Articles

The Adoption of Reduced Tillage: The Role of Human Capital and Other Variables

Michael R. Rahm and Wallace E. Huffman

This paper presents a model of adoption behavior and explains differences econometricaily in
farmers' decisions to adopt reduced-tillage practices and in the efficiency of farmers' adoption
decisions. The empirical results, obtained from microdata, show that the probability of
adopting reduced tillage in corn enterprises differs widely across farms and depends on soil
characteristics, cropping systems, and size of farming operation. The results also show that
farmers' schooling enhances the efficiency of the adoption decision.

Key words: a d o p t i o n , a g r i c u l t u r e , c o r n , e d u c a t i o n , h u m a n c a p i t a l , p r o
b i t , r e d u c e d tillage .

Although Schultz stresses the self-interest and large stake that farm operators have in their soil
resources, few soil conservation studies develop and empirically test models of the
microeconomic decision to adopt a soil con-servation practice such as reduced tillage, t Recent
papers by Kramer, McSweeney, and Stavros; and Lee and Stewart are exceptions. A number of
published studies are either de-scriptive or problematic. For example, Soth warns of additional
soil loss caused by expand-ing U.S. agricultural exports, and Heady and Short attempt to
quantify this relationship. Most of the studies conclude (or imply) that the lack of mass
adoption of soil conserva-tion practices such as reduced tillage indi-cates either market failure
or managerial in-efficiency. Why do some farm operators utilize reduced tillage, while others
do not? What are the key variables determining the economic feasibility of such practices; and
how do investments in education, health, in-

The authors are an assistant professor of economics and business, Macalester College, a n d a
professor of economics, Iowa State University, respectively.
Paper No. J-11442 of the lowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station, Project
2314.

The authors wish to thank John Miranowski, T. W. Schuitz, and two anonymous referees for
helpful comments on earlier drafts of the paper.

Review was coordinated by Peter Berck, associate editor.

~ Schultz writes: " W e proclaim to the world that U.S. farmers are second to none in
their agricultural achievements. When it comes to soil erosion, the prevailing implicit
assumption is that farmers have no perception of the value of their soil resources and that
they are indifferent to soil Ioss'" (p. 18).