水土保持的“双赢”?印第安纳州的行耕农民如何看待免耕农业的好处(和权衡)

IF 1.3 Q3 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY
Nicholas C. Kawa
{"title":"水土保持的“双赢”?印第安纳州的行耕农民如何看待免耕农业的好处(和权衡)","authors":"Nicholas C. Kawa","doi":"10.1111/cuag.12264","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>To address problems of soil degradation, industrial farmers across the United States have converted to no-till agriculture, which can mitigate the effects of soil erosion and reduce operating costs without necessarily compromising agricultural output. However, producers still debate the benefits of this practice. Through participant observation and semi-structured interviews with 14 row-crop farmers in central Indiana, this study examines farmer perceptions of no-till as a soil conservation practice. Ethnographic findings reveal that adopters highlight no-till’s benefits for improving soil quality while also minimizing operating costs, including labor and fuel. However, both adopters and critics alike acknowledge trade-offs; for example, no-till disrupts entrenched management practices and norms—from the aesthetics of “clean” fields to the timing of spring planting. Furthermore, some non-adopters argue that no-till’s heightened reliance on herbicide contradicts the broader goals of conservation. This study thus shows that while a compelling case can be made for no-till as an environmental and economic “win-win,” this narrative also elides ongoing disagreements and trade-offs linked to its adoption. No-till’s appeal for many producers is that it advances soil conservation without fundamentally challenging industrial farming’s aspiration for ever-increasing efficiency and profitability.</p>","PeriodicalId":54150,"journal":{"name":"Culture Agriculture Food and Environment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/cuag.12264","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A “Win-Win” for Soil Conservation? How Indiana Row-Crop Farmers Perceive the Benefits (and Trade-offs) of No-Till Agriculture\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas C. Kawa\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cuag.12264\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>To address problems of soil degradation, industrial farmers across the United States have converted to no-till agriculture, which can mitigate the effects of soil erosion and reduce operating costs without necessarily compromising agricultural output. However, producers still debate the benefits of this practice. Through participant observation and semi-structured interviews with 14 row-crop farmers in central Indiana, this study examines farmer perceptions of no-till as a soil conservation practice. Ethnographic findings reveal that adopters highlight no-till’s benefits for improving soil quality while also minimizing operating costs, including labor and fuel. However, both adopters and critics alike acknowledge trade-offs; for example, no-till disrupts entrenched management practices and norms—from the aesthetics of “clean” fields to the timing of spring planting. Furthermore, some non-adopters argue that no-till’s heightened reliance on herbicide contradicts the broader goals of conservation. This study thus shows that while a compelling case can be made for no-till as an environmental and economic “win-win,” this narrative also elides ongoing disagreements and trade-offs linked to its adoption. No-till’s appeal for many producers is that it advances soil conservation without fundamentally challenging industrial farming’s aspiration for ever-increasing efficiency and profitability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54150,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Culture Agriculture Food and Environment\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/cuag.12264\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Culture Agriculture Food and Environment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cuag.12264\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Culture Agriculture Food and Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cuag.12264","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

为了解决土壤退化问题,美国各地的工业化农民已经转向免耕农业,这可以减轻土壤侵蚀的影响,降低运营成本,而不一定会影响农业产量。然而,生产商仍在争论这种做法的好处。通过参与观察和对印第安纳州中部14名行耕农民的半结构化访谈,本研究考察了农民对免耕作为土壤保持实践的看法。人种学研究结果显示,采用免耕的人强调免耕在改善土壤质量方面的好处,同时也最大限度地降低了包括劳动力和燃料在内的运营成本。然而,采用者和批评者都承认取舍;例如,免耕破坏了根深蒂固的管理实践和规范——从“干净”田地的美学到春季播种的时间。此外,一些不采用免耕的人认为免耕对除草剂的高度依赖与更广泛的保护目标相矛盾。因此,这项研究表明,虽然免耕作为环境和经济“双赢”的一个令人信服的案例,但这种叙述也忽略了与采用免耕相关的持续分歧和权衡。免耕对许多生产者的吸引力在于,它促进了土壤保护,而不会从根本上挑战工业化农业不断提高效率和盈利能力的愿望。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A “Win-Win” for Soil Conservation? How Indiana Row-Crop Farmers Perceive the Benefits (and Trade-offs) of No-Till Agriculture

To address problems of soil degradation, industrial farmers across the United States have converted to no-till agriculture, which can mitigate the effects of soil erosion and reduce operating costs without necessarily compromising agricultural output. However, producers still debate the benefits of this practice. Through participant observation and semi-structured interviews with 14 row-crop farmers in central Indiana, this study examines farmer perceptions of no-till as a soil conservation practice. Ethnographic findings reveal that adopters highlight no-till’s benefits for improving soil quality while also minimizing operating costs, including labor and fuel. However, both adopters and critics alike acknowledge trade-offs; for example, no-till disrupts entrenched management practices and norms—from the aesthetics of “clean” fields to the timing of spring planting. Furthermore, some non-adopters argue that no-till’s heightened reliance on herbicide contradicts the broader goals of conservation. This study thus shows that while a compelling case can be made for no-till as an environmental and economic “win-win,” this narrative also elides ongoing disagreements and trade-offs linked to its adoption. No-till’s appeal for many producers is that it advances soil conservation without fundamentally challenging industrial farming’s aspiration for ever-increasing efficiency and profitability.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Culture Agriculture Food and Environment
Culture Agriculture Food and Environment AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
13
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信