Description
Despite growing documentation of perennial- and grass-based systems’ importance in addressing many ecological, infrastructural, farmer profitability, and climate concerns, these systems do not predominate on most United States farm and ranch lands. To better understand what impedes their wider adoption, we undertook four focus groups of diverse current and potential farmers using perennial systems. We were especially interested in how these farmers access, or don’t, insurance, credit, and federal programs, identifying patterns among farmers embracing more sustainable practices. Our virtual focus groups comprised 16 farmers in ten states, transecting climate zones and representing both rural and urban production systems and diversity in ethnicity, gender, and farm size. We committed to maintaining participants’ anonymity and paid them a modest stipend. Some clear trends emerged as motivations for adopting perennial farming systems, including their ecosystem benefits to farms and to society, relative simplicity and ease of implementation, and lesser capital requirements for entry. Participants described numerous barriers to adoption, including woody perennials’ longer establishment period before becoming productive and cash-flow challenges during that period. Some farmers experienced a lack of understanding of perennials by federal agency staff and challenges accessing federal programs. Some desired easy-to-access support in navigating agency options and an easier process to appeal agency decisions. Many participants perceived perennials to be inherently risk-reducing, but few considered federal crop insurance useful. Similarly, challenges in accessing credit required many participants to self-finance or grow their operations slowly. Federal conservation programs had served some participants, but farmers of color reported difficulty in accessing them, partly due to agency staff’s restricted hours. Direct markets were easier for some perennial farmers, although time-consuming, but processing delays and impediments could be problematic, including for meat animals grown on managed pasture. Many farmers would profit from technical assistance and nationally-available reliable information on perennial production systems.
Included in
Agricultural Science Commons, Agronomy and Crop Sciences Commons, Plant Biology Commons, Plant Pathology Commons, Soil Science Commons, Weed Science Commons
Barriers/Drivers of Diverse Perennial Systems: Policy Recommendations
Despite growing documentation of perennial- and grass-based systems’ importance in addressing many ecological, infrastructural, farmer profitability, and climate concerns, these systems do not predominate on most United States farm and ranch lands. To better understand what impedes their wider adoption, we undertook four focus groups of diverse current and potential farmers using perennial systems. We were especially interested in how these farmers access, or don’t, insurance, credit, and federal programs, identifying patterns among farmers embracing more sustainable practices. Our virtual focus groups comprised 16 farmers in ten states, transecting climate zones and representing both rural and urban production systems and diversity in ethnicity, gender, and farm size. We committed to maintaining participants’ anonymity and paid them a modest stipend. Some clear trends emerged as motivations for adopting perennial farming systems, including their ecosystem benefits to farms and to society, relative simplicity and ease of implementation, and lesser capital requirements for entry. Participants described numerous barriers to adoption, including woody perennials’ longer establishment period before becoming productive and cash-flow challenges during that period. Some farmers experienced a lack of understanding of perennials by federal agency staff and challenges accessing federal programs. Some desired easy-to-access support in navigating agency options and an easier process to appeal agency decisions. Many participants perceived perennials to be inherently risk-reducing, but few considered federal crop insurance useful. Similarly, challenges in accessing credit required many participants to self-finance or grow their operations slowly. Federal conservation programs had served some participants, but farmers of color reported difficulty in accessing them, partly due to agency staff’s restricted hours. Direct markets were easier for some perennial farmers, although time-consuming, but processing delays and impediments could be problematic, including for meat animals grown on managed pasture. Many farmers would profit from technical assistance and nationally-available reliable information on perennial production systems.
