Rice producer enrollment and retention in a USDA regional conservation partnership program in the southern United States

Results and Discussion

We begin with a quantitative summarization of the five attributes of innovation prevalence identified through deductive coding (table 3). In total, participants referred to relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, observability, or trialability a total of 688 times among the 50 interviews analyzed. Complexity and relative advantage were coded most commonly, followed by comparable rates between compatibility and observability, while aspects of trialability were expressed less often among participants.

Within each practice category, coded attributes showed similar trends; relative advantage, observability, and complexity were observed to have a similar proportion of codes within each practice category. Relative advantage was associated with 33% of codes referencing IWM practices, whereas complexity, or lack thereof (i.e., simplicity), was more evident among references to NM (29%) and WHM (31%) practices. Compatibility was most prevalent in reference to NM practices (40% of codes), as nearly all producers were already doing some level of NM on their own, usually associated with soil samples since that is common practice in modern agriculture.

Compatibility was only loosely associated with IWM practices, as RSP practices often encouraged producers to go above and beyond current irrigation methods. Because the IWM practices lacked compatibility, they may be less likely to persist after incentives end since practices that lack this attribute have been found to cause increased labor or financial inputs without the necessary return or advantages, similar to findings from Reimer et al. (2012). Complexity of a practice affects the ability to observe results, and subsequently, to judge whether it has a relative advantage of current or alternative practices. In IWM, complexity often referred to the difficulty of innovative practices, as the practices offered often challenged traditional irrigation methods by introducing practices like AWD, or the introduction of innovative tools such as flowmeters. Conversely, practices in NM and WHM were referred more to as relatively simple since NM practices were mostly outsourced to third party companies (in terms of soil samples); and for WHM, practices were as easy as installing boards in water control structures to manage water levels.

Observability, while certainly a factor in RSP practices, did not appear to be very prevalent in NM and WHM practices. This suggests practices in these categories may require additional support and technical assistance from program staff to see the accrued benefits for producers and the overall program. Emphasizing technical assistance may be beneficial in helping producers observe the effects of innovative practices from RSP and the impacts they may have to on-farm production (McCann et al. 2015). By demonstrating results and making them observable or recognizable to producers, this may subsequently lead to the relative advantage or complexity of a practice (Ploll et al. 2022). This finding may be indicative that revisions to staff practices, reporting procedures or documentation, or other communication indicators (e.g., utility bills) are needed to show that positive changes to on-farm production, efficiency, or expenditures are occurring.

Trialability was most coded in IWM (49% of trialability codes). Trialability was associated with practice in IWM for two reasons. First, because much of the infrastructure and technology associated with IWM practices in the RSP could be purchased and installed on a limited scale, and second, practices in NM and WHM are difficult in nature to implement on a small scale, as practices in these categories often have to be implemented across entire fields and sections. Purchasing tools like flow meters and moisture sensors may be easier to be “tested” on a small scale before producers take these tools to a larger scale or across the farm.

For program managers considering conservation program practices in the realm of IWM and NM, practices should be observable in a way that is perceived to be advantageous and should be relatively simple to implement (complexity). For NM and WHM, observability may be more difficult to directly see the advantages, so conservation program staff may need to provide more clarity on how practices could be directly and/or indirectly advantageous for producers. Trialability may be most applicable to IWM, as the tools used to monitor irrigation times, water levels, etc., may be easier to evaluate on a limited basis.

Program Participation. In addition to the more readily quantifiable results of content analysis, a deductive coding strategy also provides the opportunity to explore the depth and richness associated with each attribute of innovation. Here, we detail how innovation attributes were expressed by rice producers as reasons for their initial enrollment and potential reenrollment in the RSP (table 4).

When directly asked why they enrolled in the RSP, producers often talked through the multiple considerations that influence their decision-making process. Producers described their overall appreciation for the program and noted how the practices offered often aligned with their current on-farm practices, directions the farm was headed, and how it was important to them to have such a program. They also noted their overall satisfaction with the program and the improvements they made on their own farms, though they did also note a few things that made enrollment difficult, such as the flood dates of the WHM component or recording and reporting weather data for selected fields. In general, producers indicated that the financial assistance is what initially motivated their participation. Producers valued the financial assistance and its facilitative role in aiding producers to engage in innovative production methods. In terms of how financial assistance was characterized by producers, relative advantage was the most commonly coded innovation attribute. To a lesser degree, producers also expressed observability and compatibility, and brought up how the financial assistance allowed them to engage in practices that aligned with the general production directions of the farm. Similarly, producers talked about the financial assistance role in motivating them to engage in production methods that would, in turn, help them with expenses of another rice crop and increase their profitability.

Producers expressed relative advantage most frequently, which came through during discussions on why they enrolled in the program. Producers often noted the empowerment and motivation that the financial assistance gave them to complete on-farm projects that they had either already started or wanted to start. For one producer, the financial assistance that accompanied RSP enrollment was framed as giving them the ability to initiate alternative NM practices for which they did not have the initial startup funds to do so: “Well, I’ve always wanted to do it [nutrient management] but it’s fairly expensive, but with the RCPP program and the cost-sharing, it makes it way more economical.” Similar sentiment was expressed by another producer in the same LMRB subregion, who indicated they enrolled in RSP specifically because the financial assistance afforded them the opportunity to pursue new on-farm NM goals: “That’s something that we had slowly been trying to do [nutrient management], and this process [the RSP] made it way more affordable to do so.” Conservation programs like the RSP are one avenue to seek out and take advantage of to capture additional funds to scale up planned or aspirational projects. As one Arkansas producer said:

Well, I’ve always been a little bit of an early adopter so a lot of these practices I was either thinking about planning on starting. It just gave me the incentive or the push to go ahead and implement it large scale.

Outside of the relative advantage, producers also noted the compatibility of the program, and how the program aligned with current ways of thinking, and with existing operations on the farm. For others, they may note the compatibility of practices, and then the observability of different practices. Most importantly, though, producers noted how both of these often contributed to the overall relative advantage of RSP practices and how they integrated into their operation. Concurrent with relative advantage, the financial assistance provided to further current or planned on-farm projects and the compatibility with current practices, projects, or conservation ideals was commonly expressed as a reason for enrollment. For instance, one producer specifically mentioned, “Well actually it was the income. Like, you know, they wanted to pay us to do it, so it was like, ‘Hey, you can get paid to learn about your whole operation,’ so it was a no brainer.” For many producers, additional financial capital for on-farm projects is difficult. Securing capital for annual seed and nutrient applications is the primary focus each season, and many producers do not have the means to further invest in innovative practices or projects. For rice producers, additional capital is uncommon after general production expenses; thus, financial assistance is viewed as a means to implement or complete projects that mutually benefit and align a producer’s and program’s goals. These results highlight that a combination of RSP’s financial assistance and conservation goals may motivate producers in multiple ways based on a predisposition to improve on-farm practices when the necessary capital can be obtained. As one Arkansas producer said:

We were already doing most of the stuff that the Rice Stewardship Program was trying to get people to do, and so really, for us, it was an opportunity to actually maybe finish some projects and kind of capitalize on getting rewarded for doing all the things that we were already doing so it was easier for us to transition into doing, you know.

For some, producers recognized or became aware of (observability) the opportunity that the RSP’s financial assistance would provide to facilitate completion (compatibility) of ongoing, on-farm projects that help increase aspects of production. As the producer notes, the observability of funds and the compatibility of practices made this program desirable to enroll in; such was common amongst many producers within this first cohort of producers in this innovative RCPP for rice producers.

Practice Persistence. In the following section, we detail how the five attributes of innovation were expressed by rice producers as reasons for why they will or will not continue conservation practices (persistence) as part of their on-farm operations after their current RSP contract expires (table 4). We asked specifically about producers’ intent to continue practices in IWM, NM, and WHM, and broke down participant responses within the attributes of innovation framework.

While producers initially enrolled for financial assistance that allowed them to make changes to how they manage their water, some others noted the accountability of enrolling into the program to become better environmental/agricultural stewards and believed they would become better all-around rice producers in the long-term. One such change mentioned by multiple participants was water pump automation and other technologies offered by the RSP to allow for off-site control of water pumps. In turn, this would allow producers to remotely control water levels, saving producers time from individually checking fields and turning on/off water pumps. This is especially useful in periods of rain, where natural irrigation may save producers from having to manually flood fields, and thus potentially reducing the time spent pumping, saving money and valuable groundwater. However, these remote pump automation devices are relatively expensive, and producers on a tight annual budget struggle to afford them. As one producer said:

Without a program like this, it is not economical for a farmer to go out and put that in, I mean, by any means. Everybody sees the price of those things and their nose goes up and it just goes out the other ear because it’s not even, not feasible at all without help.

Similar to participation, financial considerations were noted in discussion of practice implementation and persistence, but producers focused more on specific characteristics of practices or aspects of technical assistance to express positive or negative experiences. Given several RSP practices required a level of technological knowledge and proficiency, technical assistance was commonly discussed in reference to how it helped producers understand practices and see the benefits those practices had on their operations (relative advantage and observability). While some producers expressed initial barriers such as familiarity with or understanding the specifics of a certain practice (complexity), once producers saw benefits to their operation (relative advantage and observability), it led to learning and adoption. However, in many cases, this epiphany was not recognized without the assistance of RSP staff members. One producer specifically attributed technical assistance to their realization of the benefit and impact AWD provided. However, without technical assistance, the producer would have perceived the practice as burdensome and may not have persisted with it to conserve water:

I think the financial assistance is a hook, but then once you need to understand it. [RSP staff member] was with me for years before I understood this whole AWD. And I’m not a dumb guy, but it just, I didn’t get it, you know? You’re not going to really get it until you see it, but once you see it, it’s like a lightbulb comes on and you just say, “Oh wow, this is pretty neat.”

In terms of optional NM practices offered by RSP, participants expressed consistently positive experience with these practices. Producers across all three states found NM to be the most advantageous RSP practice category and appeared to be the most accepted and retained practice. A common response amongst participants about NM is exemplified by the following quote: “And since then, we have done wall-to-wall nutrient management, and then we’ve got a twenty percent reduction on nitrogen and we’re doing grid sampling on every acre, variable rate on every acre, you know, there’s no doubt in my mind that it works.” Among the attributes most commonly expressed, compatibility was most commonly associated with NM as nearly all producers in the region had either engaged in some extent of NM, or was compatible with beliefs or desires to engage in NM on their farm. When asked if the producer would continue NM after their contract expired, nearly all producers had a similar response: “Yeah, I was going to say, we grid sample, I grid sample every other year whether it’s in the program or not.” While only one specific example, the quote is exemplary of a vast majority of the RSPs first cohort who agreed that NM was widely compatible with existing operations. In addition to the compatibility, producers also identified the relative advantage of the NM practices. Grid sampling, for example, was widely viewed as beneficial among the first RSP cohort. Not only was the practice seen as widely compatible to integrate into current operations, it was also advantageous to observe where nutrient applications were unneeded or overused: “Yeah, I learned a lot about my fields doing the grid sampling. What fields needed it and where.” This quote reinforces the belief that producers were able to recognize the benefits, or the relative advantage of engaging in NM practices such as annual soil samples, to manage nutrient applications.

In terms of NM compatibility, this attribute was more common among producers in Arkansas and Mississippi, while southern Louisiana participants noted the relative advantage that NM had to on-farm operations. This is likely because Arkansas, Mississippi, and northern Louisiana have greater crop diversity options than the producers of southern Louisiana, and thus, may be less likely to be dependent on nutrient applications to help supplement growth and protection for crops. Complexity existed for southern Louisiana participants, as they often noted that timing for soil samples was problematic since the turnaround time from sample collection to nutrient applications was not conducive to their operation. As one participant stated, “Well, he’s not even able, because if you soil sample now, you won’t get it back in time to do any good, so he’s just going to have to go off of, he’s kept all of our old ones, and he can go off of that.” This quote demonstrates the complexities in conducting annual soil samples. In years where soil samples are delayed or not taken at all, it can lead to issues in producers receiving results back in a timely manner for when and where nutrients need to be applied. In addition, not all producers are always pleased by the result of soil test and grid sampling efforts. In cases where producers were unsatisfied with NM results, it was often due to the suggested increased costs for nutrient applications (complexity). For example, this southern Louisiana participant said, “But you know, the soil samples almost never come back to where you can afford to put what the soil really needs.” When this idea came up in conversation, almost always the producer followed up and mentioned how they could not afford the increased costs (complexity), and almost always the producer mentioned how they did not fully follow recommendations and apply the full suggestions based on soil samples, which they attributed to mistrust with agrichemical companies.

In addition, while the logic behind NM is to have producers limit the overuse of nutrient applications, many producers mentioned how NM helps optimize inputs. One producer said, “I think, how do I want to word this, I don’t know if saving me money is, I don’t know if it’s saving me money, but I’m putting my money where I can make the most profit.” While the initial reaction of RSP staff may be to help save input costs for producers, and thus save excess nutrient runoff, it appeared as if many producers shifted their focus more to how NM can help maximize profits through creating more uniform yield with the use of variable rate applications (relative advantage and observability).

Winter flooding was a common practice among rice producers as WHM before the RSP, as postharvest rice fields are critical to winter waterfowl populations in the region. As one producer said, “We’ve always been duck hunters, so usually something gets flooded for ducks every year.” Nearly all RSP producers mentioned how they take advantage of partially flooded fields, zero grade fields to catch rainwater, or pump water onto their fields to provide waterfowl hunting opportunities for themselves, or in many cases, for hunting leases. Other producers also noted the additional advantage of winter weed suppression; that is, producers could save money on herbicide treatments by instead applying a winter flood to their fields to hold back growth of winter annuals:

… last year we noticed that the fields we held water on, when we did pull the water off and get ready to plant rice in them again, that the fields were clean because the water held the weed pressure back all fall, whereas the fields that didn’t have it, it grew all the winter weeds; the grasses and the clovers and stuff like that, that came up.

However, not all producers saw advantages with flooding winter agricultural fields. Some producers claimed winter flooding interrupted spring field preparation and planting plans:

They said that there’s an incentive to flood your rice fields after season, but as my uncle said, “you can flood your duck holes and that’s it,” because we don’t want those fields flooded in the spring where we can’t get in to prep them.

Producers across the entire study area, though more prevalent in southern Louisiana, expressed concerns that spring rains could potentially prolong drainage and interfere with spring planting operations, therefore increasing the complexity and reducing the relative advantage or compatibility of WHM practices. Another concern was justifying the additional expense to flood winter fields (complexity). One producer explicitly stated how they simply cannot afford to flood additional acres without the financial assistance that was provided by the RSP: “Wildlife flooding, it’s hard to do that, it’s hard to go out and flood thousands and thousands of acres without a monetary incentive.” Flooding fields for some producers may come naturally with winter rainfall. However, for those who cannot rely on winter rains, it causes an extra and unnecessary expense. From the outside looking in, and not envisioning practices from the perspective of a producer, it would seem flooding rice fields would be a simple ask:

That some of these programs to flood for wildlife habitat, you can’t see growers continue doing that because it’s not just closing the drains. It’s costing money. It’s costing the grower money. When you flood those fields over the winter or early spring or late fall, you have a lot of aquatic weeds that get started and continue to grow all through the season. And you know, that’s a cost that the farmers have to come up with and you either have to go back and work the fields, which we’re not trying to do, or you have to put in a bunch of herbicides to kill some of these aquatic weeds that are very hard to kill, so expensive herbicides. So, if they want farmers to continue doing that, we need to have pretty much either rewards payment or incentive to keep doing it.

Discussion. The purpose of our study was to contextualize the perceptions of the RSP from the perspective of a rice producer in the southern United States. From our results, we learned that producers enrolled for reasons like those of other agricultural producers—the initial financial incentives (Hoard and Brewer 2006). We also found that the first cohort of RSP rice producers used the financial incentives strategically to invest in proven methods that could increase on-farm efficiency and save time, stress, and costs. Results from Ernst and Wallace (2008) had similar findings in that financial incentives are beneficial in gaining interest, but more importantly, provided the financial capabilities to engage in innovative production practices that were otherwise unobtainable. For program managers, it may be worth considering that financial assistance can be framed as something as other than a simple payment for compliance, but rather, financial empowerment that participants can use to invest in themselves and the long-term success of their on-farm operation. When framing conservation program participation, focus should be emphasized on how to achieve on-farm production goals that secondarily align with conservation program objectives. After commonalities are found between on-farm goals and conservation program goals, program staff should introduce the use of financial incentives and technical assistance to help producers achieve these dual outcomes.

For practices in IWM, producers perceived these to be relatively simple, compatible, and advantageous to integrate into their operations. However, many of the program practices are not affordable to implement and include barriers to long-term upkeep for many producers in our study, and possibly even in the broader LMRB region. Further, much of the infrastructure and technology available for IWM practices is expensive, and while producers wish to adopt and sustain progressive practices on their own, it is difficult to offset initial costs given their expense (relative disadvantage) without the financial assistance and despite recognizing the vital role water management and conservation plays in modern day agriculture (Atwell et al. 2009; Sattler and Nagel 2010).

Producers engaging in the RSP’s NM found these practices to be advantageous as they were often observable, and changes to production costs and yield outputs were noticeable. Even when costs did not decrease or savings were not observed, producers noted how NM helped maximize profits through more uniform yields or enabled them to optimize nutrient applications, which is consistent with findings from Buckley et al. (2015). Producers specifically noted the compatibility of soil sampling, both by those who already engaged in a sample cycle and those who wanted to start the practice, similar to Carruthers and Vanclay (2012). These perceptions of compatibility are also consistent with results from Sattler and Nagel (2010) and Olson and Davenport (2017), which suggest the importance of NM and the role that conservation programs can play in addressing the issue of excess and optimum nutrient applications. Going forward, it would benefit the RSP and similar programs to hire an independent, third-party company (presumably one trusted by producers) to conduct soil samples. Moreover, if the goal is to facilitate producer’s ability to optimize input efficiency, agricultural conservation programs should consider providing a graduated/tiered NM program to help offset any potential increased costs of NM, or provide incentives in cases where nutrient applications could be optimized.

Given the widespread negative repercussions and perceived uncertainty or inconvenience associated with winter flooding practices, the WHM may be less likely to be retained after financial incentives are no longer available (Brasher et al. 2019). The reality is that, without financial assistance, this practice of providing habitat is not widely common outside of traditional field lease agreements for waterfowl hunting (Zekor and Kaminski 1987; Denny et al. 2019). Outside of the complexities noted here, there were multiple producers who also noted the advantages that holding winter water could provide, such as the effectiveness it had in holding back winter weed pressures, which has been found to be effective, and subsequently saved producers the time and money to apply spring herbicides (Bridges and Anderson 1992; Manley et al. 2009; Sattler and Nagel 2010). This may be an alternative framing for conservation program staff to promote this practice as advantageous, as this may be more observable for producers, especially those located in more northern latitudes since coastal producers anecdotally noted how holding water on postharvest fields resulted in the growth of aquatic weeds.

For the RSP, many corporate industry partners have invested in this program, and thus, desirable outcomes from the administrative, economic, and marketing side include planning that producers will continue RSP practices. Efforts to make rice more sustainable and environmentally friendly is projected to be a win-win scenario for conservation and crop production, but if practices are not continued in the long-term, then the short-term production changes are virtually ineffective, and millions of dollars will be spent promoting practices that do not make sustainable, long-term conservation impacts. To facilitate more positive perceptions of RSP practices, especially in NM and WHM, flexibility attributes may be an important program design consideration to allow for producers to make slight adjustments that still address program outcomes while prioritizing on-farm production (Atwell et al. 2009; Mascia and Mills 2018).