lakes regarding water pollution from agricultural act1 … · · 2013-05-10regarding water...
TRANSCRIPT
S U R V E Y O F
U I S I G R E A T L A K E S B A S I N F P , F I I P I I E R S
R E G A R D I N G W A T E R P O L L U T I O N
F R O M A G R I C U L T U R A L A C T 1 V I T I E S
Survey conducted by
Washington, D.C . S t a t i s t i c a l Report ing S e r v i c e , USDA
Analys is prepared by
E l i z a b e t h C. Powers Eugene A. J a r e c k i
Great Lakes Basin Commission Ann Arbor, Michigan
November 1 9 7 7
Funded through In te ragency Agreement (IAG #D7-F1220) between t h e U.S. Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency and t h e Great Lakes Basin Commission as suppor t f o r t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Reference Group on GREAT LAKES POLLUTION FROM LAND USE A C T I V I T I E S of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission
A C K N 3 bi L E 0 G E M E I1 T S
The s tudy d iscussed i n t h i s Report w a s c a r r i e d o u t as p a r t of t h e e f f o r t s of t h e P o l l u t i o n from Land U s e Act iv i t ies Reference Group, a n o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission, e s t a b l i s h e d under t h e Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Agreement of 1972 . Funding w a s provided through t h e U.S. Environ- mental P r o t e c t i o n Agency t o t h e S t a t i s t i c a l Report ing S e r v i c e , U.S. Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , which conducted t h e survey of farmers i n t h e U.S. p o r t i o n o f t h e Great Lakes Basin, and t o t h e Great Lakes Basin Commission f o r t h e s t a f f t o ana lyze and r e p o r t t h e r e s u l t s .
The a u t h o r s wish t o acknowledge t h e support and c r i t i q u e of M r . Norman A. Berg, Assoc ia te Adminis t ra tor , S o i l Conservat ion Service (SCS), USDA, and Chairman, U.S. S e c t i o n , PLUARG; M r . Gerald B. Welsh, SCS, USDA; M r . Merle W. Te l lekson , Chief , Technica l Support Branch, Region V , USEPA; Leonard T. Crook, Executive D i r e c t o r , GLBC, and W i l l i a m E. Skimin, GLBC. W e p a r t i c u l a r l y want t o g r a t e f u l l y acknowledge a l l t h e e f f o r t s by M s . I d a D. Cuthbertson, SCS, USDA, who a s s i s t e d i n developing t h e i n i t i a l survey and provided i n v a l u a b l e h e l p i n s t r u c t u r i n g t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l a n a l y s e s f o r t h i s Report. For des igning and conducting t h e survcji, w e acknowledge M r . Raymond R. Hancock, Chief , Data C o l l e c t i o n Branch, SRS, USDA and h i s c o l l e a g u e s , M r . A. Lee Sandberg and M r . Paul V. Hurt .
D I S C L A I M E R
The s t u d y d iscussed i n t h i s Report w a s c a r r i e d o u t as p a r t o f t h e e f f o r t s of t h e P o l l u t i o n from Land U s e Ac t iv i t i e s Reference Group, a n o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission, e s t a b l i s h e d under t h e Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Qual i ty Agreement of 1972. Funding w a s provided through t h e U.S. Environ- mental P r o t e c t i o n Agency. Findings and conclusions are t h o s e of t h e a u t h o r s and do n o t n e c e s s a r i l y r e f l e c t t h e views of t h e Reference Group o r i ts recommendations t o t h e Commission.
iii
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
Page No.
LIST OF TABLES.... . .................................................... v i i
LIST OF FIGURES. ....................................................... v i i i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... ................................................... i x
INTRODUCTION............ ............................................... 1
Overview of Survey's R e l a t i o n s h i p t o PLUARG. ...................... 1 Purpose and I n t e n t of Survey ...................................... 1
SURVEY METHODOLOGY.. ................................................... 3
Ques t ionnai re ..................................................... 4 Geographic Boundaries. . . . . ........................................ 8
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................. 9
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Respondents .................................... 9
F a c t o r s Prompting t h e Use of Conservation P r a c t i c e s ............... Farmers' Sources of Informat ion About Water P o l l u t i o n ............. 11 Conservat ion P r a c t i c e s Followed. .................................. 13
17 Farmers' Opinions Concerning t h e E f f e c t of A g r i c u l t u r a l
19 Farmers' A t t i t u d e s Concerning P o l l u t i o n Abatement I s s u e s .......... 26
Act iv i t ies on Water Q u a l i t y ....................................
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................ 3 1
GLOSSARY ............................................................... 33
V
L I S T O F T A B L E S
TABLE NO.
1
2
3
4
8
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
PAGE NO.
U.S. GREAT LAKES POLLUTION SURVEY, JULY 1977 ..................... 4
COUNTIES INCLUDED IN SURVEY OF U.S. GREAT LAKES BASIN FARMERS, 1977 ........................................... 8
FARMERS' SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT WATER POLLUTION, BY FARM TYPE, 1977....... ..................................... 11
FARMERS' SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT WATER POLLUTION, BY GROSS FARM SALES, 1977... .................................. 12
CONSERVATION PRACTICE, BY TYPE OF FARM, 1977 ..................... 14
CONSERVATION PRACTICE, BY GROSS FARM SALES, 1976........ ......... 1 5
CONSERVATION PRACTICE, BY SCD INVOLVEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN, 1977... .................................... 16
FACTORS PROMPTING THE USE OF CONSERVATION PRACTICES, 1977........ 1 7
FACTORS PROMPTING THE USE OF CONSERVATION PRACTICES AS IDENTIFIED BY SCD COOPERATORS AND FARMERS FOLLOWING A CONSERVATION PLAN, 1977 ..................................... 18
FARMERS' OPINIONS CONCERNING THE EFFECT OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ON WATER QUALITY, BY SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT WATER POLLUTION, 1977 ....................... 21
FARMERS' OPINIONS CONCERNING THE EFFECT OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ON WATER QUALITY, BY TYPE OF FARM, 1977 ............ 22
FARMERS' OPINIONS CONCERNING THE EFFECT OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ON WATER QUALITY, BY GROSS FARN SALES, 1977 ........ 23
FARMERS' OPINIONS CONCERNING THE EFFECT OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ON WATER QUALITY, BY CONSERVATION PRACTICE, 1977..... ........................................... 24
OPINIONS OF SCD COOPERATORS AND THOSE FOLLOWING A CONSERVATION PLAN CONCERNING THE EFFECT OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ON WATER QUALITY, 1977.. .............. 25
vii
PAGE NO. TABLE NO.
15
16
FIGURE NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
FARMERS' ATTITUDES CONCERNING POLLUTION ABATEMENT ISSUES, 1977. ................................................. 27
FARMERS' ATTITUDES CONCERNING POLLUTION ABATEMEhT ISSUES, BY THEIR OPINIONS REGARDING THE EFFECT OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ON WATER QUALITY, 1977.. .............. 29
L I S T O F F I G U R E S
PAGE NO.
GREAT LAKES BASIN GENERALIZED LAND USE-AGRICULTURE ............... 2
TYPES OF U.S. GREAT LAKES BASIN FARMS OPERATED IN 1976, BASED ON PRINCIPAL PRODUCT ............................ 9
U.S. GREAT LAKES BASIN FARMS (1977), BY GROSS SALES (1976) ....... 10
CONSERVATION PRACTICES FOLLOWED BY FARMERS IN THE U.S. GREAT LAKES BASIN, 1977 .................................. 13
U.S. GREAT LAKES BASIN FARMERS' OPINIONS (1977): DO THESE SUBSTANCES CONTRIBUTE TO POLLUTION OF THE GREAT LAKES? .............................................. 19
U.S. GREAT LAKES BASIN FARMERS' OPINIONS (1977): WHAT LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT WOULD DO A BETTER JOB OF ADMINISTERING REGULATIONS, IF THEY ARE NEEDED?............. 26
viii
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A t i Y
The survey of farmers i n t h e U.S. Great Lakes Basin regard ing w a t e r p o l l u t i o n from a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s w a s conducted i n J u l y 1977 t o d iscover farmers' opin ions concerning t h e e f f e c t on water q u a l i t y of c e r t a i n a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s and fa rmers ' a t t i t u d e s concerning p o l l u t i o n abatement i s s u e s . I n a d d i t i o n , farmers w e r e asked about t h e i r use o f v a r i o u s conserva t ion p r a c t i c e s and t h e f a c t o r s which prompt t h i s conserva t ion a c t i v i t y .
The survey w a s conducted f o r t h e P o l l u t i o n from Land Use Act iv i t ies Reference Group (PLUARG) of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission ( I J C ) , t h e U.S.-Canadian agency having concern f o r common boundary waters. The S t a t i s t i c a l Report ing Service of t h e U.S. Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e designed and conducted t h e survey of farmers i n t h e U.S. p o r t i o n o f t h e Great Lakes Basin and s t a f f from t h e Great Lakes Basin Commission analyzed t h e r e s u l t s .
Approximately 900 farmers were chosen t o b e interviewed us ing a s t r a t i f i e d area sampling frame t o e n s u r e r e l i a b l e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of farmers i n t h e Region. Half of t h e farmers were in te rv iewed i n person, n e a r l y 40% were contac ted by te lephone , and t h e remainder could n o t be contac ted o r re fused t o b e interviewed. R e s u l t s r e f l e c t a c t i v i t i e s and opin ions of a l l farmers i n t h e U.S. Great Lakes Bas in .
Analysis of survey r e s u l t s r e v e a l :
1.
2.
3 .
4 .
F i e l d c rops provide t h e main income f o r about h a l f of t h e farmers i n t h e U.S. Great Lakes Basin; most of t h e remainder are p r i n c i p a l l y l i v e s t o c k and p o u l t r y farmers; about 5% d e r i v e most of t h e i r income from f r u i t s and vegetab les . Nearly t h r e e o u t of f o u r farmers own some l i v e s t o c k o r p o u l t r y .
More than h a l f of t h e farmers i n t h e Basin r e p o r t g ross annual sales o f less than $10,000. ope r a t i o n s .
Many of t h e Great Lakes Basin farms may b e small
Eight o u t of t e n farmers mention newspapers and magazines as one of t h e i r sources of in format ion on water p o l l u t i o n ; seven o u t of t e n i d e n t i f y r a d i o o r t e l e v i s i o n .
Nearly 90% of t h e farmers i n t h e reg ion fo l low some k ind of conserva t ion p r a c t i c e . The major f a c t o r s prompting t h e use of conserva t ion p r a c t i c e s are s o i l conserva t ion and increased y i e l d o r product ion. Half of t h e farmers s t a t e t h a t they are fol lowing a conserva t ion p l an : about 40 p e r c e n t say t h e y are a coopera tor of t h e i r l o c a l s o i l conserva t ion d i s t r i c t .
i x
5 . Most fa rmers b e l i e v e t h a t no r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between farm f e r t i l i z e r s l p e s t i c i d e s , manure, o r eroded s o i l , and Great Lakes w a t e r q u a l i t y . Only 19 p e r c e n t are of t h e opin ion t h a t manure c o n t r i b u t e s t o p o l l u t i o n of t h e Great Lakes; 32 percen t b e l i e v e t h a t f e r t i l i z e r s and p e s t i c i d e s used i n farming are p o l l u t a n t s ; and almost h a l f cons ide r eroded s o i l a c o n t r i b u t o r t o Great Lakes p o l l u t i o n .
In t h e survey , ques t ions were asked about i s s u e s which PLUARG w i l l add res s as i t d r a f t s recommendations t o t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o i n t Commission. The fo l lowing survey r e s u l t s should be cons idered i n des igning a remedial program:
The m a j o r i t y (57%) o f farmers expres s t h e opin ion t h a t l o c a l government would do t h e b e s t j o b of admin i s t e r ing r e g u l a t i o n s , i f they are needed.
Seven ou t of t e n U.S. Great Lakes Basin farmers b e l i e v e i t is b e s t t o r e l y on vo lun ta ry coope ra t ion of farmers wi th regard t o c o n t r o l of water p o l l u t i o n r e s u l t i n g from a g r i c u l t u r a l ac t iv i t ies .
Three-quarters of t h e farmers i n t h e Basin ag ree t h a t farmers need more informat ion on how they can c o n t r o l water p o l l u t i o n on t h e i r farms.
Two-thirds b e l i e v e t h e Fede ra l Government should h e l p pay f o r p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l on farms.
X
I N T R O D U C T I O N
OVERVIEW OF SURVEY'S RELATIONSHIP TO PLUARG
The survey of farmers i n t h e U.S. Great Lakes Basin r e g a r d i n g water p o l l u t i o n from a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s w a s conducted as a n a c t i v i t y o f t h e P o l l u t i o n from Land U s e Act iv i t ies Reference Group (PLUARG), which w a s e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e Great Lakes Water Q u a l i t y Agreement of 1972 between t h e United States and Canada. The o v e r a l l purpose of PLUARG i s t o assess whether t h e boundary waters of t h e Great Lakes system are be ing p o l l u t e d by land use a c t i v i t i e s and, i f s o , where and t o what e x t e n t , and what measures w i l l provide improvements i n c o n t r o l l i n g p o l l u t a n t s from land usage.
Four t a s k s were i d e n t i f i e d by t h e Reference Group. Task A, of which t h i s survey i s a n a c t i v i t y , has t h e fol lowing o b j e c t i v e :
To assess problems, management programs, and r e s e a r c h , and t o a t tempt t o s e t p r i o r i t i e s i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e b e s t in format ion now a v a i l a b l e on t h e e f f e c t s of l a n d u s e a c t i v i t i e s on water q u a l i t y i n boundary waters of t h e Great Lakes.
I n a d d i t i o n , Task A ' s purpose is t o examine o p t i o n s f o r remedying p o l l u t i o n from b o t h a t e c h n i c a l and s o c i a l p e r s p e c t i v e , and t o assess t h e probable c o s t s of such remedies. The survey r e s u l t s w i l l h e l p determine which of t h e t e c h n i c a l o p t i o n s are s o c i a l l y acceptab le .
PURPOSE AND INTENT OF SURVEY
The survey w a s developed t o help PLUARG: (1) assess the level of awareness among farmers i n t h e U.S. Great Lakes Basin o f land use lwater q u a l i t y r e l a t i o n - s h i p s ; ( 2 ) d i s c o v e r t o what e x t e n t t h e s e farmers f o l l o w c e r t a i n conserva t ion p r a c t i c e s and t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n water p o l l u t i o n abatement pro- grams; and (3 ) i d e n t i f y t h e most important f a c t o r s i n b r i n g i n g about t h e adopt ion of conserva t ion p r a c t i c e s .
Although much h a s been researched and w r i t t e n about t h e urban popula t ion , l i t t l e informat ion is a v a i l a b l e on t h e r u r a l and a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s i d e n t s and t h e i r op in ions . This survey may h e l p shed some l i g h t on t h i s important group i n t h e Basin. Knowledge gained from t h i s s t u d y w i l l a i d i n recommending s o c i a l l y a c c e p t a b l e o p t i o n s f o r water p o l l u t i o n abatement programs. It is hoped t h a t , through t h i s survey, t h e a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s of people who may be unable t o p a r t i c i p a t e more a c t i v e l y may be considered i n designing a w a t e r p o l l u t i o n abate- ment program which t a k e s i n t o account t h e d i v e r s e n a t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n t h e Basin. F i g u r e 1 i l l u s t r a t e s t h e l o c a t i o n of v a r i o u s types o f a g r i c u l t u r e and i t s predominance i n t h e Region.
1
POI
w v) 3
n z 5 CI w N
.. L9
6 F rn rn W cl ..
3 E+ rn W d 2
SOURCE: O R I G I N A L MAP PREPARED BY T.R. L E E , ANDREE BEAULIEU OF THE ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY S E C T I O N AND THE LAKES MANAGEMENT RESEARCH S E C T I O N (C. C. I . W . ) , RESOURCES RESEARCH CENTRE, P O L I C Y RESEARCH AND COORDINATION BRANCH, DEPARTMENT OF F I S H E R I E S AND FORESTRY
S U R V E Y M E T H O D O L O G Y
The survey w a s conducted i n J u l y 1977 by t h e S t a t i s t i c a l Report ing Serv ice (SRS) , U.S. Department of A g r i c u l t u r e (USDA), i n conjunct ion wi th t h e follow-up o f i t s 1977 June Enumerative Survey (JES) .
The u n i v e r s e w a s i n d e n t i f i e d as a l l resident farm operators* on land compris ing t h e U.S. Great Lakes Basin (GLB). The survey used a s t r a t i f i e d area sampling frame of resident farm opemtors* who w e r e o p e r a t i n g a farm" a t t h e t i m e of t h e 1977 J E S . Data were c o l l e c t e d from approximately 900 farm operators," t h e m a j o r i t y (51%) o f whom were in te rv iewed i n person. Thi r ty-e ight percent were in te rv iewed by te lephone and 11% could n o t be contac ted o r r e f u s e d t o be i n t e r - viewed. I n t e r v i e w r e s u l t s were expanded t o r e f l e c t t o t a l farms f o r t h e e n t i r e U.S. Great Lakes Basin. The expansion process involved m u l t i p l y i n g t h e c o l l e c t e d d a t a by a f a c t o r based on i n t e n s i t y o f a g r i c u l t u r a l use i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r geo- g r a p h i c area sampled. The r e s u l t then w a s a d j u s t e d by a non-response f a c t o r f o r t h a t geographic area.
OUEST IONNAIRE
The survey c o n s i s t e d o f 16 q u e s t i o n s concerning opin ions on land use lwater q u a l i t y r e l a t i o n s h i p s , a g r i c u l t u r a l p r a c t i c e s fol lowed, reasons f o r p r a c t i c i n g conserva t ion measures, s o u r c e s o f in format ion on p o l l u t i o n i s s u e s , and a t t i t u d e s r e g a r d i n g water p o l l u t i o n abatement programs.
A copy of t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e and t h e r e s u l t s follow. Question 9 w a s ambiguous t o respondents and r e s u l t s have l i m i t e d usage. The response percentages are shown next t o t h e s p e c i f i c answers. For example, i n t h e f i r s t q u e s t i o n , 32.2% of t h e r e s i d e n t f a r m o p e r a t o r s are of t h e opinion tha t f e r t i l i z e r s / p e s t i c i d e s u s e d i n farming c o n t r i b u t e t o water p o l l u t i o n of t h e Great Lakes.
* See g l o s s a r y f o r d e f i n i t i o n of farm, farm operator, and resident farm operator.
3
TABLE 1
Form Approved OM8 Number 40s-77014 Approval Expires 12-31-77
GREAT LAKES POLLUTION SURVEY
July 1977
INTRODUCTION:
We are conducting a survey to determine farmers' attitudes about water pollution and identify factors related to conservation practices currently being carried out In the Great Lakes Basin. Response to this survey is voluntary and not required by law. However, this survey nas requested by the Governments of the United States and Canada to carry out the Great Lakes Uater Quality Agreement o f 1972. Your individual response will rematn confidential and be combined with all others to arrive at totals for the Great Lakes Basin.
RESULTS
U.S. GREAT LWTS BASIN FARMERS' RESPONSES (%Is)
No No Opinion Que s t ion Yes
1. I n your op in ion , does f e r t i l i z e r and p e s t i c i d e used i n farming c o n t r i b u t e t o water p o l l u t i o n of t h e Great Lakes? 32 .2% 57 .1% 10 .7%
2. I n your opin ion , does manure from l i v e s t o c k and p o u l t r y o p e r a t i o n s c o n t r i b u t e t o water p o l l u t i o n of t h e Great Lakes? 19.2 76.1 4.7
3. I n your op in ion , does eroded s o i l c o n t r i b u t e t o water p o l l u t i o n of t h e Great Lakes? 44.9 46.1 8.9
4 . I n your op in ion who would do a b e t t e r j o b of a d m i n i s t e r i n g r e g u l a t i o n s , i f they a re needed, F e d e r a l , S t a t e o r Local Government?
- Y e s
Local Government State Government Federal Government No op in ion
56.5 17 .5 1 2 . 4 13.6
4
The fo l lowing s t a t e m e n t s r e f l e c t op in ions t h a t d i f f e r e n t people have about p o l l u t i o n i s s u e s . P l e a s e i n d i c a t e whether you a g r e e o r d i s a g r e e wi th each s t a t emen t .
Agree Disagree No op in ion
5. "TO s o l v e fa rm-re la ted water p o l l u t i o n problems, i t is b e s t t o r e l y on t h e vo lun ta ry coope ra t ion of farmers. 70.6% 21.8% 7.6%
6. "Farmers need more informat ion on how t h e y can c o n t r o l water p o l l u t i o n . " 76.9 17.8 5.8
7 . "Farmers should pay t h e e n t i r e cos t of c o n t r o l l i n g water p o l l u t i o n c r e a t e d by t h e i r own ope ra t ions . I ' 30.6 60.4 9.0
8. "The Fede ra l government should h e l p pay f o r p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l on farms." 66.9 25.7 7 .4
9. "Manure i s no th ing more than a waste d i s p o s a l problem. ""
NO - - Y e s 10. a. Do you p r a c t i c e CROP ROTATION
us ing g r a i n o r hay c rops t o c o n t r o l s o i l e r o s i o n on your farm? 73.8% 26.2%
b. Do you LEAVE CROP RESIDUE on l and over t h e w i n t e r ? 62.7 37.3
c. Do you p r a c t i c e NO TILL c u l t i v a t i o n ? 9.4 90.6 d. Do you PLOW ON t h e CONTOUR? 24.3 75.7 e . Do you have GRASSED WATERWAYS on
f. Do you have any TERRACING o r WATER
--
-- your farm t o c o n t r o l s o i l e r o s i o n ? 43.5 56.5
DIVERSION on your farm? 14 .3 85.7 g. DO you use an; OTHER PRACTICE t o
c o n t r o l s o i l e r o s i o n on your farm? 19 .4 80.6
* .This q u e s t i o n w a s ambiguous t o respondents. Because t h e r e s u l t s have l i m i t e d usage, they have n o t been inc luded .
5
11. For each p r a c t i c e checked YES i n ques t ion 10 , a sk t h e reason t h e p r a c t i c e is used and code t h e most important reason.
REASONS FOR PRACTICE Y e s - Conserve S o i l 75.6% I n c r e a s e Yield and Product ion 48.7 Comply w i t h S t a t e o r Local
Regula t ion 0.1 Cost-Share Funds Ava i l ab le 0.2 Other Reason 7.9
12. How c l o s e t o t h e bank of a c l e a r l y def ined stream o r d i t c h do you u s u a l l y c u l t i v a t e ?
Y e s -
L e s s than 10 f e e t 10 f e e t o r more No c l e a r l y def ined stream o r
d i t c h b e s i d e those f i e l d s c u l t i v a t e d .
22.7% 37.9
39.4
No No Answer - - Yes
- 13. Do you have any l i v e s t o c k o r p o u l t r y NOW? 71.6% 28.4%
14. A r e you fo l lowing a c u r r e n t conserva t ion p l a n f o r your farm? 49.6 47.6 2.8
15. A r e you a coopera tor ( p a r t i c i p a n t ) of your l o c a l s o i l conserva t ion d i s t r i c t ? 39.3 58.2 2.4
16. Where do you g e t in format ion about water p o l l u t i o n ? (Check a l l sou rces r epor t ed )
Y e s -
Newspaper and magazine 79.6% Radio 35.0 Te lev i s ion 37.2 Farm Organiza t ion Meetings 24.1 Government pub 1 ica t i o n s o r m e e t i n g
w i t h Government personnel 40.9 Other 8 . 3
6
1 7 . Response Code
Telephone i n t e r v i e w Pe r sona l i n t e r v i e w Refusal (o r no t a v a i l a b l e )
Yes - 38.3% 50.5 11.1
7
GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES
For t h i s survey t h e U.S. Great Lakes Basin w a s de f ined as inc lud ing a l l c o u n t i e s w i t h a t least h a l f t h e i r l and w i t h i n t h e hydro logic boundary of t h e Basin. Count ies inc luded a l l those i n t h e S t a t e of Michigan, 27 i n Ohio, 26 i n Wisconsin, 21 i n New York, 7 i n Ind iana , and 4 i n Minnesota. A l i s t of t h e s e c o u n t i e s appears below. Excluded were c o u n t i e s bo rde r ing t h e Lakes i n I l l i n o i s and Pennsylvania which are b a s i c a l l y non-ag r i cu l tu ra l , and c o u n t i e s w i th more than h a l f t h e i r l a n d o u t s i d e t h e Basin.
TABLE 2 COUNTIES INCLUDED IN SURVEY OF U,S, GREAT LAKES BASIN FARMERS, 1977 ILLINOIS
None
INDIANA
Adams Al len D e Kalb E lkha r t Lagrange Noble Steuben
MICHIGAN
A l l Count ies
MINNESOTA
Car l ton Cook Lake St. Louis
PENNSYLVANIA
None
NEW YORK
Allegany Cayuga Erie Genesee J e f f e r s o n L e w i s L iv ings ton Madison Monroe Niagara Oneida Onondaga On ta r io Orleans Oswego S c huy 1 er Seneca Tompkins Wayne Wyoming Yates
OHIO
Ashtabula Al len Aug l a i z e Crawf o r d Cuyahoga Defiance E r i e Ful t on Geauga Hanco c k Henry Huron Lake Lora in Lucas Medina O t t a w a Paulding Por t age Putnam Sandusky Seneca Summit Van Wert W i l l iams Wood Wyando t
WISCONSIN
Ash 1 and Bayf i e l d Brown Calumet Door Florence Fond du Lac Fores t Green Lake I r o n Kewaunee Langlade Manitowoc Mar i n et t e Marquette Milwaukee Oconto Outagamie Ozaukee Racine Shawano Sheboygan Washington Waupaca Waushara Winnebago
8
R E S U L T S A N D D I S C U S S I O N
CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS 9c
Farm Type
There are approximately 191,700 r e s i d e n t farm o p e r a t o r s i n the*U.S. Great Lakes Basin (GLB). Of t h e s e , a lmost h a l f (49%) produce f i e l d crops as t h e major source of income. major source o f income, a l though n e a r l y three-quar te rs of a13 farmers (72%) own some l i v e s t o c k and poul t ry . remaining f i v e percent . Figure 2 i l l u s t r a t e s t h e percentages o f d i f f e r e n t farm types.
Nearly a n o t h e r h a l f ( 4 6 % ) ra ise livestock and poultry* as t h e
I’egetabZe and f r u i t * producers account f o r t h e
FIGURE 2
‘TYPES OF U . S . GREAT LAKES BASIN FARMS OPERATED IN 1976, BASED ON P R I N C I P A L PRODUCT
-Fruits and Vegetables ( 5 % )
* D e f i n i t i o n s of farm t ype , f i e Z d crops, Zivestock and p o u z t r y , and vegetable and f r u i t farms appear i n t h e g l o s s a r y .
9
Gross Farm Sales
About one-third of the respondents report gross s a l e s of less than $2,500 and over 60% report gross s a l e s of less than $10,000 i n 1976. agricultural sa l e s of more than $40,000.
Only 15% have Figure 3 shows these proportions.
FIGURE 3
U A . GREAT LAKES BASIN FARMS (1977) BY GROSS SALES (1976)
PERCENT 4OXc 34 x OF U.S.GLB FARMS 30%
20%
1 ox
0 0-$2,499 $2,50&9,999 $10,00&39,999 $40,000+
GROSS SALES, 1976
10
FARMERS' SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT WATER POLLUTION
Farmers ' Sources of Informat ion
When asked about t h e i r sou rces f o r water p o l l u t i o n in fo rma t ion , 80% of t h e fa rmers i d e n t i f i e d newspapers and magazines, 41% mentioned government representa- t i v e s and p u b l i c a t i o n s , 37% t e l e v i s i o n , 35% r a d i o , and 24% c i t e d farm o r g a n i z a t i o n meetings. t hose d i f f e r e n c e s are n o t g r e a t . Most farmers o b t a i n informat ion about water p o l l u t i o n from newspapers and magazines, r e g a r d l e s s of what t y p e of farm they o p e r a t e ( s e e Table 3).
Although t h e r e are some d i f f e r e n c e s when comparing answers by farm types ,
FARM TYPE
F i e l d Crops
Vegetable & F r u i t
L ives tock & P o u l t r y
ALL U.S. GLB FARMERS
TABLE 3
SOURCES OF INFORMATION-. N e w s . , Farm Mags. Radio TV Orgs. Gov' t Other
79% 36 % 39% 2 1% 41% 9%
73 28 3 1 36 6 3 8
8 1 35 36 26 38 8
80% 35% 37% 24% 41% 8% I
FARMERS' SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT WATER POLLUTION BY FARM TYPE, 1977
* Note t h a t row pe rcen tages would add t o more than 100%. respondent w a s allowed t o i d e n t i f y more than one source of informat ion . pe rcen tage i s t h e p ropor t ion of o p e r a t o r s of a farm type who c i t e d a p a r t i c u l a r sou rce of in format ion . For example, 79% of farmers w i t h f i e l d c rops i d e n t i f i e d newspapers and magazines as sources of in format ion about water p o l l u t i o n .
Th i s i s because each Each
Vegetable and f r u i t fa rmers do seem t o d i f f e r from t h e o t h e r farm types r ega rd ing t h e i r sou rces of i n fo rma t ion i n t h a t a much h ighe r percentage of them r e c e i v e w a t e r p o l l u t i o n informat ion from government sou rces , as compared t o a l l GLB farmers. However, because t h e number o f vege tab le and f r u i t farmers i n t e r - viewed w a s so s m a l l , a c t u a l pe rcen tages of farmers us ing each informat ion source may d i f f e r from t h e s e sample i n d i c a t o r s .
11
Farmers' Sources of Information by Gross Farm Sales
GROSS FARM SALES, 1976
L e s s than $2,500
$2,500-$9,999
$10,000-$39,999
$40,000 and over
Most farmers obta in t h e i r information about water po l lu t ion from newspapers and magazines, regard less of t h e amount of gross sales generated. r e l a t ionsh ip between gross farm sales and source of information about water po l lu t ion , however, as over ha l f (51%) of t he opera tors of farms with t h e g rea t e s t sales receive information about water pol lu t ion from government sources (see Table 4).
There may be a
SOURCES OF INFORMATION* News., Farm Mags. Radio TV Orgs . Gov' t Other
7 8% 35% 42% 16% 37% 9%
80 33 37 23 42 10
83 39 36 29 39 6
77 33 29 39 51 8
TABLE 4
BY GROSS FARM SALES, 1977 FARMERS' SOURCES OF INFORMATION OUT WATER POLLUTION
~ -~
* Note t h a t row percentages would add t o more than 100%. This is because each respondent w a s allowed t o i d e n t i f y more than one source. Each percentage is the proportion of farmers grossing a c e r t a i n amount who i d e n t i f i e d a ce r t a in source of information. ge t t h e i r information about po l lu t ion from newspapers and magazines.
For example, 78% of farmers grossing less than $2,500
12
CONSERVATION PRACTICES FOLLOWED
Approximately 89% of U.S. Great Lakes Basin farmers prac t ice some conservation, with t h e l z r g e s t percentages ro t a t ing crops (74%) o r leaving crop residue on the land over winter (63%). Figure 4 i l l u s t r a t e s t he frequency of various conserva- t i on prac t ices followed by farmers i n the U.S. Great Lakes Basin.
100% PERCENT OF U.S.GLB
75%
50%
25%
0
FIGURE 4
CONSERVATION PRACTICES FOUOWED BY FARMERS IN THE U,S, GREAT LAKES BASIN, 19n
74%
11111111 CROP LEAVE GRASSED CONTOURTERRACE NO TILLOTEIW NONE ROTATION RESIDUE WATERWAY PLOWING CULTI- PRACTICE
OVER VATION WINTER
CONSERVATION PRACTICE
13
Conserva t ion P r a c t i c e s by Farm Type
The conse rva t ion p r a c t i c e s followed do n o t seem t o depend t o any g r e a t e x t e n t on t h e type of farm, a l though vege tab le and f r u i t fa rmers d i f f e r s l i g h t l y , i n t h a t a much smaller pe rcen tage r o t a t e c rops as compared t o o p e r a t o r s of o t h e r t ypes of farms ( s e e Table 5) .
TABLE 5 CONSERVATION PRACTICE BY TYPE OF FARM, 1977
CONSERVATION PRACTICE
Contour Plowing
Crop Ro ta t ion
Leave Residue Over Winter
G r as sed Wa t e rway
No T i l l C u l t i v a t i o n
Te r race
Other
No P r a c t i c e
F i e l d Crops
22%
77
68
4 1
11
1 3
20
9
TYPE OF F Vegetable
& F r u i t
28%
51
60
53
8
25
27
1 4
* u4 Lives tock & P o u l t r y
27%
74
57
45
8
1 4
18
1 2
ALL U.S. GLB FARMERS
24%
74
63
44
9
14
19
11
* Note t h a t column pe rcen tages would add t o more than 100%. Th i s i s because each respondent could i d e n t i f y more than one conse rva t ion p r a c t i c e . Each percentage i s t h e p r o p o r t i o n of o p e r a t o r s of a p a r t i c u l a r farm type who s a i d they p r a c t i c e a c e r t a i n conse rva t ion measure. For example, 22% of fa rmers o f f i e l d c rops use contour plowing.
Distance C u l t i v a t e d from Stream by Farm Type
Among those fa rmers who s t a t e d t h e r e i s a c l e a r l y de f ined stream o r d i t c h b e s i d e t h e i r c u l t i v a t e d f i e l d s , 63% s a i d t h a t they c u l t i v a t e 10 o r more feet from t h a t stream; 37% say they c u l t i v a t e less than 10 f e e t away.
14
Conservation P r a c t i c e s by Gross Farm Sales
The percentage of farmers p r a c t i c i n g conserva t ion i n c r e a s e s as g ross sales
Of those farmers gene ra t ing l e s s than $2,500 i n g ross sales, 78% i n c r e a s e , a l though farms i n a l l sales c a t e g o r i e s have a h igh percentage p r a c t i c i n g conserva t ion . p r a c t i c e some conserva t ion measures. Of those ea rn ing $2,500-9,999, 93% p r a c t i c e conserva t ion measures; 96% of t h e farmers i n both the $10,000-39,000 bracke t and t h e h i g h e s t b racke t ($40,000 and over) p r a c t i c e some conserva t ion . More of t h e farms wi th smallest g ross sales (31%) than o t h e r farms a r e contour plowed. More of t h e farms g ross ing $2,500-9,999 (71%) than o t h e r farms l eave crop r e s idue on t h e i r f i e l d s over w in te r ( s ee Table 6).
TABLE 6 CONSERVATION PRACTICE, BY GROSS SALES, 1976
$10 , 000- 39,999
21%
86
68
39
9
16
CONSERVATION PRACTICE
Contour Plowing
Crop Rota t ion
Leave Residue Over Winter
Grassed Waterway
No T i l l C u l t i v a t i o n
Ter race
Other
No P r a c t i c e
&
$40 , 000 and Over
22%
87
65
60
10
24
L e s s Than $2 , 500
31%
57
5 1
39
8
13
1 3
22
23
4
GROSS FA $2 , 500- 9 , 999
20%
78
7 1
44
12
10
18
7 32
4
ALL U.S GLB
FARMERS
24%
74
63
44
9
1 4
19
11
.. Note t h a t column percentages would add t o more than 100%. This is because each respondent w a s allowed t o i d e n t i f y more than one conserva t ion p r a c t i c e . Each percentage i s t h e p ropor t ion of farmers i n a p a r t i c u l a r category by g ross sales who said they p r a c t i c e a c e r t a i n conserva t ion measure. For example, 31% of t h e fa rmers g ross ing less than $2,500 a year from t h e i r farm ope ra t ions contour plow.
15
Conservat ion P r a c t i c e s by Involvement wi th Local S o i l Conservat ion D i s t r i c t and Development of a Conservat ion P lan
CONSERVATION PRACTICE*
Contour Plowing
Crop Ro ta t ion
Leave Residue Over Winter
Grassed Waterway
While 89% of a l l U.S. Great Lakes Basin farmers p r a c t i c e s o i l conserva t ion measures, on ly 50% s a i d they are fo l lowing a c u r r e n t conserva t ion plan. Only 39% are coope ra to r s o f t h e i r l o c a l s o i l conserva t ion d i s t r i c t (SCD). I f a farmer is an SCD coopera to r , i t is l i k e l y t h a t he/she is a l s o fo l lowing a conserva t ion p lan . Of SCD coope ra to r s , n e a r l y th ree -qua r t e r s s a i d they fo l low a p lan . Inciden- t a l l y , SCD coopera to r s are encouraged t o develop a p lan as p a r t of t h e i r involve- ment w i t h t h e l o c a l d i s t r i c t .
U.S. GLB U.S. GLB FARMER ALL U.S. FARMER I S AN I S FOLLOWING A GLB
SCD COOPERATOR? CONSERVATION PLAN? FARMERS
Y e s
32% 20% 29% 20% 24%
83 68 83 64 74
73 56 70 56 63
56 36 51 36 44
No - Y e s - No - -
Apparent ly , farmers who are e i t h e r SCD coopera tors o r fo l lowing a conserva t ion p lan are more l i k e l y t o p r a c t i c e conserva t ion measures than those who are n e i t h e r . Of SCD coopera to r s , 96% fo l low some conserva t ion p r a c t i c e s ; of those who are not coope ra to r s , 85% p r a c t i c e conserva t ion . Of those who s t a t e d they fo l low a conserva t ion p lan , 95% use some conse rva t ion p r a c t i c e s , bu t 83% of those no t fo l lowing a p l a n p r a c t i c e conserva t ion . For each conserva t ion p r a c t i c e , h ighe r percentages are shown f o r those e i t h e r coopera t ing wi th t h e i r SCD o r fo l lowing a conse rva t ion p lan than f o r those fa rmers who are n e i t h e r SCD coopera tors nor fo l lowing a p l an . Table 7 i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p .
Other
No P r a c t i c e
TABLE 7 CONSERVATION PRACTICE, BY SCD INVOLVEMENT
AND CONSERVATION PLAN, 1977
30 12 2 7 1 2 1 9
4 15 5 1 7 11
Terrace I 22 1 1 0 I 1 8 I 11 I 14 I
* Note t h a t column percentages would add t o more than 100%. This i s because each respondent could i d e n t i f y more than one conserva t ion p r a c t i c e . Each percentage i s t h e p ropor t ion of fa rmers , responding as i n d i c a t e d , who s a i d they p r a c t i c e c e r t a i n conse rva t ion measures. For example, 32% of t h e farmers who s a i d they are SCD coope ra to r s contour plow t h e i r f i e l d s .
16
FACTORS PROMPTING THE USE OF CONSERVATION PRACTICES
FACTORS PROMPTING
CONSERVATION
Conserve Soil
Increase Yield or Production
Seventy-six pe rcen t o f t h e farmers use Conservation p r a c t i c e s f o r s o i l conse rva t ion ; 49% of t h e farmers use them t o i n c r e a s e y i e l d o r product ion; 8% have o t h e r reasons. However, compliance w i t h s t a t e / l o c a l r e g u l a t i o n s o r a v a i l a b i l i t y of cos t - share funds were n e g l i g i b l e f a c t o r s i n prompting conserva t ion measures. Table 8 shows a breakdown i n d i c a t i n g which f a c t o r s prompted t h e use of each conserva t ion p r a c t i c e . For example, of those farmers who plow on t h e contour , 87% do i t t o conserve so i l ; 12% do i t t o i n c r e a s e product ion.
CONSERVATION PRACTICE ALL ; U.S.
Contour Crop Residue Grassed No T i l l No CLB Ploving Rotation Over Winter Waterway Cultivation Terrace Other Practice FAEMHIS
87% 53% 66% 9 3% 60% 75% 81% - 76%
12 46 28 6 32 17 0 - 49%
TABLE 8
Comply with State and Local Regulation
Available Cost-share Funds
FACTORS PROMPTING THE USE OF CONSERVATION PRACTICES, 1977
- 0 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - -
0%
0%
8% 1 0 0 %
-_i
Other Total"
1 1 5 2 6 7 10 - 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% -
* Totals for individual practices may not add to 100% due to roimding.
Although s o i l conse rva t ion appears t o be t h e p r i n c i p a l f a c t o r prompting t h e use of conserva t ion p r a c t i c e s , most respondents a c t u a l l y considered s o i l conserva- t i o n and inc reased y i e l d o r product ion in sepa rab le . bo th s o i l conse rva t ion and inc reased y i e l d o r product ion as f a c t o r s prompting t h e use of conserva t ion p r a c t i c e s , t h e t o t a l f o r a l l farmers adds up to m o r e than 100% Nonetheless , i t i s s a f e t o state t h a t bo th s o i l conse rva t ion and inc reased y i e l d o r product ion are t h e major f a c t o r s prompting t h e use of conse rva t ion practices.
Because some farmers gave
17
F a c t o r s Prompting t h e Use of Conservation P r a c t i c e s Compared by SCD Coopera tors and Those wi th a Conservation P lan
U.S. GLB U.S. GLB FARMER ALL U.S. FACTORS FARMER I S AN I S FOLLOWING A GLB
When SCD coopera to r s and those fo l lowing a conse rva t ion p l an were asked which f a c t o r s prompted them t o use conse rva t ion p r a c t i c e s , t h e i r responses i n d i c a t e t h a t involvement w i t h t h e l o c a l SCD and development of a conserva t ion p l an are r e l a t e d t o f a c t o r s prompting use of conse rva t ion p r a c t i c e s . Table 9 i n d i c a t e s t h a t of t hose responding "yes" t o e i t h e r t ype of involvement, many more farmers gave t h e i d e n t i f i e d f a c t o r s as r easons , compared t o those say ing they are n o t involved , who more o f t e n gave 'lother' ' r ea sons f o r u s ing conse rva t ion p r a c t i c e s .
, PROMPTING CONSERVATION* SCD COOPERATOR?
TABLE 9
CONSERVATION PLAN? FARMERS
FACTORS PROMPTING THE USE OF CONSERVATION PRACTICES A S IDENTI FIED BY SCD COOPERATORS AND FARMERS
FOLLOWING A CONSERVATION PLAN, 1977
Comply w i t h S t a t e and Local Regula t ion 0 - 0 0
0
- - 0 -
Conserve S o i l
Yes No Y e s No - - ! 89X I 67% 1 87% 1 65% 1 76%
I Increase Yie ld o r Product ion 1 56 I 44 I 5 1 I 46 1 49
Other
* Note t h a t column pe rcen tages would add t o more than 100%. This is because some respondents i d e n t i f i e d more than one f a c t o r as prompting t h e i r u s e of conserva- t i o n p r a c t i c e s . The pe rcen tages i n d i c a t e t h e p ropor t ion of fa rmers responding a p a r t i c u l a r way who c i t e d a p a r t i c u l a r f a c t o r . For example, 89% of fa rmers who s a i d they are SCD coopera to r s u se conserva t ion p r a c t i c e s t o conserve s o i l . 56% of SCD coopera to r s mentioned inc reased y i e l d o r product ion as a reason.
18
FARMERS' OPINIONS CONCERNING THE EFFECT OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ON WATER QUALITY
In o r d e r t o assess t h e extent t o which fa rmers f e e l t h a t c e r t a i n subs t ances r e s u l t i n g from farm o p e r a t i o n s c o n t r i b u t e t o water p o l l u t i o n , fa rmers w e r e asked t h r e e q u e s t i o n s :
1. In your op in ion , does f e r t i l i z e r and p e s t i c i d e used i n farming c o n t r i b u t e t o water p o l l u t i o n o f t h e Great Lakes?
2. I n your opin ion , does manure from l i v e s t o c k and p o u l t r y o p e r a t i o n s c o n t r i b u t e t o water p o l l u t i o n of t h e Great Lakes?
3. I n your opin ion , does eroded s o i l c o n t r i b u t e t o water p o l l u t i o n of t h e Great Lakes?
The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e that t h e ma jo r i ty of farmers are of t h e opin ion t h a t f e r t i l i z e r s l p e s t i c i d e s , l i v e s t o c k and p o u l t r y manure, and eroded s o i l do no t c o n t r i - b u t e t o water p o l l u t i o n of t h e Great Lakes (see F igure 5 ) .
THE GREAT LAKES?
F%RTILIZERS/ LIVESTOCK & ERODED SOIL PESTICIDES POULTRY HAlwRE
76X
FIGURE 5
U S , GREAT LAKES BASIN FARMERS' OPINIONS (19n): DO THESE SUBSTANCES CONTRIBUTE TO POLLUTION OF
100%
PERCENT OF U.S.GLB 75% FARMERS
50%
25%
D
45x 46X
Y e s No Y e s No Y e s ,No
FARMERS' REWONSE
While s o i l conserva t ion is repor t ed as a major f a c t o r prompting t h e use of conserva t ion p r a c t i c e s , less than h a l f o f t h e respondents b e l i e v e t h a t eroded s o i l c o n t r i b u t e s t o water p o l l u t i o n of t h e Great Lakes. More farmers ag ree t h a t eroded s o i l i s a p o l l u t a n t than agree t h a t e i t h e r f e r t i l i z e r s / p e s t i c i d e s o r l i v e - s t o c k and p o u l t r y manure are p o l l u t a n t s . Ce r t a in f a c t o r s could have inf luenced t h e s e r e s u l t s . In t e rv i ewers r epor t ed t h a t several people s a i d f e r t i l i z e r does not c o n t r i b u t e t o w a t e r p o l l u t i o n , b u t p e s t i c i d e s do. A "yes" t o p e s t i c i d e s and a "no" t o f e r t i l i z e r w a s recorded as "yes" t o ques t ion 1, thus somewhat o v e r s t a t i n g t h e yes'' responses . Concerning a l l t h r e e ques t ions , some respondents i n d i c a t e d t h a t
they l i v e too f a r away from t h e Great Lakes f o r t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s t o a f f e c t t h e water q u a l i t y of t h e Lakes.
II
20
Farmers' Opinions Compared by Thei r Sources o f Information About Water P o l l u t i o n
DO THESE CONTRIBUTE TO POLLUTION OF THE GREAT LAKES)"
F e r t i l i z e r s / P e s t i c i d e s
Y e s No
Manure
Y e s No
Eroded S o i l
Y e s No
ALL U.S. GLB FARMERS
Sources o f information about water p o l l u t i o n were cross - tabula ted wi th opin ions concerning l a n d use lwater q u a l i t y r e l a t i o n s h i p s t o see i f d i f f e r e n t information s o u r c e s i n f l u e n c e d opin ions about p o l l u t i o n . The only n o t i c e a b l e d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t s when c o n s i d e r i n g t h e opinion on eroded s o i l and i n f o m a t i o n sources . O f those who b e l i e v e eroded s o i l c o n t r i b u t e s t o p o l l u t i o n , a h igher percentage r e c e i v e information about w a t e r p o l l u t i o n from government r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s and p u b l i c a t i o n s , whi le a lower percentage of t h o s e who do n o t b e l i e v e eroded s o i l is a p o l l u t a n t g e t t h e i r informa- t i o n about p o l l u t i o n from government s o u r c e s ( see Table l o ) .
SOURCE OF INFORMATION N e w s . , 1 Farm Mags. Radio TV Orgs. Gov't Other
83% 37% 42% 24% 4 6% 9% 78 35 35 26 4 1 8
81% 29% 4 0 % 26% 41% 9% 80 36 37 24 4 1 8
80% 35% 38% 2 6% 48% 8% 80 36 38 24 35 10
80% 35% 3 7% 24% 41% 8%
TABLE 10 FARMERS' OPINIONS CONCERNING THE EFFECT OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ON WATER QUALITY, BY SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT WATER POLLUTION, 1977
* Note t h a t a l l row percentages would add t o more than 100%. T h i s i s because respondents could i d e n t i f y more than one source of in format ion about p o l l u t i o n . The percentages i n d i c a t e t h e p r o p o r t i o n of farmers of a p a r t i c u l a r opinion who o b t a i n p o l l u t i o n informat ion from a p a r t i c u l a r source. For example, 83% of the farmers who a g r e e t h a t f e r t i l i z e r s / p e s t i c i d e s c o n t r i b u t e t o p o l l u t i o n , o b t a i n informat ion about p o l l u t i o n from newspapers and magazines.
2 1
Farmers' Opinions Compared by Type of Farm
Farmers' op in ions concerning t h e e f f e c t o f c e r t a i n subs t ances on water q u a l i t y do n o t va ry s i g n i f i c a n t l y when one compares t h e s e opin ions and t h e type of farm ope ra t ed , a s Table 11 i l l u s t r a t e s . Opera tors of f i e l d c rop , vege tab le and f r u i t , and l i v e s t o c k and p o u l t r y farms a l l ag ree and d i sag ree about c o n t r i b u t o r s t o water p o l l u t i o n i n pe rcen tages s imilar t o one ano the r and t o those f o r t h e e n t i r e U.S. Basin. It is i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t t h e opin ion of l i v e s t o c k and p o u l t r y farm o p e r a t o r s concern ing manure i s n o t much d i f f e r e n t from o t h e r farm o p e r a t o r s . Opera to r s of f i e l d crop farms have a tendency t o ag ree more o f t e n than o t h e r fa rmers t h a t f e r t i l i z e r s / p e s t i c i d e s and s o i l e ros ion c o n t r i b u t e t o water p o l l u t i o n of t h e Great Lakes.
F i e l d 1 Veg. & 1 Lives tock &
TABLE 11 FARMERS' OPINIONS CONCERNING THE EFFECT OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES
ON WATER QUALITY, B Y TYPE OF FARM, 1977
U.S. GLB DO THESE CONTRIBUTE TO POLLUTION OF THE GREAT LAKES?
F e r t i l i z e r s /pes t i c i d e s*
Y e s No No Opinion
* Manure
Yes No No Opinion
Eroded S o i l *
Crops F r u i t P o u l t r y FARMERS
37% 31% 2 7% 32%
11 1 8 63 57 10 11
52 5 1 I
2 1 22 1 7 19 75 69 78 76 4 9 5 5
Yes No No Opinion
49% 45% 43 45 8 10
41% 50
9
45% 46
9
* Column responses add t o 100% f o r each subs t ance .
I n a r e l a t e d sense , l i v e s t o c k o r p o u l t r y ownership w a s compared t o f a rmers ' op in ions on manure w i t h i n s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s . Of fa rmers who own l i v e s t o c k o r p o u l t r y (72% of a l l U.S. Great Lakes Basin fa rmers) 19% agree t h a t manure c o n t r i - b u t e s t o Great Lakes water p o l l u t i o n ; of t hose who d o n ' t own any, 20% agree t h a t manure is a p o l l u t a n t . Disagreement t h a t manure c o n t r i b u t e s t o p o l l u t i o n w a s similar: 77% of l i v e s t o c k and p o u l t r y owners; 75% of non-owners.
22
Farmers' Opinions Compared by Gross Farm S a l e s
Opera tors of farms, c l a s s i f i e d b y , g r o s s farm sales, vary i n t h e i r op in ions concerning t h e e f f e c t of c e r t a i n farming a c t i v i t i e s on water q u a l i t y . a t o r s of farms g ross ing less than $2,500, many (47%) b e l i e v e t h a t f e r t i l i z e r s / p e s t i - c i d e s c o n t r i b u t e t o Great Lakes water p o l l u t i o n , wh i l e a much lower percentage of those g ross ing more than $10,000 b e l i e v e t h a t f e r t i l i z e r s l p e s t i c i d e s are p o l l u t a n t s (see Table 12) . t i a l l y by g r o s s farm sales, however.
Among oper-
Opinions r ega rd ing manure and eroded s o i l do n o t vary substan-
U.S. GLB FARMERS WITH GROSS FARM SALES: Under $2,500- $10,000- $40,000
$2,500 9,999 39,999 & Over
47% 32% 21% 17% 43 56 70 7 1 10 12 9 12
TABLE 12 FARMERS' OPINIONS CONCERNING THE EFFECT OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES
ALL U.S. GLB FARMERS
32% 57 11
ON WATER QUALITY, BY GROSS FARM SALES, 1977
22% 74 4
DO THESE CONTRIBUTE TO POLLUTION OF THE GREAT LAKES?
Fer t i l i z e r s / P e s t i c i d e s "
Yes No No Opinion
17% 18% 18% 19% 7 8 77 75 76 5 5 7 5
* Manure
Yes No No Opinion
* Eroded S o i l I
Y e s No No Opinion
49% I 42% I 45% I 41% I 45%
* Column responses add t o 100% f o r each subs tance .
23
Farmers' Opinions Compared by Conservation Practice
DO THESE CONTRIBUTE TO POLLUTION OF THE GREAT LAKES? Fer t i l i rer /Pes t i c i d e s "
Yes No No Opinion
Manu re * Yes No No Opinion
* Eroded S o i l
Yes
No Opinion No
For t h e most p a r t , fa rmers ' op in ions concerning t h e e f f e c t of a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s on water q u a l i t y are s imilar , r e g a r d l e s s of t h e i r choice of conserva t ion p r a c t f c e s ( s e e Table 13 ) . t h e op in ions on eroded s o i l o f fa rmers who contour plow and those who p r a c t i c e o t h e r methods of conse rva t ion . than o t h e r fa rmers t h a t eroded s o i l c o n t r i b u t e s t o water p o l l u t i o n of t h e Great Lakes. Conversely, t hey a l s o d i s a g r e e more o f t e n t h a t eroded s o i l is a p o l l u t a n t . These same farmers a l s o have a s l i g h t tendency t o ag ree more o f t e n than o t h e r fa rmers t h a t f e r t i l i z e r s / p e s t i c i d e s c o n t r i b u t e t o p o l l u t i o n . Farmers who r o t a t e c rops have a minor tendency t o d i s a g r e e more o f t e n than those fo l lowing o t h e r p r a c t i c e s concerning a l l t h r e e groups of subs t ances c o n t r i b u t i n g t o water p o l l u t i o n .
The most s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s occur when comparing
Those who contour plow t h e i r f i e l d s ag ree more o f t e n
COWSGIIVATIOFI PRACTICE Leave ALL
Residue U.S. Contour Crop Over Grassed No T i l l GLB Plowing Ro ta t ion Winter Waterway C u l t i v a t i o n Te r race Other F A W E
36% 31% 32% 359: 31% 34% 34% 33x 56 6 1 57 58 6 1 59 59 58 8 8 11 7 9 7 7 9
22% 18% 19% 22% 20% . 20% 22% 20% 75 70 77 75 70 75 75 76
3 4 4 3 2 5 3 4
50% 49% 48% 56% 46% 48% 48% 50% 37 47 45 44 46 42 44 45
7 7 7 0 4 8 7 7
TABLE 13 FARMERS' OPINIONS CONCERNING THE EFFECT OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES
ON WATER QUALITY, BY CONSERVATION PRACTICE, 1977
24
Farmers' Opinions Compared wi th Degree of SCD Involvement and Development of a Conservat ion P lan
ALL U.S.
Those farmers who coopera te w i t h t h e l o c a l SCD and those who have conserva t ion p l ans have op in ions t h a t are s imilar t o those he ld by a l l farmers . The l a r g e s t d i f f e r e n c e s occur when cons ide r ing f e r t i l i z e r s / p e s t i c i d e s as c o n t r i b u t o r s t o water p o l l u t i o n . SCD coopera tors and farmers w i t h a conse rva t ion p l a n d i s a g r e e more o f t e n than average t h a t f e r t i l i z e r s / p e s t i c i d e s are sources of water p o l l u t i o n , as Table 1 4 i n d i c a t e s . S u r p r i s i n g l y though, t h e s e groups do n o t ag ree i n any g r e a t e r percentages than f o r fa rmers i n gene ra l , t h a t eroded s o i l is a c o n t r i b u t o r t o water p o l l u t i o n of t h e Great Lakes.
U . S . GLB FARMER ALL 1 FOLLOWS A U.S.
TABLE 14 OPINIONS OF SCD COOPERATORS AND THOSE FOLLOWING
AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ON WATER QUALITY, 1977 A CONSERVATION PLAN CONCERNING THE EFFECT OF
2 8% 65
7
19% 76
5
DO THESE CONTRIBUTE TO POLLUTION OF THE GREAT LAKES?
36% 52 12
20% 76
4
* F e r t i l i z e r a / P e s t i c i d e s
Y e s No No Opinion
32% 57 11
19% 76
5
45% 46
9
Manure*
30% 35% 32% 63 52 57
7 13 11
18% 21% 19% 78 74 76
4 5 5
47% 4 3% 45% 45 47 46
8 10 9
Y e s N o No Opinion
45% 48
7
* Eroded S o i l
45% 45 10
Y e s No No Opinion
Lc Column responses add t o
U.S. GLB FARMER I S AN SCD COOPERATOR?
Y e s I No
100% f o r each subs tance .
25
FARMERS' ATTITUDES CONCERNING POLLUTION ABATEMENT I S S U E S
Farmers were asked what level of government they thought would do a b e t t e r j ob of a d m i n i s t e r i n g r e g u l a t i o n s , i f they were needed: l o c a l , s ta te o r f e d e r a l government. The m a j o r i t y (57%) chose l o c a l government; 1 7 % opted f o r s ta te govern- ment and on ly 12% p r e f e r r e d t h e f e d e r a l l e v e l . F igu re 6 i l l u s t r a t e s t h e s e r e s u l t s .
PERCENT
U . S. GLB ~ OF 80%
FIGURE 6
u s I GREAT LAKES BASIN FARMERS' OPINIONS (1.9771:
OF ADMINISTERING REGULATIONS, IF THEY ARE NEEDED? WHAT 1EVEL OF GOVERNMENT WOULD DO A BETTER JOB
FARMERS RESPONDING
Local State Federal
LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT PREFERRED
26
Farmers were asked t o expres s t h e i r agreement o r disagreement wi th fou r state- ments. Nearly th ree -qua r t e r s of t h e respondents (71%) ag ree t h a t t o s o l v e farm- r e l a t e d w a t e r p o l l u t i o n problems, i t i s b e s t t o r e l y on vo lun ta ry coopera t ion of farmers . More than t h r e e q u a r t e r s (77%) ag ree t h a t fa rmers need more informat ion on how they can c o n t r o l water p o l l u t i o n . Two-thirds (67%) ag ree t h a t t h e f e d e r a l government should h e l p pay f o r p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l on farms; s i m i l a r l y , almost two- t h i r d s (60%) d i s a g r e e t h a t farmers should pay t h e e n t i r e c o s t of c o n t r o l l i n g water p o l l u t i o n c r e a t e d by t h e i r own ope ra t ions . Table 15 shows t h e s e r e s u l t s .
STATEMENTS ON WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT ISSUES
It is b e s t t o r e l y on vo lun ta ry coopera t ion of farmers .
TABLE 15 FARMERS' ATTITUDES CONCERNING POLLUTION ABATEMENT ISSUES, 1977
U.S. GLB FARMERS' RESPONSES Y e s No No Opinion
71% I 22% 8%
The Fede ra l government should h e l p pay f o r p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l on farms.
c o n t r o l l i n g water p o l l u t i o n on t h e i r Farmers should pay t h e e n t i r e c o s t of
farms.
Farmers need more informat ion on how they can c o n t r o l water p o l l u t i o n . I 77
67 26 7
31 60 9
Farmers' A t t i t u d e s bv Government P re fe rence
It makes no d i f f e r e n c e what government level a farmer p r e f e r s as t o whether o r n o t t h a t farmer ag rees wi th t h e va r ious s t a t emen t s i n t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e concerning water p o l l u t i o n i s s u e s .
Farmers' A t t i t u d e s by Thei r Sources of Information About Water P o l l u t i o n
Farmers' sou rces of i n fo rma t ion about water p o l l u t i o n do n o t have any s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on t h e i r a t t i t u d e s concerning p o l l u t i o n i s s u e s .
Farmers' A t t i t u d e Concerning more Information Needed by Sources of Information About Water P o l l u t i o n
Farmers who ag ree t h a t they need more informat ion on how they can c o n t r o l w a t e r p o l l u t i o n use t h e same sources of in format ion , p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y , as farmers who d i sag ree .
27
Farmers' A t t i t u d e s by Their Opinions on Water Q u a l i t y Re la t ionsh ips
Farmers' op in ions concern ing t h e e f f e c t of c e r t a i n a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s on water q u a l i t y do va ry , depending on a t t i t u d e s those fa rmers may have toward water p o l l u t i o n abatement i s s u e s .
The 71% of U . S . Great Lakes Basin fa rmers who t h i n k i t is b e s t t o r e l y on v o l u n t a r y coope ra t ion expres s disagreement p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y more than fa rmers as a whole that c e r t a i n subs t ances a f f e c t water q u a l i t y . Conversely, t hose who do n o t want t o r e l y on v o l u n t a r y coopera t ion expres s agreement i n h ighe r pe rcen tages than average t h a t f e r t i l i z e r s / p e s t i c i d e s , manure, and eroded s o i l c o n t r i b u t e t o water p o l l u t i o n of t h e Great Lakes.
Of t h e 77% of Basin fa rmers who b e l i e v e t h a t fa rmers need more informat ion on how they can c o n t r o l water p o l l u t i o n on t h e i r farms, h i g h e r percentages than average are of t h e opin ion t h a t f e r t i l i z e r / p e s t i c i d e s , manure, and eroded s o i l are p o l l u t a n t s . Conversely, t hose who don ' t t h i n k fa rmers need more informat ion have a tendency t o d i s a g r e e more ( p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y ) t h a t c e r t a i n subs t ances c o n t r i b u t e t o water p o l l u t i o n . Table 16 i d e n t i f i e s t h e percentages of fa rmers ag ree ing /d i s - ag ree ing w i t h v a r i o u s s t a t emen t s t h a t c e r t a i n subs t ances a f f e c t water q u a l i t y . For example, 29% of t h e fa rmers who t h i n k i t ' s b e s t t o r e l y on vo lun ta ry coopera- t i o n are of t h e op in ion t h a t f e r t i l i z e r / p e s t i c i d e s c o n t r i b u t e t o water p o l l u t i o n of t h e Great Lakes.
28
TABLE 16
It is b e s t t o r e l y on vo lun ta ry coope ra t ion of farmers .
Agree Disagree
Farmers need more in fo rma t ion on how they can c o n t r o l water p o l l u t i o n .
Agree Disagree
The b e s t a d m i n i s t r a t o r of r e g u l a t i o n s , i f needed is:
Fede ra l State Local
ALL U.S. GLB FARMERS
FARMERS' ATTITUDES CONCERNING POLLUTION ABATEMENT ISSUES, BY THEIR OPINIONS REGARDING THE EFFECT OF AGRICULTURAL
ACTIVITIES ON WATER QUALITY, 1977
29% 49
36 % 23
45% 40 30
32%
STATEMENTS ON WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT ISSUES
I DO THESE CONTRIBUTE TO POLLUTION
l- IDES No
61% 45
54% 7 1
51% 53 59
57%
'HE GREAT LAI
MANI Y e s
16% 31
22% 9
30 % 20 18
19%
E - No
79% 66 -
74% 87 -
69% 76 77
76% -
S?
4 3% 56
50% 29
48% 55 43
45%
SOIL No
49 % 39
41% 65
44% 39 49
46%
Attitudes concerning other issues w e r e not included i n t h i s table because farmers grouped by t h e i r op in ions concerning o t h e r water p o l l u t i o n abatement i s s u e s d i f f e r s u b s t a n t i a l l y from farmers a s a whole.
29
S U M M A R Y A N D C O N C L U S I O N S
CHARACTERISTICS OF FARMS
F i e l d c rops provide t h e main farm income f o r about h a l f o f t h e fa rmers i n t h e Almost a l l o f t h e remainder are p r i n c i p a l l y l i v e s t o c k and U.S. Great Lakes Basin.
p o u l t r y fa rmers ; on ly 5% d e r i v e most of t h e i r g ros s sales from vege tab le s and f r u i t s . About t h ree -qua r t e r s of a l l farmers own l i v e s t o c k and p o u l t r y .
More than h a l f of t h e r e s i d e n t farm o p e r a t o r s r e p o r t annual g ross sales from t h e i r farms of less than $10,000. One-third r e p o r t sales of less than $2,500. Thus, many o f t h e farms i n t h e U.S. Great Lakes Basin may be small ope ra t ions .
FARMERS' SOURCE OF INFORMATION ABOUT WATER POLLUTION
Eighty p e r c e n t of t h e farmers i n t h e Basin o b t a i n informat ion regard ing water p o l l u t i o n from newspapers and magazines. Radio and t e l e v i s i o n t o g e t h e r w e r e r e p o r t e d by 72% of t h e fa rmers , o r by n e a r l y as many farmers as newspapers and magazines. Impl i ca t ions are t h a t any p u b l i c in format ion e f f o r t should b e focused i n p a r t i c u l a r on newspapers and magazines, and r a d i o and t e l e v i s i o n , t o reach t h e l a r g e s t number o f farmers.
CONSERVATION PRACTICES FOLLOWED
About n i n e o u t of t e n farmers (89%) i n t h e U.S. Great Lakes Basin p r a c t i c e some conse rva t ion measures, w i th t h e l a r g e s t percentages r o t a t i n g c rops (74%) and l e a v i n g crop r e s i d u e on l a n d over w i n t e r (63%). smallest dol lar-producing farms ( those ea rn ing less than $2,500 i n g r o s s sales) p r a c t i c e some conserva t ion . Of those fanners who have a c l e a r l y de f ined stream o r d i t c h b e s i d e t h e i r c u l t i v a t e d f i e l d s , n e a r l y two-thirds (63%) c u l t i v a t e 10 f e e t o r more from t h a t stream o r d i t c h .
Even 78% of t h e o p e r a t o r s of t h e
About 40% of U . S . Great Lakes Basin farmers say they are coopera tors of a l o c a l s o i l conserva t ion d i s t r i c t and h a l f s ay they fo l low a conserva t ion p lan . Survey r e s u l t s show t h e s e farmers are more l i k e l y t o p r a c t i c e conserva t ion than non-cooperators and those n o t fo l lowing a conserva t ion plan.
FACTORS PROMPTING THE USE OF CONSERVATION PRACTICES
The major f a c t o r s prompting t h e use of conserva t ion p r a c t i c e s are s o i l conse rva t ion and inc reased y i e l d o r product ion. Compliance wi th state o r l o c a l r e g u l a t i o n s and t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of cos t - shar ing funds were seldom mentioned as f a c t o r s .
31
FARMERS' OPINIONS CONCERNING THE EFFECT OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ON WATER QUALITY
Most fa rmers do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p between f e r t i l i z e r 1 p e s t i c i d e s , manure, o r eroded s o i l , and Great Lakes water q u a l i t y . Only 19% b e l i e v e manure c o n t r i b u t e s t o water p o l l u t i o n of t h e Great Lakes; only 32% agree t h a t f e r t i l i z e r s l p e s t i c i d e s are p o l l u t a n t s ; y e t almost ha l f cons ide r eroded s o i l a c o n t r i b u t o r t o water p o l l u t i o n .
A f a r m e r ' s sou rces of i n fo rma t ion r ega rd ing water p o l l u t i o n do n o t determine t o any g r e a t e x t e n t op in ions on water q u a l i t y l l a n d use r e l a t i o n s h i p s , a l though t h o s e who mention t h e government as a source of in format ion on p o l l u t i o n ag ree more o f t e n than o t h e r fa rmers t h a t eroded s o i l c o n t r i b u t e s t o water p o l l u t i o n .
However, op in ions concern ing f e r t i l i z e r s / p e s t i c i d e s a s causes of water pol lu- t i o n do va ry when comparing fa rmers wi th d i f f e r e n t g ross farm sales. Opera tors of farms wi th g r o s s annual sales of less than $2,500 a g r e e more o f t e n than o t h e r fa rmers t h a t f e r t i l i z e r s l p e s t i c i d e s c o n t r i b u t e t o water p o l l u t i o n of t h e Great Lakes (47% compared t o 32%). A s g r o s s farm sales i n c r e a s e , percentages decrease f o r those ag ree ing t h a t f e r t i l i z e r s l p e s t i c i d e s p o l l u t e . Only 1 7 % o f t h e o p e r a t o r s of farms w i t h h i g h e s t g ross sales a g r e e t h a t f e r t i l i z e r s l p e s t i c i d e s c o n t r i b u t e t o water p o l l u t i o n .
FARMERS' ATTITUDES CONCERNING WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT ISSUES
The ma jo r i ty (57%) of fa rmers expres s t h e view t h a t l o c a l government would do t h e b e s t j o b of admin i s t e r ing r e g u l a t i o n s , if they w e r e needed. ' O n l y 1 7 % s e l e c t s t a t e government and on ly 1 2 % , f e d e r a l government. Imp l i ca t ions are t h a t , given t h e e x i s t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements, a l o c a l governmental u n i t , such as a s o i l and w a t e r conse rva t ion d i s t r i c t , may b e a c c e p t a b l e t o fa rmers .
Nearly th ree -qua r t e r s (71%) of t h e respondents s t a t e t h a t i t is b e s t t o r e l y on vo lun ta ry coope ra t ion of fa rmers t o s o l v e farm-related water p o l l u t i o n problems. Th i s view seems t o c o r r o b o r a t e t h e conclus ion t h a t e x i s t i n g s o i l conse rva t ion d i s t r i c t s , which do r e l y on vo lun ta ry coope ra t ion , may be a c c e p t a b l e t o farmers f o r implementation of p o l l u t i o n abatement programs.
However, more than th ree -qua r t e r s (77%) of t h e U.S. Great Lakes Basin fa rmers a g r e e t h a t fa rmers need more informat ion on how they can c o n t r o l w a t e r p o l l u t i o n . This r e s u l t sugges t s t h a t p u b l i c i n fo rma t ion programs need t o be expanded i f water p o l l u t i o n abatement recommendations are t o be s u c c e s s f u l l y implemented.
Two-thirds of t h e fa rmers a g r e e t h a t t h e f e d e r a l government should h e l p pay f o r water p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l on farms. Nearly two-thirds (60%) d i s a g r e e t h a t fa rmers should b e a r t h e e n t i r e c o s t . The i m p l i c a t i o n of t h e s e views is t h a t t o ga in widespread implementation of p o l l u t i o n abatement programs, t h e f e d e r a l govern- ment should h e l p pay t h e c o s t s , as i t h a s done i n t h e case of m u n i c i p a l i t i e s .
32
G L O S S A R Y
farm - a product ion u n i t w i t h sales of a g r i c u l t u r a l p roducts from t h e area of l a n d a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e product . acres and $50 o r mre of a g r i c u l t u r a l sales i n t h e most r e c e n t yea r or p l a c e s of less than 10 acres and sales of a t least $250.
Included are p l a c e s of 10 or more
farmer - f o r t h e purpose of t h i s survey, a farmer is t h e farm ope ra to r .
f a r m operator - t h e person r e s p o n s i b l e f o r day-to-day farm-related d e c i s i o n s on t h e land opera ted .
farm type - farm where t h e l a r g e s t percentage of t o t a l sales c o n s i s t s of a p a r t i c u l a r type o f product .
f i e ld crops - i n c l u d e s cash g r a i n s , dry beans, p o t a t o e s , hay, suga r b e e t s , and misce l laneous p roduc t s (such as n u r s e r i e s and greenhouses) .
Zivestock and pouztry - i n c l u d e s cat t le , hogs, milk, ch ickens , eggs, and o t h e r l i v e s t o c k and p o u l t r y products .
resident farm operator - farm o p e r a t o r l i v i n g i n s i d e a sample area des igna ted by t h e S t a t i s t i c a l Report ing Se rv ice of t h e U.S. Department of Agr icu l ture . These sample areas are r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of a l l t h e land area i n t h e Great Lakes region.
U.S. Great Lukes B a s i n - t h e l and area l o c a t e d i n t h e United S t a t e s t h a t is dra ined For t h e purpose of by r i v e r s and t h e i r t r i b u t a r i e s i n t o t h e Great Lakes.
t h i s survey, i t includes all counties with a t least h a l f t h e l a n d d r a i n i n g i n t o t h e Great Lakes.
vegetabZes and f r u i t s - i nc ludes a l l vege tab le and melon c rops , b e r r i e s , tree f r u i t s , and grapes.
33
