Author
Abstract
February 7th marked the 10th anniversary of the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-79). Among other things, the 2014 Farm Bill initiated the ARC/PLC era of farm policy in which the choice between the two programs replaced the annual direct payments that had been a feature of farm policy since the 1996 Farm Bill. Roughly coinciding with the 2014 Farm Bill were key milestones in the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Task Force efforts by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, including the framework memo in 2011 and the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2014 (EPA, History of the Hypoxia Task Force, updated August 29, 2023; P.L. 113-124). Illinois initiated its Nutrient Loss Reduction Strategy (NLRS) in 2015 and released its latest biannual report in December 2023 (INLRS, 2023 Biennial Report; Illinois Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency, December 1, 2023). The latest report delivered unwelcome news: the levels of nitrogen and phosphorus exported from Illinois increased by 5% and 35% (respectively) as compared to the baseline (Jones, December 11, 2023; Haynes, January 5, 2024; Atkins, January 28, 2024). Also notable in the biannual report, the river flow or water yield was 23% higher than the baseline; when it rains, it pours, with consequences for nutrient losses (farmdoc daily, December 1, 2023; January 4, 2024; January 15, 2024). Farmers cannot control the weather or precipitation, but they can influence nutrient losses based on farm practices; similarly, farmers cannot control federal farm policy but can influence the priorities and outcomes in a farm bill. This article seeks to measure the conservation side of farm policy with perspectives from the efforts to reduce nutrient losses in Illinois.
Suggested Citation
Coppess, Jonathan, 2024.
"Measuring Farm Policy, Part 2: Conservation & A Nutrient Loss Reduction Perspective,"
farmdoc daily, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, vol. 14(27), February.
Handle:
RePEc:ags:illufd:358287
DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.358287
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:illufd:358287. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dauiuus.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.