Structural Conservation Practices in US Wheat Production: A Cost- Function Technology Adoption Approach

Based on 2004 CEAP-ARMS Phase II data, higher-sales farms not participating in a conservation programme adopted farmland conservation structures much more intensively on wheat fields than did any other farm-size type among conservation programme participants or non-participants. Survey results suggest that wheat farms not participating in a conservation programme more frequently adopted infield conservation structures, while conservation programme participants more often installed field perimeter conservation structures. Wheat producers, particularly those not participating in a conservation programme, recognize productivity and profitability benefits of infield structures as sufficient to promote their adoption without programme incentives. However, for field perimeter structures, programme incentives may be needed to encourage their adoption because benefits are more commonly off-site. To supplement univariate comparisons between conservation programme participants and non-participants, we used a cost-function based acreage allocation model to examine adoption of structural conservation practices, including such practices as strip cropping, terraces, grassed waterways, field borders, and stream-side herbaceous buffers. To accurately assess the potential environmental impacts of conservation programmes, it is important to account for the variability in on-site field, farm, and environmental conditions influencing producer adoption decisions. Econometric models suggest that not accounting for factors such as field, farm, operator, and environmental attributes will likely underor overestimate adoption of conservation structures with respect to input and commodity prices, regardless of programme participation status.