“You Can’t Beat a Cover Crop:” Assessing the Sustainability Outcomes of a Cover Crop Incentive Program in Alabama

Abstract

Conservation agriculture approaches and technologies (e.g., cover crops, variable-rate irrigation) can increase resource use efficiencies and help make intensified agricultural systems more sustainable. Entities across sectors are investing significant funding toward increasing adoption of these methods, and the “Future of Farming” (FF) project is an example of one such initiative. The FF project involves farmers, researchers, and other agricultural professionals in research on conservation agriculture, and it includes a cover crop incentive program (FF-CCIP) which was used as a case study for this project. Literature used to inform this study covered sustainability, technology adoption, cover crops, incentive programs, sustainable intensification, and the agricultural treadmill. Data came from interviews with farmers (n=23) enrolled in the FF- CCIP. Analyses identified trends in farmers’ motivations for enrolling; perceptions of incentive programs, cover crops, and production meetings; learning within their social networks; and values and objectives regarding stewardship. These trends were then compared with institutional objectives to understand areas of improvement for future incentive programs. Trends were also compared with research on sustainable intensification (SI), an agricultural approach typically used in international and Global South contexts. Findings suggest that expanded outreach efforts could lead to more effective incentive programs. Findings also suggest that more research on conservation agriculture technologies is needed to assess the potential negative financial outcomes on farmers who adopt these tools and practices. Further, findings demonstrate alignment between conventional agriculture in the US and SI production: economic outcomes tend to be prioritized over environmental and social outcomes in both systems, and the continuous need for technology generated by ever-increasing demands for market efficiencies contributes to this unbalanced prioritization of outcomes.