This decline suggests potentially serious implications for the comparative economic position of cotton in this region if insecticide resistance were to develop among insect pests.

As farm income from tobacco production has declined in recent years, there has been increasing interest in identifying alternative sources of income for tobacco farmers in the southern United States The recent termination of the tobacco quota program has accelerated the exit of tobacco farmers and has heightened concern regarding the availability of substitutes for tobacco production. In this study, we examine factors influencing tobacco farmers' attempts to identify profitable alternatives to tobacco, their off-farm employment behavior, and changes in acres of tobacco cultivated using survey data collected from a panel of North Carolina tobacco farmers combined with market data.

Local food system potentials were studied in Washington County, Nebraska. As a departure from most studies of locally based systems, farmers were surveyed in addition to consumers for potential participation. Data about the current food system and opinions and preferences for local production, marketing, and purchasing of food were collected using self-administered mail questionnaires. The response rate was 35% for the farmer survey and 37% for the consumer survey. Results indicated that, on the farming side of the food system, conventional corn and soybean production and marketing predominated in Washington County, and farmer interest in producing for local markets was low. Consumers reported a high level of interest in purchasing food from farmers' markets, local grocery stores, local restaurants and directly from farms, and indicated a willingness to pay a price premium for local foods. They also reported that quality and taste were the most important factors in food purchase decisions, but environmentally friendly production and support for local farmers were also important. We conclude that there is tremendous potential for local marketing of farm products, but that there is a large gap between consumer demand and willingness of farmers to meet this demand. Further study of motivations and opinions of farmers is needed, in addition to determining production thresholds for the number of farms and farmers needed to meet local food demands.