CHOICES
A publication of AAEA
In recent years, climate change mitigation has focused on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agricultural practices (Liang et al., 2017). In the United States, the agriculture sector emits about 11.2% of GHG emissions (US EPA, 2020), but the agriculture, food, and related industries add only 5.6% to the US GDP (USDA-ERS, 2023). This mismatch between the size of emissions and economic benefit has in part made it vital for farmers to incorporate sustainable farming to reduce their environmental footprint. Within the livestock sector, ruminants—beef and dairy cattle—are responsible for most of the non–carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (Rotz, 2018). Enteric fermentation from dairy cows is the largest source of emissions, contributing about 35%–45% of total GHGs on well-managed confined farms (Rotz and Thoma, 2017; Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy, 2023). Moreover, the environmental impact of dairy farms has worsened over time. Capper, Cady, and Bauman (2009) estimated that the average dairy farm in 1944 had less than one-half of the carbon footprint per cow relative to modern high-producing farms.
Sustainable agricultural practices aim to preserve natural resources, ecosystems, and biodiversity on farms (Piñeiro et al., 2020). However, such investments can often be costly and impose a disproportionate burden on small-scale farmers. As a result, while practices such as crop rotation/diversification, no-till, efficient water use, and nutrient management can offset some of the adverse environmental impacts, their utilization is not yet widespread (Martin et al., 2017). This can be partly explained by farm-level economic pressures resulting from years of low commodity prices, natural disasters, the COVID-19 pandemic, and recent increases in feed, freight, fertilizer, and fuel costs (Newton, 2021; Liebrand 2022). For dairy farmers, rising input costs have reduced profit margins in recent years from $11.92/ cwt in June 2022 to only $3.65/cwt in June 2023 (USDA-FSA, 2024). This issue is even more salient in Wisconsin, America’sdairyland, which has the largest number of dairy farms in the country, a large majority of which are small-scale. In 2022, among the roughly 6,000 dairy farms in Wisconsin, the average herd size was 203.4 cows (Hadachek and Deller, 2024). Thus, while farmers may perceive sustainability and environmental stewardship to be valuable endeavors, they may not have the capacity or resources to pursue them. The purpose of our study was to identify the factors that shape farmers’ perception of sustainability and the decision to utilize sustainable practices, and to evaluate if favorable perceptions lead to greater utilization of these practices. Using an exploratory survey of Wisconsin dairy farmers, we analyzed the associations between economic, demographic, and sociological/personal factors and perceptions and utilization of sustainable practices.
In early 2024, we conducted a large-scale survey of Wisconsin farmers on sustainability-related topics. The survey was commissioned and funded by the Soil Health and Agroecological Living Lab (SHALL) at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. The Survey Research Center (SRC) at the University of Wisconsin–River Falls managed the data collection on our behalf. The SRC distributed 3,200 surveys and received 943 responses (29% response rate), 307 of which were from dairy farmers. Given the total population of 5,617 milking herds in Wisconsin by February 2024 (USDA-NASS, 2024), the sample of 307 allows for the development of estimates within a margin of error of 5.4%, somewhat higher than the statistical standard of 5%. Nonetheless, the sample size matches or exceeds the sample size used in similar exploratory studies of dairy farmers in Wisconsin. The survey included a gamut of questions that elicited perceptions of sustainability and the utilization of sustainable practices. Perceptions were measured using climate change beliefs and opinions on environmental stewardship and were quantified using a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” Questions on utilization asked about current use of sustainable practices. We also included a battery of farm- and farmer-related questions. Table 1 shows the distribution of the sample across these attributes. In terms of farm attributes, almost all farmers in the sample were owners and well over two-thirds had 20 or more years of farming experience. Farm size was measured in number of milking cows and acreage. Based on number of cows, about 61% of farms can be considered small (1–199 cows), 27% can be considered medium-sized (100–499 cows), and 12% large (500 or more cows). In terms of acreage, almost one-third (31%) of farmers reported having fewer than 200 acres, 49% between 200–999 acres, and 20% reported having more than 1,000 acres. Over two-thirds (69%) stated that their farm is moderately or very profitable, 22% reported breaking even, and 9% stated that their farm is moderately or very unprofitable. Regarding farmer attributes, a large majority (87%) identified as male and the remaining 13% identified as female. Only 12% of farmers indicated that they are in the 18–34 age range; over two-thirds (68%) of the farmers are in the 35–64 age range and about 21% are seniors (age 65 or older). About half of the farmers reported having no post-secondary education and only 18% have at least a college degree. About 54% of farmers in the sample reported a household income of over $75,000 per year. For reference, the median income of Wisconsin households is $74,631 (US Census Bureau, 2024). In terms of political affiliation, two-thirds (67%) of the farmers identified as Republican or as Republican-leaning independent. Regarding perceptions of sustainability, about 44% of the farmers stated that they believe climate change is happening. For this study, we considered only those sustainable practices that are either used by a large proportion of dairy farmers (e.g., manure application, no-till, cover cropping) or are considered impactful for sustainable production (e.g. grazing and organic). About 85% of the farmers use at least some grazing and 28% have certified organic operations.
In this section, we present the association of economic, demographic, and sociological/personal factors with the perceptions of sustainability and sustainability-related issues and the likelihood of utilizing sustainable practices. Results are shown in Tables 2-4.
The economic factors we considered for this study were farm profitability and household income. The question on farm profitability asked farmers to indicate how profitable their farm is on a scale ranging from “very unprofitable” to “very profitable.” For household income, we used the US Census income categories with truncation at $200k. For profitability, we compared farmers who are “very” or “moderately” profitable to farmers who are breaking even or “very” or “moderately” unprofitable. The threshold for household income was $75,000 per year. Table 2 shows the results.
Farm profitability seems to be an important determinant of both perceptions of sustainability and utilization of sustainable practices. With one exception (grazing), farmers who consider their farm to be profitable were more likely to utilize all sustainable practices included in this study. The difference between profitable farms and their counterparts in the proportion of farmers who utilize no-till, cover cropping, and diverse crop rotation is large and statistically significant. Profitable farmers are also 11% more likely to utilize written nutrient management plans, although the difference is only weakly statistically significant. Similarly, profitable farms are 9% more likely to utilize a corn-on-soybean rotation. The benefits of corn-on-soybean rotation include added soil nutrients, increased yields, and reduced pests and disease (Sexton, 2019). Part of this result can be explained by the economic cost involved in implementing sustainable practices which may, at least temporarily, outweigh the benefits. For many sustainable practices, including no-till, the benefits are contingent on continuous use and are generally realized over a long period of time (Robertson et al., 2008; Cusser et al., 2020, Che et al., 2023). Profitable farms may be in a better position to absorb the initial economic loss than farms that are only breaking even or are unprofitable. Our results show that profitable farmers also have more favorable views on sustainability. While not statistically significantly, profitable farmers are 7% more likely to believe in climate change and value practices that minimize soil disturbance and maximize living cover.
Interestingly, household income does not have a sizable association with perceptions of sustainability or utilization of sustainable practices. The only statistically significant difference by income is that higher-income farmers are more likely to use no-till. There also does not seem to be a major difference by income in the proportion of farmers who believe in climate change, and while higher income farmers are 7% more likely to value practices that minimize soil disturbance, there is virtually no difference in the proportion who value practices that maximize living cover.
Demographic factors considered in our analysis include farm size (in number of milking cows), farmer age, years of experience, and level of educational attainment. Table 3 shows the perceptions of sustainability and utilization of sustainable practices by each demographic attribute.
Farm size is linked with several outcomes. As shown in Table 3, there is sizable variation by farm size across almost all sustainability practices. Relative to larger farms, farms with fewer than 200 milking cows are less likely to utilize all major sustainable practices except grazing and certified organic production. They are statistically significantly less likely to use conservation tillage or no-till, cover cropping, nutrient management, and corn-on-soybean and corn-on-alfalfa crop rotations. Conversely, smaller dairies are less likely to utilize corn-on-corn rotations, a crop management technique that usually leads to lower yields, especially in years of climatic stresses, relative to a diverse crop rotation such as corn-on-soybeans (Al-Kaisi et al., 2024). Farm size is also linked to perceptions of sustainability. Small-scale farmers were less likely to agree that climate change is happening or that they value farming practices that minimize soil disturbance.
These results imply that in the decision to utilize grazing and organic production, sustainability may not be a major factor for small-scale farmers. Even though they are less likely to utilize other sustainable practices, about 92% of small dairies indicated that at least some of their acres are dedicated to grazing, compared to only 55% of larger dairies, a statistically significant 37-percentage-point difference. This may be because the labor and management costs of moving cows between fields are typically greater for larger herds, due to the economies of scale of growing feed (Felix et al., 2023), and that smaller pastures are often a better fit for rotational grazing (Bates, 2022). Similar factors may explain why smaller farms are more likely to be certified organic. McBride and Green (2009) used survey data to show that the need for acquiring organic inputs in large volumes can lead to constraints on scaling an organic dairy operation. In addition, it is often difficult for a farm that relies heavily on feed to accept the tradeoff of lower yields for organic crops (Panday et al., 2024).
To evaluate the influence of farmer age, we compared farmers who are 65 or older with younger farmers. The only statistically significant difference between the two age groups was that older farmers were more likely to use a nutrient management plan. However, farmers who are 65 or older seem to have a more favorable view of sustainability relative to younger farmers. Farmers who are 65 or older are more likely to believe that climate change is happening, value farming practices that minimize soil disturbance, and feel personally connected to their land. There does not seem to be a consistent story in how the number of years of farming experience is associated with perceptions of sustainability and utilization of sustainable practices. Farmers with 20 or more years of experience are more likely to use conservation tillage and nutrient management plans but less likely to use cover cropping, grazing, and certified organic production relative to farmers with less experience. In addition, a smaller proportion of these farmers report using diverse crop rotations, but a larger proportion indicated that they use a corn-on-soybeans production model. Perceptions of sustainability do not vary statistically significantly by years of experience, except that farmers with 20 or more years of experience were more likely to agree that they feel personally connected to their land. The level of education of the farmer is significantly correlated with the utilization of several sustainable practices. Farmers with more education than a high school degree are more likely to utilize no-till and nutrient management plans and be certified organic producers. However, they are less likely to use diverse crop rotations, a corn-on-alfalfa model, and grazing. Note that, except for organic production, the utilization of sustainable practices by education aligns (inversely) with farm size. This is because farmers in our sample with more education than a high school degree are disproportionately more likely to own/operate larger farms.
The goal of this section of the survey was to determine whether sociological components and personal beliefs influence perceptions of sustainability and the decision to utilize sustainable practices. We evaluated three major variables: political affiliation, trust in scientists, and trust in the government. The latter two variables were measured using the farmer’s level of agreement to the statements “I trust scientists” and “I trust the government,” respectively. Table 4 shows the differences in responses the three variables. For political affiliation, we compared farmers who are Republican or Republican-leaning independent relative to farmers who are independent, Democrat-leaning independent, or Democrat. Evidence from literature suggests that political affiliation does shape farmers’ views on climate change. For example, a survey of Nevada farmers found that Republican and conservative respondents view climate change as a low national priority and less harmful to themselves and their communities (Liu et al., 2014). Our results show that while political affiliation is associated with the belief that climate change is happening, the link with utilization of sustainable practices is not clear. Republican farmers are more likely to utilize no-till and nutrient management plans but less likely to use grazing and certified organic production. As with farm size, perceptions and practice of sustainability seem to diverge across political affiliation. In particular, the decision to use grazing and organic production does not align with the decision to implement other sustainable practices. Trust in scientists seems to be a major factor in farmers’ belief that climate change is happening, in line with much research that the science of climate change is highly politicized among largely conservative populations (Liu et al., 2014; Chatrchyan et al., 2017). Farmers who distrust scientists are much less likely to believe in climate change, and there is a 25-percentage-point difference in that likelihood between farmers who distrust scientists and their counterparts. Whether a farmer trusts scientists also has some influence on the utilization of sustainable practices. Farmers who distrust scientists are less likely to utilize no-till and nutrient management plans. However, whether a farmer trusts the government does not have a tangible association with perceptions of sustainability or utilization of sustainable practices, suggesting that farmers distinguish between governmental and scientific sources of information. While some differences between sustainable practices are nontrivial (e.g. nutrient management and organic), they are not statistically significant. Similarly, while farmers who distrust government are 9% more likely to feel personally connected to their land, the difference is only weakly statistically significant.
We found several robust associations between economic, demographic, and sociological/personalfactors and sustainability. Farm profitability and size seem to be the strongest determinants of sustainable practices. With few exceptions, farmers that consider their operation to be profitable are consistently more likely to utilize sustainable practices. Similarly, small-scale farmers are more likely to utilize only those sustainable practices that are a better fit for smaller scale enterprises: grazing and organic production. These differences are also significantly related to level of education, an important attribute that shapes both the utilization of sustainable practices and perceptions of sustainability. Farmers with higher education are more likely to believe that climate change is happening, value practices that minimize soil disturbance, feel personally connected to their land, and have organic operations relative to their counterparts.
A somewhat surprising result is that the association of political affiliation with sustainability is not consistent across the measures analyzed in this study. For example, in what may be considered contrary to popular belief, Republicans are more likely to utilize no-till production and nutrient management plans relative to farmers who have opposing political viewpoints. Yet farmers who are Republican are significantly less likely to believe that climate change is happening. Thus, there is an obvious dissonance between perceptions of sustainability and how sustainable practices are utilized, likely due to the politicization of climate change belief but not sustainable practices, which are seen as enhancing soil and water protection. This discrepancy can also be seen when comparing farmers across age. Farmers aged 65 or older are more likely to believe that climate change is happening, value minimizing soil disturbance, and feel personally connected to the land. However, this favorable perception of sustainability does not translate to action because, with one exception: Seniors (age 65 or older) are not statistically significantly more likely to utilize any sustainable practice relative to younger farmers.
Our study shows that not only is there substantial diversity in the economic, demographic, and sociological/personal factors that categorize dairy farmers, no one factor can fully explain how perceptions of sustainability are shaped and how they are manifested in farming practices. For example, even though there is an economic cost involved in transitioning to some sustainable practices, lower-income farmers are not much less likely to utilize sustainable practices across the board. Similarly, the primary determinant of grazing seems to be farm size, which outweighs the effect of other factors such as educational attainment. These results have important implications for the design of programs meant to mitigate GHG emissions from dairy farming. They suggest that policy interventions must be based on a multifaceted approach that incorporates farmers’ economic, demographic, and sociological motivations for utilizing sustainable practices rather than simply alleviating the cost of such practices.
Al-Kaisi, M., R. Elmore, A. Mallarino, P. Pedersen, A. Robertson, J. Sawyer, and J. Tollefson. 2024. “Corn Following Corn Management.” Integrated Crop Management Encyclopedia. Iowa State University Extension and Outreach. Available online: https://crops.extension.iastate.edu/encyclopedia/corn-following-corn-management [Accessed October 8, 2024]
Bates, G. 2022. “Forage Management: Smaller Pastures = Better Pastures.” University of Tennessee Beef & Forage Center. Available online: https://utbeef. tennessee.edu/forage-management-smaller-pastures-better-pastures/ [Accessed October 7, 2024]
Capper, J.L., R.A. Cady, and D.E. Bauman. 2009. “The Environmental Impact of Dairy Production: 1944 Compared with 2007.” Journal of Animal Science 87(6):2160–2167.
Chatrchyan, A.M., R.C. Erlebacher, N.T. Chaopricha, J. Chan, D. Tobin, and S.B. Allred. 2017. “United States Agricultural Stakeholder Views and Decisions on Climate Change.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 8(5):e469.
Che, Y., R.M. Rejesus, M.A. Cavigelli, K.E. White, S. Aglasan, L.G. Knight, C. Dell, D. Hollinger, and E.D. Lane. 2023. “Long-Term Economic Impacts of No-Till Adoption.” Soil Security 13:100103.
Cusser, S., C. Bahlai, S.M. Swinton, G.P. Robertson, and N.M. Haddad. 2020. “Long-Term Research Avoids Spurious and Misleading Trends in Sustainability Attributes of No-Till.” Global Change Biology 26(6):3715–3725.
Felix, T.L., C.A. Fairbairn, J.W. Comerford, L.F. Kime, and J.K. Harper. 2023. Feeding Beef Cattle. Agricultural Alternatives, PennState Extension.
Hadachek, J., and S. Deller. 2024. Wisconsin Farming: Insights from the 2022 Census of Agriculture. University of Wisconsin-Madison Division of Extension. Available online: https://economicdevelopment.extension.wisc.edu/files/2024/04/Wisconsin-farming-Insights-from-the-2022-census-of-agriculture-1.pdf [Accessed October 12, 2024]
Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy. 2023. U.S. Dairy Sustainability Report 2021/2022. Available online: https://2021-2022report.usdairy.com/images/ IC_US_Dairy-Sustainability_Report_2021-2022.pdf [Accessed September 24, 2023]
Liang, D., F. Sun, M.A. Wattiaux, V.E. Cabrera, J.L. Hedtcke, and E.M. Silva. 2017. “Effect of Feeding Strategies and Cropping Systems on Greenhouse Gas Emission from Wisconsin Certified Organic Dairy Farms.” Journal of Dairy Science 100(7):5957–5973.
Liang, D., X. Lu, M. Zhuang, G. Shi, C. Hu, S. Wang, and J. Hao. 2021. “China’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Cropping Systems from 1978–2016.” Scientific Data 8(1):171.
Liebrand, C. 2022. “Dairy Outlook.” USDA 98th Annual Agricultural Forum, Virtual Event.
Liu, Z., W.J. Smith, and A.S. Safi. 2014. “Rancher and Farmer Perceptions of Climate Change in Nevada, USA.” Climatic Change 122:313–327.
Martin, N.P., M.P. Russelle, J.M. Powell, C.J. Sniffen, S.I. Smith, J.M. Tricarico, and R.J. Grant. 2017. “Sustainable Forage and Grain Crop Production for the US Dairy Industry.” Journal of Dairy Science 100(12):9479–9494.
McBride, W.D., and C. Greene. 2009. Characteristics, Costs and Issues for Organic Dairy Farming. USDA Economic Research Service Economic Research Report ERR-82.
Newton, J. 2021. Farm Bankruptcies During 2020. Farm Bureau, Market Intel.
Panday, D., N. Bhusal, S. Das, and A. Ghalaehgolabbehbahani. “Rooted in Nature: The Rise, Challenges, and Potential of Organic Farming and Fertilizers in Agroecosystems.” Sustainability 16(4):1530–1530. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16041530
Piñeiro, V., J. Arias, J. Dürr, P. Elverdin, A.M. Ibáñez, A. Kinengyere, C.M. Opazo, N. Owoo, J.R. Page, S.D. Prager, and M. Torero. 2020. “A Scoping Review on Incentives for Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices and Their Outcomes.” Nature Sustainability 3(10):809–820.
Robertson, G.P., V.G. Allen, G. Boody, E.R. Boose, N.G. Creamer, L.E. Drinkwater, J.R. Gosz, L. Lynch, J.L. Havlin, L.E. Jackson, S.T.A. Pickett, L. Pitelka, A. Randall, A.S. Reed, T.R. Seastedt, R.B. Waide, and D.H. Wall. 2008. “Long-Term Agricultural Research: A Research, Education, and Extension Imperative.” BioScience 58(7):640–645.
Rotz, C.A.. 2018. “Modeling Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Dairy Farms.” Journal of Dairy Science 101(7):6675–6690.
Rotz, C.A., and G.R.E.G. Thoma. 2017. “Assessing Carbon Footprints of Dairy Production Systems.” In D.K. Beede, ed. Large Dairy Herd Management, 3rd ed. American Dairy Science Association, pp. 19-31.
Sexton, P. 2019. “Crop Rotations Can Increase Corn Profitability and Reduce Pests.” In iGrow Corn: Best Management Practices. South Dakota State University Extension. Available online: https://extension.sdstate.edu/sites/default/files/2019-09/S-0003-09-Corn.pdf
Undersander, D., B. Albert, D. Cosgrove, D. Johnson, and P. Peterson. 2002. Pastures for Profit: A Guide to Rotational Grazing. US Extension and University of Minnesota Extensino Service.
US Census Bureau. “Median Household Income in Wisconsin.” FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 1 Jan. 1984, fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSWIA646N.
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2020. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2020. UEPA 460-R-22-003. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/draft-inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2020 [Accessed September 14, 2023]
US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (USDA-ERS). 2024. “What Is Agriculture’s Share of the Overall U.S. Economy?” Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=58270 [Accessed October 10, 2024]
US Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency (USDA-FSA). 2024. “Dairy Margin Coverage Program.” Available online: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/dairy-margin-coverage-program/ [Accessed September 14, 2023]
US Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS). 2024. “Wisconsin Milk Cow Herds by Type of Milk Produced: Number and Percent by County.” Available online: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Wisconsin/ Publications/Dairy/2024/WI-DairyHerd-02-24.pdf [Accessed October 11, 2024]
Wilkinson, J.M., M.R.F. Lee, M. J. Rivero, and A.T. Chamberlain. “Some Challenges and Opportunities for Grazing Dairy Cows on Temperate Pastures.” Grass and Forage Science 75(1): 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12458
