What is the Opposite of a Monoculture? An exploratory study of PFI and Iowa WFAN farmer
perspectives on biodiversity
Caroline Oliveira, Gabrielle Roesch and Maria Van Der Maaten
Introduction
More than 90% of the Iowa landscape is reliant on monoculture cultivation. Biodiversity,
on the other hand, is the opposite of a monoculture, which is based on the ecological synergism
of multiple species interactions on the landscape (Rosset & Altieri 2008). The industrialization
of agriculture in Iowa presents challenges to preserving and enhancing biodiversity within
agricultural systems. Given the importance of biodiversity for stable and resilient ecosystems, it
is necessary to understand current perceptions of biodiversity and to engage farmers in the
process of managing for enhanced biodiversity on their farms (Hooper et al. 2005). In order to
accomplish our goal of understanding farmer’s perspectives on biodiversity, we posed the
following question: how do Iowa farmer members of two farmer organizations—Practical
Farmers of Iowa (PFI) and Women, Food, and Agriculture Network (WFAN)—perceive
biodiversity on their farms? We asked the farmer-members to respond to a survey regarding
their beliefs and values about managed and unmanaged systems on their farms. We recognized
early on that our study would not be conclusive; however we hope that these organizations might
find the results of our research helpful in their efforts to explore management linkages between
improved biodiversity and agricultural practices.
Biodiversity is a challenging concept to define, so we used the Convention on Biological
Diversity’s definition, paraphrased here, which articulates biological diversity as including
Earth’s ecosystems and includes a wide variety of genetically diverse plants, animals, and
microorganisms. The current lack of understanding farmers’ perceptions limits the involvement
of Iowa farmers in the process of enhancing and managing for biodiversity. Our research is an
exploratory study of PFI and Iowa WFAN member’s perceptions of biodiversity. We explored
questions that included: what is biodiversity?; how do you perceive biodiversity on your farm?;
and how do you currently manage for biodiversity? The goals and values of both PFI and
1
WFAN encouraged us to narrow our research subjects to farmer-members of these two
organizations, as we believed that both organizations would be able to utilize the results of the
data we gathered to continue working towards their collective missions.
Results & Discussion
Our total sample size was n=38 with a response rate of 7% for PFI farmers and 5% of
WFAN farmers. Over 75% of participants were PFI farmers with another 35% WFAN farmers
(some were members of both). 13% of respondents were from other unidentified farmer groups.
It is interesting to note that 16% of the respondents were certified organic and 64% of
respondents were women. It is possible that the focus on biodiversity tended to attract organic
producers given their unique focus on biodiversity as a component of their certification.
Participants also produce diverse types of crops as well as livestock, with 16% producing row
crops, 20% pasture, 17% vegetables and 24% livestock; a smaller percentage reported having
orchards and vineyards.
Participants lived in 33 different counties and are spatially represented in Figure 2. They
owned anywhere from 4.5 acres to 700 acres with 32% owning over 100 acres and 40% owning
50 acres or less. 40% of respondents did not rent any farmland. Only 11% rented farmland in
excess of 500 acres with the rest renting a few hundred.
Figure 2. This Google Map with flagged points represents the center of the county seat for each respondent that noted it as
their home county. Each flag represents one farmer respondent except for two counties, which had two farmer
respondents.
2
Exploring notions of biodiversity
Participants largely felt that biodiversity included all species of the farm, including their
crops, livestock, and wild species. This was somewhat surprising given the fact that often
biodiversity is characterized as wild, unmanaged areas separate from farming operations. Our
results found that participating farmers do not necessarily include “wildness” as part of
biodiversity. A quarter of participants see biodiversity primarily as a diversity of crops and
domestic animal breeds. Data from the qualitative interviews are consistent with our results as
explored later in this report.
Respondents were asked if they specifically managed their farms in order to increase the
prevalence of specific types of organisms. Responses varied from a wide assortment of
organisms from grasses to wild birds. Most notably, farmers paid the least attention to
amphibians and reptiles and the most focus on multiple types of annual crops and livestock.
Table 1 provides a visual representation of the species that farmers specifically manage for in
their operations. Respondents were encouraged to choose all that applied to their system.
Table 1. This table gives total counts for the organisms that survey respondents actively manage for. Respondents were
able to choose all that applied to their farming operation.
Management strategies to achieve greater biodiversity
3
Survey respondents revealed a high interest in biodiversity through their responses on
management strategies that increase biodiversity. In our results, more farmers indicated they
were already active in conservation strategies, and fewer indicated they would consider
establishing or adopting new behaviors. With regards to establishing new natural elements on
their farms, the two most appealing elements were perennial grasses and ponds/wetlands. It
appears that these are the elements that are the least implemented currently, but have highest
interest for potential establishment. Many respondents noted they already have forest patches,
woodlots and riparian areas. It is unclear to what extent, in terms of acreage or total operation,
that respondents have incorporated these natural elements.
The majority of respondents were already implementing a suite of management practices
that would enhance the biodiversity on their farms (See Table 2). For every option on the
survey, respondents on the whole wanted to adopt more of all of the practices rather than simply
enhance what they are already doing. In particular it appears that both establishment and
adoption of cover crops, installation of nesting boxes for birds/bats, and introduction of
prairie/grasslands were the most popular practices. The practices with the biggest difference
between what they currently have and what they want to adopt were limiting their herbicide and
pesticide applications, reduced spraying around crop edges, increasing cover crops, and installing
nesting boxes for birds and bats. On the whole, it appears that participants are very interested in
managing their farming operations to encourage greater biodiversity.
4
30
Which of the following practices would you consider adopting?
(n=38)
Total Count
25
20
15
10
5
0
Reduce Limit Transiti Include Avoid
Install Provide Develop Introdu Install
spraying herbicid on from cover habitat nesting feed for wetland
ce
woodlot
along
e and
more
crops/ destruct boxes
birds s/ponds prairie/
,
crop pesticid annual longer
ion
for
and
grasslan increase
edges
e
systems rotation
birds/ba other
d
woody
applicat
to
s
ts
mamma
species
ions perenni
ls
al
systems
Preserve
10
13
21
22
23
16
17
16
23
15
Establish
17
21
22
30
26
28
20
22
29
21
Other
6
7
Table 2. This table shows the total counts for respondent willingness to preserve (blue) or establish (red) specific
management practices to increase biodiversity on their farm. Respondents were able to choose multiple options.
Threats to Biodiversity
Survey respondents were critical of issues in Iowa that they believed negatively impacted
biodiversity (Table 3). Monoculture and specifically the emphasis on corn production was
identified as being a problem, particularly the price of corn and beans driving people to plant
more crops, fencerow to fencerow. Interviewees seemed to echo this idea about monoculture
and Roundup Ready (GMO) crops being the antithesis of what biodiversity means. However, it
was clear that people saw an economic motive driving this kind of production.
One survey respondent noted that “my husband and I feel that we are responsible for
maintaining biodiversity given that we are surrounded by corn and beans. Insects, critters, and
birds need a safe place.” Another couple noted that it is through programs like PFI that they are
able to transition to non-GMO and organic production because “field days, conferences and
farminars have provided the information and support to make our farm stronger through
biodiversity.” While many participants did not explicitly note what resources they needed to
5
better enhance biodiversity, it seems imperative that farmers are given the tools to make
biodiversity enhancing improve their bottom line while also providing them with other nonmonetary benefits.
Table 3. This table shows the results for the question “In your opinion, what is the biggest threat to biodiversity in Iowa?”
This question was given as an open-ended question but results have been aggregated and coded to show the trends in the
qualitative responses. Some of the participants noted multiple issues and were therefore counted more than once.
Qualitative Results/Discussion
As part of our mixed-method approach, we selected three farmers for in-depth interviews.
Through the interviews, we aimed to better understand personal perspectives that could not be
captured through a survey. Evora was a member of both PFI and WFAN, Bartholomeu was a
PFI member, and Santiago was not a member of either organization. All farmers had different
farming operations; however, both Santiago and Bartholomeu managed grazing for cattle.
Following a similar questionnaire from the survey, all farmers revealed overlapping perspectives
and concerns relating to biodiversity. The interviews elicited key themes that emerged as part of
the interview process, which includes planned versus associated biodiversity, soil health,
economic benefit, and crisis attitude.
Biodiversity
6
According to Zimmerer (2010) biodiversity in agriculture can be distinguished between
associated and planned biodiversity. In agriculture, planned biodiversity is a common approach
for managing natural resources, and purposefully integrating different species to create a
functionally diverse system. Genetic resources, agrobiodiversity, and agrodiversity concepts
tend to emphasize the planned subcomponent of biological diversity in agriculture. Associated
biological diversity, consists of organisms that are indirectly related to the system, including
pollinators, weeds, soil organisms, pests, and disease pathogens. All interviewees expressed one
form or another of planned and associated biodiversity. When asked how to define biodiversity,
Santiago presented a clear conception of planned biodiversity: “Biodiversity in my mind is
finding the proper mix of plants and animals that complement protect and improve the
environment around them.” At the same time, there is a strong sense of associated biodiversity
by wanting to preserve the wild component of the environment. He confirms this perspective by
saying: “We have areas that are forest that probably benefit the wildlife.” In addition, he
appreciates a certain overall quality of his own cow herd as a result of benefiting wildlife.
Related to the benefits of wildlife, Evora was also aware of associated biodiversity with
regards to wildlife. She presents an interesting integration of both planned and associated forms
of biodiversity. Understanding the importance of wildlife, Evora planned for biodiversity by
adding prairie habitats, therefore attracting associated species in the new habitats. Bartholomeu
did not express strong relation to wildlife and maintained a strong perception of planned
biodiversity. He offered a very interesting approach to planned biodiversity through a “closed
herd of cows.” He believed that by selecting cows that performed better in the environment of
his farm, he could follow a genetic line that would better adapt to his farm.
Associated biodiversity is best explored in the discussion about weeds on farms since
often what is considered a weed on a farm could also be seen as an integral component of
biodiversity. Although most farmers managed weeds through spot spraying, they provided
alternative perspectives on weeds. Santiago was particularly combative towards thistle, saying
he would probably never turn to organic farming, unless there was an organic method for
controlling thistle. Evora, had a more flexible approach to weeds, allowing them to become feed
7
for different wild animals. Bartholomeu provided another interesting perspective of weeds, by
changing his own definition of what a weed is:
“It’s not a weed unless it is on farm for a whole year and cow doesn’t eat it. So I don’t
spray that much anymore. I control thistles. But I used to think a lot of things were weeds,
and I don’t think that anymore. The more diverse the pasture, more legumes and broad
leaves, the more variety cows have to pick from. Hedgerow is a medicine cabinet for a
cow.”
In another study, Corselius et al. (2003) investigates farmers’ perspectives on cropping
systems diversification that add to our discussion on planned biodiversity. Through a survey
they identified that “over half of the respondents agreed that farms should be “diversified.”
However, over half of the respondents identified climatic limitations as a principal reason for not
further diversifying their cropping systems. Sixty-five percent of farmers also identified a lack
of markets and limiting infrastructure/institutional factors as obstacles to increase crop diversity
on their farms. Corselius et al. (2003) illustrate that conceptualizing biodiversity in the
agricultural context is challenging due to the industrialization of agriculture. In general, this
focus on production-oriented systems emphasizes specific species prevalence (i.e. monoculture)
as opposed to species diversity. The composition of specific species is driven by economic and
political incentives in the food system. Jordan et al. (2007) echo this in their finding and urge
policy makers to better address the trade-offs between wildlife habitat and what they refer to as
biomass production.
Soil Health
Soil health was another prevalent theme among the farmers. They all mentioned the
importance of healthy soil to their farming operations and were all involved in efforts to improve
soil health. Santiago revealed that the main reason for re-introducing prairie on his farmland was
to rebuild soil health.
“The main number one reason we have reintroduced it is to bring the soil back. It is to
make the soil healthier to get the deep roots, to get the microorganisms to get them
working and build the soil back up so you know some of these hills and things like that
when they are covered it did so much good for that root system and its ability to kind of
sequester carbon now.”
8
Evora also expressed her concern for soil health and admitted she is considering going
into organic farming for that reason.
“If I could make it all go organic… sooner or later that will happen but it won’t happen
this next year. Little increments, but no-till changes the component of the soil back to
something that will actually… you can see the difference in the soil, and it is just
amazing.”
Finally, Bartholomeu stated that healthy soils are the foundation of his farm, and in turn
his business: “Good soil is what I need. Good soil biology is what I need to feed the animals.
The stocking rate will go up and I take care of the land.”
Economic Benefit
Biodiversity was seen as a profitable and important economic benefit to the farmers we
interviewed. As mentioned earlier with regards to associated biodiversity, Santiago admits: “I
feel personally that they are indicators…and I cannot describe why, but I know the overall
quality of our cow herd improved when we started to benefit the wildlife.” Evora also benefited
from biodiversity by disclosing that it has paid for her farm, “Prairie grass paid for my farm, I
mean because it is all in the CRP and it has paid for the farm.” Both Evora and Santiago have
prairies on their farmland and are open about the economic benefits they provide. Aside from
the initial costs of installing them, prairies have improved farm productivity and Santiago has
benefited from hunting and recreational business opportunities that the presence of the prairie
has helped to create. Both Bartolomeu and Santiago expressed economic gain from biodiversity,
through the nutritional value of the forage for the cattle. When referring to his farm, Santiago
affirms that “[biodiversity] has benefited us number one in production by giving us a range of
forage for the cattle to utilize up to 12 months out of the year.”
Crisis Attitude
Finally, when given a chance to add their input to the research or to elaborate on a topic
that was not covered by the questionnaire, all farmers expressed a distinct attitude of crisis
towards the environment and agriculture. They were all pessimistic towards the current state of
affairs and believe people need to become more aware of environmental problems by accepting
9
and implementing sustainable practices in farm management. Evora stated, “I think it is going to
take something like Hurricane Sandy to convince people that nature means business and that we
need to do what we can do.” Santiago expressed similar concerns, but believes change must
come, in part, from industry:
“Even I have tried to dance around it [climate change] and the more I read about it the
more I study about it, you know I am quite convinced human beings have caused some of
the issues that we are having with global warming and we are the ones who have to solve
it and to take genuine ownership in it and work through it. That is the one area that is
really hard for me. I guess that would be the biggest one, and how we, through
agriculture and everything else, manage that.”
Bartholomeu added to the sentiment of frustration, by indicating that people, but
specifically farmers, must take more responsibility for their practices, and understand the global
impact of farming. “A lot more people should worry about what they are doing. The soybean
and corn guys are going to kill the whole population. They are gonna go until there is no soil
left. So I think we need to change our practices. I can’t save the world, I only got 500 acres.”
Finally, by identifying farmer’s sentiments toward the problems with biodiversity and
broader environmental problems, we find that enhancing biodiversity is linked to personal values
and beliefs held by farmers. In another similar study, Kelemen et al. (2011) confirm this
information by identifying a broad range of specific values that varied from economic values
realized in a market exchange to the potential value provided for humanity with the production
of public goods. Given the inseparability of personal values in farming decisions, we suggest the
importance of future work that explores the variation in values associated with biodiversity
across a broader, more diverse group of farmers. In addition, it is important to note that farmer’s
comprehension of biodiversity differs from academic definitions (Herzog & Mikk 2007)
revealing important implications for conducting biodiversity management strategies on farms.
This is another reason for exploring farmers’ values and incorporating their perspectives in
future research.
Conclusion
This study was intended to further contribute to research on biodiversity by providing a
sociological framework that explores how farmers relate to and perceive biodiversity on their
10
farms. Through our mixed methods approach, it is clear that participants feel biodiversity is
important and that they have a role and responsibility to enhance it on their farms. For future
research, we recommend exploring attitudes among more farmers, involved in both conventional
and alternative farming operations. In addition, focus groups could also increase validity while
helping to explore emergent concepts that might inform a more in-depth quantitative study.
Despite the limitations of this study, participants provided valuable information that can
help support future research on biodiversity in Iowa. Our results show that participants perceive
biodiversity as a diversity of plant and animal species, but are also aware of microorganisms,
especially in the soil, that are part of a healthy ecosystem. Most importantly, this diversity of
species is strongly related to economic incentives that relate back to the farming operation.
Respondents indicated that the diversity on their farm has clearly benefitted them. Respondents
clearly felt that monocultures of corn and soybeans are considered the biggest threat to
biodiversity.
Although it is conceived that macroeconomic structures limit farmers’ abilities to
incorporate biodiversity in their farms, our results show that farmers can maintain profitability
through a personal commitment to incorporating biodiversity in their land stewardship. Indeed
Jordan et al. emphasize how funding priorities need to shift in the U.S. to better support farmers
who are providing multifunctional systems of production “for a more sustainable agricultural
bio-economy” (2007, pg. 1571). In addition, PFI and WFAN farmers appear to be deeply
connected to enhancing both managed and associated biodiversity on their farms and willing to
develop habitat for wild species. Further education could be done that emphasizes species of
concern in Iowa while promoting management strategies that could enhance the habitat for these
species of concern. Farmers that were surveyed were willing to enhance and adopt key
management strategies that will further assist in greater attention to biodiversity. Management
practices or additions such as adding cover crops, increasing perennial systems, limiting
herbicides/pesticides, and providing habitat additions (bird houses or woody debris) are likely to
be received well by PFI and WFAN farmers while potentially having a positive effect on onfarm productivity and wild species of concern.
11
Citations
Corselius, Kristen L., Steve R. Simmons, Cornelia B. Flora. 2003. “Farmer perspectives on
cropping systems diversification in northwestern Minnesota.” Agriculture and Human Values 20
(4): 371-383.
Herzon, Irina and Merit Mikk. 2007. “Farmers’ perceptions of biodiversity and their
willingness to enhance it through agri-environment schemes: A comparative study from Estonia
and Finland.” Journal for Nature Conservation 15: 10-25.
Hooper, D.U., F.S. Chapin III, J.J. Ewel, A. Hector, P. Inchausti, S. Lavorel, J.H. Lawton, D.M.
Lodge, M. Loreau, S. Naeem, B. Schmid, H. Setälä, A. J. Symstad, J. Vandermeer, D.A. Wardle.
2005. “Effects of Biodiversity on Ecosystem Functioning: A consensus of current knowledge.”
Ecological Monographs 75: 3-35.
Jordan, N., G. Boody, W. Brouissard, J.D. Glover, D. Keeney, B.H. McCown, G. McIsaac, m.
Muller, h. Murray, J. Neal, C. Pansing, R.E. Turner, K. Warner, D. Wyse. 2007. “Sustainable
Development of the Agricultural Bio-Economy.” Science 316: 1570-1571.
Kelemen, E., K. Balázs, J.P. Choisis, N. Choisis, T. Gomiero, E. Kovács, G. Nguyen, M.G.
Paoletti, L. Podmaniczky, J. Ryschawy, J.P. Sarthou. 2011. “Competing Perceptions on
Biodiversity and Its Benefits: Theoretical and Methodological Implications of a Focus Group
Study.” Paper presented at the 9th International Conference of the European Society for
Ecological Economics, 14-17 June 2011 in Istanbul, Turkey. Retrieved December 4, 2012
(http://www.esee2011.org/registration/fullpapers/esee2011_4ba3c1_1_1306405500_6019_2116.
pdf).
Rosset, Peter M. and Miguel A. Altieri. 1997. “Agroecology versus input substitution: A
fundamental contraction of sustainable agriculture.” Society and Natural Resources 10 (3): 283295.
Zimmerer, Karl S. 2010. “Biological Diversity in Agriculture and Global Change.” Annual
Review of Environment and Resources 35: 137-166.
12