Farmers’ land use decisions can significantly impact water quality. For conservation professionals looking to address water quality issues, understanding producer perspectives is a prerequisite for building effective outreach and incentive programs.

Just as we monitor environmental metrics like nitrate levels, evaluating social indicators such as attitudes, capacity to change, and adoption constraints is equally important. How do producers perceive their own ability to protect water quality? What specific programmatic resources do they need to incorporate conservation into their operation?

This article highlights findings from a social indicator survey aiming to answer these questions. Through a collaborative survey involving 12 large-scale potato and vegetable growers in two central Wisconsin watersheds — managing a combined 91,452 cropland acres adjacent to vulnerable surface waters — we uncovered insights that may carry across cropping systems and regions.

Attitudes on water quality

All 12 participants rated the quality of groundwater and surface water as good or very good. However, two-thirds still viewed contaminated drinking water as a local concern, and more than half (67%) recognized loss of nutrients to groundwater as a problem.

Interestingly, most participants rated the excessive use of residential lawn fertilizer as either a moderate or severe problem. In contrast, excessive use of fertilizers for crop production was generally viewed as only a slight problem. This contrast demonstrates the disconnect within local communities.

To help bridge this divide, some farmers within these two watersheds started a producer-led watershed protection group. Part of their focus is building relationships with nonfarming communities and exploring collaborative approaches to improving water quality.

Tried and true practices

This survey showed the most-used and least-used conservation practices among participants, as well as practices that were considered irrelevant or outdated.

The most-used practices were:

1. Rotating crops to manage pests, control wind erosion, and maintain and improve soil health.
2. Managing irrigation water to reduce wind erosion.
3. Establishing vegetation to maintain and protect streambanks and/or shorelines.
4. Using cover crops to reduce wind erosion, improve soil health, and improve nutrient cycling.

The least-used practices included:

1. Testing the nitrogen content in irrigation water.
2. Restoring/enhancing wetlands.
3. Converting unproductive fields to permanent cover.
4. Establishing windbreaks and/or shelterbelts to protect from wind erosion.
5. Following university recommendations for fertilization rates.

This feedback highlights a need for further education on certain underutilized practices, such as testing nitrogen content in irrigation water. It can be a valuable practice because irrigation water can add a significant amount of nitrogen to annual crops in the presence of high nitrate levels in irrigation wells. Learn more about an outreach effort to raise awareness on this at bit.ly/agwaternitrogen.

Willingness to change

Participants showed a strong sense of responsibility and willingness to protect water quality and change management practices, yet change-making remains challenging. While multiple growers “would be willing to change,” others hesitate because they “don’t know the extent of change” and “would have to take things slow.” A majority of participants agreed that using conservation management practices on farms improves water quality. However, they were not sure if and how conservation works, since they have changed management practices but are still seeing an increase in nitrate concentration in their well tests.

The survey also identified five primary hurdles to changing nutrient management practices, led by concerns over reduced crop yields. Conversations in focus groups implied that applying less nitrogen improves water quality but escalates the risk of yield reductions. While consumer and regulatory pressures demand higher conservation adoption, the market continues to reward yield volume. Even though following university recommendations on nitrogen rate is considered a conservation practice, because nitrogen fertilizer is a relatively low-cost input compared to projected profits in potato and vegetable markets, it creates an incentive to overapply as a “yield insurance” for potato and vegetable farmers.

Learnings from this survey can, in some cases, inform how farmers think of conservation practices and water quality in cropping systems besides commercial vegetables. Through efforts like this, agronomists and conservation professionals can strengthen relationships and achieve measurable improvements in water quality, as this approach fosters trust and informs programming that meets real needs.