1. 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

2. 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.

3. Background Government conservation initiatives for agricultural land. Farm Bills since 1985. 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.

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

5. 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.

6. VariablesCoefficientMarginal Effect Acres 0.1671* 0.9030* Cash Lease -0.1451-0.7636 Share Lease -0.0171-0.0920 Double Crop 0.2834** 1.6533** Rotation 0.04260.2322 Age 0.1840* 0.9944* College -0.2288-1.1910 No High School 0.2035 1.2023 % Farm Income from Crawfish -0.0795* -0.4294* % Household Income from Farm 0.02510.1355 Risk Averse -0.0715-0.3861 Early Technology Adopter 0.25041.4286 Stream-0.0584-0.3139 Constant 1.1405*** Observations58 Alpha 0.0365 Count Data Analysis of Factors Affecting Adoption of 18 BMPs (Negative Binomial Model)

7. Reasons for Adopting 18 BMPs

8. 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

9. Factors Affecting EQIP Participation - Probit VariablesCoefficientMarginal Effect Acres0.52410.2085 Cash Lease -1.1535** -0.4330** Share Lease0.77750.2856 Double Crop 1.3635** 0.4624*** Rotation 2.1736*** 0.6545*** Age0.2686 0.1069 College 1.1022** 0.4038*** % Farm Income from Crawfish-0.1163 -0.0462 Off-farm Job 0.3069 0.1214 Risk Averse-0.2148 -0.0853 Early Technology Adopter 0.3753 0.1474 Stream 1.1201*** 0.4192*** Constant-2.4421 Observations67 Pseudo R-square0.4929

10. Variable CoefficientVariableCoefficient Conservation Cover 1.5482*** Irrigation System with Tailwater Recovery 0.8899** Critical Area Planting-0.4220Irrigation Water Conveyance Pipe0.3996 Field Border0.0183Nutrient Management0.3153 Grade Stablization Structure-0.2424Pumping Plant 1.0320** Filter Strips -1.2780**Own0.2379 Grassed Waterways 0.1499Double-crop and Rotation 0.7809* Irrigation Water Management 0.1237College0.1793 Irrigation Land Leveling 0.0474EQIP -0.6369* Observations 64 Pseudo R-square 0.1975 Economic Impacts from BMP Adoption (Ordered Probit Runs) Considering the combination of BMPs adopted, how has this combination impacted your farm profit? (4 categories)

11.  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

12.  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

13. THANK YOU

14. 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 5437163260 Critical area planting 4718186440 Field border 4014297394 Grade stabilization structure 3911114614 Filter strips 2318296410 Grassed waterway 178428178 Irrigation water management 796455110 Irrigation land leveling 755525250 Irrigation storage reservoir 78000200 Irrigation regulating reservoir 1175130130 Irrigation system with tailwater recovery 1460200200 Reasons for adopting BMP(% of adopters)

15. 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 615022252 Nutrient management5753105203 Pumping plant2475013130 Range planting102914 430 Riparian forest buffer40100000 Streambank and shoreline protection 3050000 Tree / shrub establishment 72020 20 Mean3241236272 Reasons for adopting BMP(% of adopters)

16. 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%

17. 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 1.5482 (0.4747) ***-0.1164**-0.1894***0.2309***0.3238*** Critical A Planting -0.4220 (0.3636) 0.03570.0696-0.0698-0.0929 Field Border 0.0183 (0.4720) -0.0016-0.00310.00300.0041 GSST -0.2424 (0.5012) 0.02090.0394-0.0427-0.0517 Filter Stripes -1.2780 (0.6133) **0.1006*0.0977-0.2827**-0.1916*** Grassed Water Ways 0.1499 (0.4902) -0.0124-0.02620.02250.0349 Irrigation W Mngt 0.1237 (0.3608) -0.0107-0.02020.02190.0264 Irrigation Land Lev. 0.0474 (0.3799) -0.0041-0.00790.00800.0104 Economic impacts from BMP adoption (Ordered-probit runs)

18. 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 0.8899 (0.3761) **-0.0596-0.1619**0.04020.2586** Irrig. W. Conv. Pipes 0.3996 (0.3535) -0.0343-0.06410.07020.0850 Nutrient Mngt. 0.3153 (0.2801) -0.0269-0.05180.05390.0684 Pumping Plant 1.0320 (0.5138) **-0.0713*-0.1815*0.06360.2881* Own 0.2379 (0.3345) -0.0200-0.04070.03750.0540 Double-crop and Rotation 0.7809 (0.4609) *-0.0639-0.12530.11900.1757* College 0.1793 (0.3634) -0.0150-0.03090.02780.0410 EQIP -0.6369 (0.3678) *0.05280.1041*-0.0995-0.1428 Observation64 Cut1 -0.0199 Cut2 0.3631 Cut3 1.2186 Cut4 2.5450 Pseudo R-sq0.1975 Economic impacts from BMP adoption (Ordered-probit runs)