Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Constrained Choice and Climate Change Mitigation in US Agriculture: Structural Barriers to a Climate Change Ethic

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines structural barriers to the adoption of climate change mitigation practices and the evolution of a climate change ethic among American farmers. It examines how seed corn contracts in Michigan constrain the choices of farmers and allow farmers to rationalize the over-application of fertilizer and associated water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Seed corn contracts use a competitive “tournament” system where farmers are rewarded for maximizing yields. Interviews and a focus group were used to understand fertilizer over-application and barriers to participating in a climate change mitigation program. Results indicate that farmers agree that they over-apply fertilizer but would be unlikely to participate in a mitigation program due to their contracts and lack of support from seed corn companies. Because only a few companies control access to the seed corn market, farmers feel they have few choices. Farmers rationalized their practices as their only option given the competitive nature of their contracts and blamed other sources of pollution. Despite increasing efforts to educate farmers about climate change, structural barriers will continue to constrain participation in mitigation efforts and the development of a climate change ethic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arbuckle, J. G., Morton, L. M., & Hobbs, J. (2015). Understanding farmer perspectives on climate change adaptation and mitigation: The roles of trust in sources of climate information, climate change beliefs, and perceived risk. Environment and Behavior, 47(2), 205–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle, J. G., Prokopy, L. S., Haigh, T., Hobbs, J., Knoot, T., Knutson, C., et al. (2013). Climate change beliefs, concerns, and attitudes toward adaptation and mitigation among farmers in the Midwestern United States. Climatic Change, 117, 943–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashwood, L., Diamond, D., & Thu, K. (2014). Where’s the farmer? Limiting liability in Midwestern industrial hog production. Rural Sociology, 79(1), 2–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Association of American Plant Food Control Officials and The Fertilizer Institute. (2013). History of U.S. fertilizer use. Wash: The Fertilizer Institute. Retrieved December 31, 2014 (http://www.tfi.org/sites/default/files/images/history_of_us_fert_use.pdf).

  • Atwell, R. C., Schulte, L. A., & Westphal, L. M. (2009). Linking resilience theory and diffusion of innovations theory to understand the potential for perennials in the U.S. corn belt. Ecology and Society, 14(1), 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atwell, R. C., Schulte, L. A., & Westphal, L. M. (2010). How to build multifunctional agricultural landscapes in the US Corn Belt: Add perennials and partnerships. Land Use Policy, 27, 1082–1090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonnano, A., et al. (Eds.). (1994). From columbus to Conagra: The globalistion of agriculure and food. Lawrence: The University of Kansas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borlu, Y. (2015). A story of post-fordist exploitation: Financialization and small-scale maize farmers in Turkey. Rural Sociology, 80(2), 173–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burch, D. (1994). Agribusiness, peasant agriculture and the state: The case of contract farming in Thailand. In T. Lloyd & O. Morrissey (Eds.), Poverty, inequality and rural development. London: St. Martin’s.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buttel, F. H., & Newby, H. (1980). The rural sociology of advanced societies. Montclair: Allenheld Osman Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • [CAST] Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. (2011). Carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas fluxes in agriculture: Challenges and opportunities. Task Force Report No.142. CAST, Ames, Iowa, USA.

  • Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis (1st ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, C. V., Duxbury, J., Freney, J., Heinemyer, O., Minami, K., Mosier, A., et al. (1997). Global estimates of potential mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by agriculture. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 49, 221–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constance, D., & Heffernan, W. D. (1994). Corporations and the globalization of the food system. In A. Bonanno, L. Busch, W. Friedland, L. Gouveia, & E. Mingione (Eds.), From Columbus to ConAgra (pp. 29–51). Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darrah, L. L., McMullen, M. D., & Zuber, M. S. (2003). Breeding, genetics, and seed corn production. In P. J. White & L. A. Johnson (Eds.), Corn: Chemistry and technology (pp. 35–68). St. Paul, MN: American Association of Cereal Chemists.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, J. (1999). Reflexive accumulation and global restructuring: Retailers and cultural processes in the Australian Poultry Industry. Rural Sociology, 64(2), 320–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goss, J., Skladany, M., & Middendorf, G. (2001). Dialogue: Shrimp aquaculture in Thailand: A response to Vandergeest, Flaherty, and miller. Rural Sociology, 66(3), 451–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gramig, B. M., Barnard, J. M., & Prokopy, L. S. (2013). Farmer beliefs about climate change and carbon sequestration incentives. Climate Research, 56, 157–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haden, V., Niles, M. T., Lubell, M., Perlman, J., & Jackson, L. E. (2012). Global and local concerns: What attitudes and beliefs motivate farmers to mitigate and adapt to climate change? Plos One, 7, e52882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, N. D. (1994). Why own the farm if you can own the farmer (and the crop)? Contract production and intellectual property protection of grain crops. Nebraska Law Review, 73, 48–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauter, W. (2012). Foodopoly: The battle over the future of food and farming in America. New York, NY: The New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heffernan, W. D., & Lind, D. H. (2000). Changing structure in the broiler industry: The third phase of a thirty year longitudinal study. Final report for research project. The changing structure of agriculture in the Southern United States. Athens, GA: Southern SARE.

  • Hendrickson, M., & Heffernan, W. (2007). Concentration of agricultural markets. Department of Rural Sociology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO. http://www.foodcircles.missouri.edu/CRJanuary02.pdf. Retrieved 19 Sept 2012.

  • Hendrickson, M., & James, H. S. (2005). The ethics of constrained choice: How the industrialization of agriculture impacts farming and farmer behavior. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18(3), 269–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinrichs, C. C., & Welsh, R. (2003). The effects of the industrialization of US livestock agriculture on promoting sustainable production practices. Agriculture and Human Values, 20(2), 125–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holloway, L. E., & Ilbery, B. W. (1996). Farmers’ attitudes towards environmental change, particularly global warming, and the adjustment of crop mix and farm management. Applied Geography, 16, 159–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, P. (2009). Visualizing consolidation in the global seed industry: 1996–2008. Sustainability, 1, 1266–1287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howden, S. M., Soussana, J. F., Tubiello, F. N., Chhetri, N., Dunlop, M., & Meinke, H. (2007). Adapting agriculture to climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 19691–19696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [IPCC] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC [Core Wrting Team, R. K. Pachauri and A. Resinger, editors]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.

  • James, H. S. (2003). On finding solutions to ethical problems in agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16(5), 439–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jolejole, M. C. B. (2009). Trade-offs, incentives, and the supply of ecosystem services from cropland. M.S. Thesis in agricultural, food and resource economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

  • Jones, P. C., Kegler, G., Lowe, T. G., & Traub, R. D. (2003). Managing the seed-corn supply chain at Syngenta. Interfaces, 33(1), 80–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, J. T., & Deguise, I. (2004). Habitat loss and the limits to endangered species recovery. Ecology Letters, 7, 1163–1169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewandrowski, J. K., & Brazee, R. J. (1993). Farm programs and climate change. Climatic Change, 23, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubell, M., & Fulton, A. (2007). Local diffusion networks act as pathways to sustainable agriculture in the Sacramento River Valley. California Agriculture, 61, 131–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubell, M., & Fulton, A. (2008). Local policy networks and agricultural watershed management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 673–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubowski, R. N., Vesterby, M., Bucholtz, S., Baez, A., Roberts, M. J. (2006). Major uses of land in the United States, 2002. Economic Information Bulletin Number 14. May 2006. United States Department of Agriculture.

  • Mabbett, J., & Carter, I. (1999). Contract farming in the New Zealand wine industry: An example of real substitution. In D. Burch, J. Goss, & G. Lawrence (Eds.), Restructuring global and regional agricultures: transformations in Australasian Agri-food economies and spaces. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. (2015). Nutrient framework to reduce phosphorus and nitrogen pollution. Retrieved September 1, 2015 (Nutrient Framework to Reduce Phosphorus and Nitrogen Pollution).

  • Millar, N., Robertson, G. P., Grace, P. R., Gehl, R. J., & Hoben, J. P. (2010). Nitrogen fertilizer management for nitrous oxide (N2O) mitigation in intensive corn (maize) production: An emissions reduction protocol for US Midwest agriculture. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 15(2), 185–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, K., Marsden, T., & Murdoch, J. (2006). Worlds of food: Place, power, and provenence in the food chain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, J., Mills, J., & Crawford, J. M. (2000). Promoting farmer uptake of agri-environmental schemes: The countryside stewardship arable options scheme. Land Use Policy, 17, 241–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nalebuff, B. J., & Stiglitz, J. E. (1983). Prizes and incentives: Toward a general theory of compensation and competition. Bell Journal of Economics, 14, 21–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Napier, T. L., & Camboni, S. B. (1988). Attitudes toward a proposed soil conservation program. Journal Soil and Water Conservation, 43, 186–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Napier, T. L., Camboni, S. M., & Thraen, C. S. (1986). Environmental concern and the adoption of farm technologies. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 41, 109–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Napier, T. L., Thraen, C. S., & McClaskei, S. L. (1988). Adoption of soil conservation practices by farmers in erosion-prone areas of Ohio—The application of logit modeling. Society and Natural Resources., 1, 109–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preckel, P. V., Shively, G. E., Baker, T. G., Chu, M. C., & Burrell, J. E. (2000). Contract incentives and excessive nitrogen use in agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 25(2), 468–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • QSR International. (2010). Nvivo 9. Melbourne: QSR International PL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, J. M. (2011). Overview: Climate change adaptation in the agricultural sector. In J. D. Ford & L. Berrang Ford (Eds.), Climate change adaptation in developed nations: From theory to practice (pp. 347–357). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, J., Tubiello, F., McCarl, B., Abler, D., Darwin, R., Fuglie, K., et al. (2003). US agriculture and climate change: New results. Climatic Change, 57, 43–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rejesus, R. M. (2012). Farmer perceptions and beliefs about climate change: A North Carolina Perspective. NC State Economist March/April 2012.

  • Ribaudo, M. O., & Johansson, R. C. (2007). Nutrient management use at the rural-urban fringe: Does demand for environmental quality play a role? Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 29, 689–699.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, G. P. (2004). Abatement of nitrous oxide, methane, and the other non-CO2 greenhouse gases: The need for a systems approach. In C. B. Field & M. R. Raupach (Eds.), The global carbon cycle (pp. 493–506). Washington: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (p. 512). New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, C. S., Bruulsema, T. W., Jensen, T. L., & Fixen, P. E. (2009). Review of greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertilizer management effects. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 133(3–4), 247–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, D. (2009). Constrained choice and ethical dilemmas in land management: Environmental quality and food safety in California agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 22, 53–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, D., & Gillon, S. (2013). Scaling up to address new challenges to conservation on US farmland. Land Use Policy, 31, 223–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, D., Schewe, R., & McDermott, M. (2014). Reducing nitrogen fertilizer application as a climate change mitigation strategy: Understanding farmer decision-making and potential barriers to change in the US. Land Use Policy, 36(1), 210–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suddick, E. C., Whitney, P., Townsend, A. R., & Davidson, E. A. (2013). The role of nitrogen in climate change and the impacts of nitrogen-climate interactions in the United States: Foreword to thematic issue. Biogeochemistry, 114, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2013). http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/tems.html. Accessed 12 March 2013.

  • USDA Economic Research Service. (2012). Fertilizer use and price. Retrieved (http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/fertilizer-use-and-price.aspx#.UZZtwIJAt2U).

  • USEPA. (2009). US Environmental Protection Agency. US Emissions Inventory 2009: Inventory of US greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2007. US EPA Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/nitrous1/sources.html.

  • Vandergeest, P., Flaherty, M., & Miller, P. (1999). A political ecology of shrimp aquaculture in Thailand. Rural Sociology, 64(4), 573–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weis, T. (2010). The accelerating biophysical contradictions of industrial capitalist agriculture. Journal of Agrarian Change, 10, 315–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, R. (1997). Vertical coordination, producer response, and the locus of control over agricultural production decisions. Rural Sociology, 62(4), 491–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, S. S., & Selfa, T. (2013). Shifting lands: exploring Kansas farmer decision-making in an era of climate change and biofuels production. Environmental Management, 51, 379–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winters, P., Simmons, P., & Patrick, I. (2005). Evaluation of a hybrid seed contract between smallholders and a multinational company in East Java, Indonesia. Journal of Development Studies, 41(1), 62–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding for this project was provided by the National Science Foundation Long-term Ecological Research grant No. 0423627.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sustainable Communities Program and School of Earth Sciences and Environmental Sustainability, Northern Arizona University, 19 W. McConnell, PO Box 6039, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011-6039, USA

    Diana Stuart

  2. Department of Sociology and Center for Policy and Research, Syracuse University, 426 Eggers Hall, Syracuse, NY, 13244-1020, USA

    Rebecca L. Schewe

Authors
  1. Diana Stuart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rebecca L. Schewe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diana Stuart.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stuart, D., Schewe, R.L. Constrained Choice and Climate Change Mitigation in US Agriculture: Structural Barriers to a Climate Change Ethic. J Agric Environ Ethics 29, 369–385 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-016-9605-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-016-9605-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation