A survey was conducted in 2023 of crop advisers in Utah and Idaho to explore their perspectives on soil health practices and the challenges they face in advising clients. Developed by Utah State University, the survey gathered responses from 125 professionals across the two states. The goal was to better understand how crop advisers approach soil health and to identify factors that could improve soil management strategies for local farmers.
Who are the crop advisers who responded?
The advisers who responded were predominately male (82%) and there was nearly an even split of private industry (42%), NRCS (37%) and university extension (33%) with the remainder as state agriculture department advisers (18%) and independent advisers. About 70% work full-time as crop advisers, with nearly a quarter of them having over 20 years of experience in the field. The size of their clientele varies, but many advise on farms ranging from 100 to over 1,000 acres. Common crops they work with include alfalfa, small grains and other hay, and common types of advice they offer are agronomic (74%), daily management (65%) and conservation practices (57%).
Measures of soil health
Crop advisers were asked which soil health tests they are likely to recommend. The three most common recommendations (75% of advisers) included available water-holding capacity, penetration resistance and infiltration rate (Figure 1). All three tests relate to irrigation management, which is not surprising in this drought-stricken region. Other common tests included water-stable aggregates and nitrogen mineralization – tests that relate to soil resistance to erosion and fertilizer management. Common soil health tests in other regions such as the Haney test and Cornell Assessment of Soil Health (CASH) were not commonly recommended, possibly due to lack of local calibration of these tests.
Soil health approaches with clientele
Soil health is an increasingly important focus for crop advisers. A striking 84% of advisers reported discussing soil health more than they did in the past. About half (52%) believe it is their responsibility to bring up soil health practices with clients, regardless of how clients react. Advisers rely heavily on hands-on experience, peer knowledge and client feedback to form their soil health recommendations. In fact, 93% of respondents consider in-field experience a very or extremely important source of information. Face-to-face interactions are crucial, with 83% of advisers reporting that clients are more open to soil health advice during in-person conversations.
Client challenges and soil health education
Advisers reported that cost is the most common barrier that their clients have when making decisions about soil health practices (Figure 2). Other common challenges included lack of knowledge or equipment, along with difficulty in managing for soil health. Advisers also noted that many farmers find it easier to stick to familiar practices – 88% agreed that many of their clients prefer maintaining the status quo.
Regional differences between Utah and Idaho
While crop advisers in both states face similar challenges, there are some notable regional differences. Idaho crop advisers worked more with larger and specialized farms – 24 Idaho advisers serve clients with over 1,000 acres, compared to just eight in Utah. Additionally, Idaho advisers meet more frequently with clients, and they are more likely to recommend practices such as diversified crop rotation and organic soil amendments. Utah advisers, on the other hand, were more likely to advise on salinity management and serve clients statewide. Utah crop advisers were also generally younger, with an average age of 44, compared to 49 in Idaho.
Differences in adviser approaches
One key finding from the survey is that crop advisers across all groups agreed on the importance of promoting soil health. However, there were significant differences in how they approached soil health in their advisory roles (Figure 3). For example, while 60% or more advisers across all affiliations agreed that farmers needed to change their mindset toward soil health, fewer felt it was their responsibility to raise the issue with clients. This points to a broader challenge: While there is recognition of soil health's importance, not all advisers feel equipped or responsible for initiating conversations on the topic.
Interestingly, advisers from NRCS were the most likely to provide specific soil health recommendations and felt confident that they had the necessary information to do so. In contrast, extension advisers were less likely to offer tailored recommendations, possibly due to their focus on research and education rather than direct advisory roles. Private industry advisers, who are often focused on profitability, were the most likely to acknowledge that they lacked sufficient information on soil health, underlining the need for better resources and research in this area.
The survey also explored the specific soil health practices advisers recommended to their clients. Among the most frequently recommended practices were diversified crop rotation, cover crops and conservation tillage. However, there was variation in how often these practices were suggested. Advisers from state departments of agriculture were the most likely to recommend a range of soil health practices, while extension advisers were less inclined to make specific recommendations.
Takeaways
The survey results highlight both the growing emphasis on soil health and the challenges crop advisers face in helping farmers adopt effective soil management practices. By understanding the perspectives and practices of crop advisers, it becomes clear that providing more comprehensive training and fostering greater face-to-face interactions may help overcome barriers such as cost and knowledge gaps. Ultimately, both Utah and Idaho crop advisers play a crucial role in shaping the future of soil health in the region, and their work will be key in improving agricultural sustainability for years to come.
This article offers a snapshot of the survey’s findings, and more details about the results can be found online here or here.
