Q&A with SDSU's researcher of the year

Tong Wang, associate professor in South Dakota State University's Ness School of Management and Economics and Extension specialist, was awarded the 2026 F.O. Butler Award for Excellence in Research at the annual Celebration of Faculty Excellence.

At South Dakota State University's annual Celebration of Faculty Excellence, Tong Wang, associate professor in the Ness School of Management of Economics, was awarded the F.O. Butler Award for Excellence in Research — one of the university's highest accolades that recognizes outstanding scholarly contributions and research impact.

As part of her research, Wang, an Extension specialist, utilizes large-scale producer surveys to gain insights into agricultural practices, soil health, economics and similar related topics. In this Q&A, Wang discusses her research, what drew her into this field and the impact her work has beyond the farm.

What drew you to this field? What first sparked your interest in agricultural economics, and why do you focus on the intersection of farming, conservation and the environment here in the Midwest?

I actually started out on a fairly traditional economics track, but during my Ph.D. I realized I was most excited about applied modeling, especially when answering questions involving agriculture. My real shift into agricultural economics happened during my postdoctoral years. I worked closely with researchers studying regenerative rangeland practices, and that experience opened my eyes to how tightly economics, conservation and environmental outcomes are connected. I enjoyed being able to quantify not only the economic impacts of these practices but also their ecological consequences. That interdisciplinary space is where I felt the most energized.

What really inspires me in this field is the direct connection to stakeholders. When the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service invited me to present my modeling results on the dynamics of a voluntary livestock disease control program, or when producers from Brazil, Argentina and Australia reached out because my findings matched what they were seeing on the ground, it really confirmed to me that this research truly matters.

That’s also why the Midwest feels like such a natural fit for this research. Agriculture plays a vital role in the region’s economy, and it’s a place where land‑use sustainability and environmental pressures intersect every day. Being able to contribute research that helps producers make decisions that are both economically sound and environmentally responsible is exactly the kind of impact I want my work to have.

What's the big-picture problem you're trying to solve? In plain terms, what is the central challenge facing South Dakota farmers today, and how does your research help address it?

The big picture challenge South Dakota farmers face today is uncertainty. They are dealing with uncertainty in the weather, in the fields, in input prices and the markets they sell into. On the production side, farmers are dealing with more frequent extreme weather events like droughts and flooding, as well as soil issues such as salinity and sodicity that directly affect yields. At the same time, input markets have become more volatile. For example, fertilizer prices spiked recently due to global disruptions, and those kinds of shocks make it harder for producers to plan and stay profitable.

My research focuses on the production side of these challenges, to help producers remain resilient in the face of unpredictable conditions. My research is primarily focused on conservation practices, such as cover crops. We’re finding that cover crops can help reduce weather-related risks and gradually improve soil health, which in turn reduces dependence on expensive chemical fertilizers. But cover crops also come with upfront costs, so I work with field researchers and with South Dakota farmers who are already using these practices to understand how long it takes for them to pay off these costs and under what conditions they make the most sense. I also study regenerative grazing practices on the ranching side. There, too, the goal is to understand the economic returns, the environmental benefits and the climate factors or ranch conditions that lead to better outcomes.

Overall, my research aims to provide producers with evidence-based tools and strategies so they can make decisions that support both their bottom line and the long-term health of their land.

What do you want producers to take away from your work? If a South Dakota producer reads about your research, what's the one thing you most want them to understand or do differently?

For producers who are willing to take adaptive measures to become more resilient, I want them to have a clear picture of how a particular practice actually works — both from field research and from the experiences of hundreds of other producers in the region. That way they can go in with realistic expectations: what the practice costs, how long it might take to see a payoff, and what kinds of barriers or benefits they might encounter along the way.

By putting real numbers behind these practices and grounding them in both science and producer experience, my goal is to help producers make informed decisions. Instead of guessing or relying on anecdotes, they can look at evidence and at established experiences from people who have already tried the practice. Ultimately, I want them to feel confident that the choices they make are good for their operation and good for their land.

What's been your most surprising finding? After years of surveying and studying producers across the region, what result or trend has surprised you the most?

One of the most surprising findings came from a project where we collected data from pairs of neighboring producers — one using conservation practices and one sticking with more traditional practices. We wanted to compare their yields and profits side by side. Honestly, we expected to see the conservation farmers doing better. But in the normal years we looked at, there was no clear advantage in either yield or profit. That was surprising, because it went against our initial hypothesis.

The turning point came when we looked at a drought year. Suddenly, the pattern flipped. The producers using conservation practices performed noticeably better. That’s when it clicked for us: the payoff from conservation doesn’t necessarily show up in average years. It shows up in the stressful years — the droughts, the floods or the input price spikes. Those are the times when resilience really matters.

Why does this research matter beyond agriculture? How does what happens on South Dakota farmland affect people who aren't producers — whether that's consumers, communities or the broader environment?

What happens on South Dakota farmland affects far more than just the producers. The decisions producers make have ripple effects on water quality, wildlife, recreation and even the long‑term economic health of rural communities.

Take fertilizer use, for example. It has helped boost yields for decades, but the portion that crops don’t absorb doesn’t just disappear. It can move into lakes and rivers, affecting drinking water safety and fueling algal blooms — even in some of our state park areas. When that happens, it raises health concerns and also hurts the tourism revenue many communities depend on. Land conversion is another example. When grasslands in eastern South Dakota were rapidly converted to cropland during high‑price years, it reduced habitat for birds and other wildlife. That loss isn’t just a biodiversity issue. It affects hunting, outdoor recreation and the local businesses tied to those activities.

So even though my research focuses on farm‑level decisions, the implications go well beyond agriculture. Producers play a critical role in reducing these unintended environmental impacts, and by helping producers understand which conservation practices pay off and under what conditions, my work supports outcomes that benefit not only their operations but also the broader community and environment.