Crawfish Farmer Adoption of Best Management Practices and Participation in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program Narayan P. Nyaupane and Jeffrey M. Gillespie Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness Louisiana State University Agricultural Center CNREP Conference, May 28, 2010, New Orleans, LA

Background The U.S. crawfish industry is concentrated in Louisiana. Waste water is an environmental concern. Best Management Practices (BMPs) are helpful for minimizing non-point source pollution. BMP adoption is encouraged, but voluntary. Adoption rates and reasons for BMP adoption in the crawfish industry are unknown.

Background Government conservation initiatives for agricultural land. Farm Bills since Since the 1996 Farm Bill, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) has worked with other federal programs. Payment of subsidies in the form of cost shares. Economics related to BMP adoption. Some BMPs are expected to be economically profitable.

Objectives Determine:  Factors affecting crawfish farmer BMP adoption.  Reasons for BMP adoption.  Factors affecting farmer participation in the EQIP.  Economic impacts of BMP adoption.

Data and Methods 2008 mail survey to 770 Louisiana crawfish producers. Dillman’s total design method used. 4 contacts. Personally addressed and signed letters. Announcements at annual Louisiana Farm Bureau meetings and in the LSU AgCenter crawfish newsletter. 15% adjusted response rate. Count data analysis (negative binomial), probit, and ordered probit analyses conducted.

VariablesCoefficientMarginal Effect Acres * * Cash Lease Share Lease Double Crop ** ** Rotation Age * * College No High School % Farm Income from Crawfish * * % Household Income from Farm Risk Averse Early Technology Adopter Stream Constant *** Observations58 Alpha Count Data Analysis of Factors Affecting Adoption of 18 BMPs (Negative Binomial Model)

Reasons for Adopting 18 BMPs

BMP PercentageBMPPercentage Conservation Cover3Irrigation Regulating Reservoir0 Critical Area Planting3 Irrigation System with Tailwater Recovery 3 Field Border0 Irrigation Water Conveyance via Pipeline 37 Grade Stabilization Structure45Nutrient Management18 Filter Strips3Pumping Plant8 Grassed Waterway3Range Planting0 Irrigation Water Management37Riparian Forest Buffer0 Irrigation Land Leveling63Streambank & Shoreline Protection0 Irrigation Storage Reservoir3Tree/Shrub Establishment3 Note: total cost-share participation rate 57% (i.e. 38/67) EQIP Participation by BMP

Factors Affecting EQIP Participation - Probit VariablesCoefficientMarginal Effect Acres Cash Lease ** ** Share Lease Double Crop ** *** Rotation *** *** Age College ** *** % Farm Income from Crawfish Off-farm Job Risk Averse Early Technology Adopter Stream *** *** Constant Observations67 Pseudo R-square0.4929

Variable CoefficientVariableCoefficient Conservation Cover *** Irrigation System with Tailwater Recovery ** Critical Area Planting Irrigation Water Conveyance Pipe Field Border0.0183Nutrient Management Grade Stablization Structure Pumping Plant ** Filter Strips **Own Grassed Waterways Double-crop and Rotation * Irrigation Water Management College Irrigation Land Leveling EQIP * Observations 64 Pseudo R-square Economic Impacts from BMP Adoption (Ordered Probit Runs) Considering the combination of BMPs adopted, how has this combination impacted your farm profit? (4 categories)

 Farm size, double-cropping, and farmer age were positively associated with BMP adoption while percentage of farm income from crawfish was negatively associated.  As with other agricultural industries, crawfish farmers find some BMPs more useful than others. The two major reasons for BMP adoption were producer perception of “increase in profit”, and expected increase in “long-run productivity”.  Most of the producers receiving EQIP cost-shares received them for irrigation land leveling, grade stabilization structure, irrigation water management, and irrigation water conveyance via pipelines. Summary and Conclusions

 More educated farmers with double cropping or rotation systems of crawfish production were greater participants in the EQIP while those in the cash lease system were less likely to be EQIP participants.  Adoption of conservation cover, an irrigation system with tailwater recovery, and a pumping plant were perceived by farmers to have increased their crawfish profit.  Results provide insights for designing educational programs to encourage BMP adoption, as well as to inform farmers about the EQIP. Summary and Conclusions

THANK YOU

BMPs Percent adopting It leads to increased profit It’s good for the environm ent I have been encouraged/ required to do so It’s good for long-run land productivity It was established by the landowner or another tenant Conservation cover Critical area planting Field border Grade stabilization structure Filter strips Grassed waterway Irrigation water management Irrigation land leveling Irrigation storage reservoir Irrigation regulating reservoir Irrigation system with tailwater recovery Reasons for adopting BMP(% of adopters)

BMPs Percent adopting It leads to increased profit It’s good for the environme nt I have been encouraged/r equired to do so It’s good for long-run land productivity It was established by the landowner or another tenant Irrigation water conveyance via pipeline Nutrient management Pumping plant Range planting Riparian forest buffer Streambank and shoreline protection Tree / shrub establishment Mean Reasons for adopting BMP(% of adopters)

Independent Variables, Summary Acres211 (Acres)No High-school7% Cash33%Farm-income(20-39)% Share16%HHincome(40-59)% Double- crop 28%Risk Averse51% Rotation31%Early Adopters32% Age46-59 (Years)-63%Stream (<1 miles)42% College30%

BMPs Coefficient (Standard Error) Marg. Effect (Lowered profit) Marg. Effect (No economic Impact) Marg. Effect (Increased profit by 1-10%) Marg. Effect (Increased profit by ≥11%) Conservation Cover (0.4747) *** ** ***0.2309***0.3238*** Critical A Planting (0.3636) Field Border (0.4720) GSST (0.5012) Filter Stripes (0.6133) **0.1006* ** *** Grassed Water Ways (0.4902) Irrigation W Mngt (0.3608) Irrigation Land Lev (0.3799) Economic impacts from BMP adoption (Ordered-probit runs)

BMPs Coefficient (Standard Error) Marg. Effect (Lowered profit) Marg. Effect (No economic Impact) Marg. Effect (Increased profit by 1-10%) Marg. Effect (Increased profit by ≥11%) Irrig. Sys. TWR (0.3761) ** ** ** Irrig. W. Conv. Pipes (0.3535) Nutrient Mngt (0.2801) Pumping Plant (0.5138) ** * * * Own (0.3345) Double-crop and Rotation (0.4609) * * College (0.3634) EQIP (0.3678) * * Observation64 Cut Cut Cut Cut Pseudo R-sq Economic impacts from BMP adoption (Ordered-probit runs)