Intensification of US livestock production, generating an estimated 1.27 billion metric tons of manure per year from nearly 10 billion animals, presents both a nutrient resource and an environmental challenge. This technical review synthesizes current knowledge on manure's agronomic and soil health benefits versus its environmental risks. The study compares different management approaches, land application, stockpiling, lagoons, and critically assesses advanced treatment and valorization technologies, including anaerobic digestion, solid-liquid separation, nutrient recovery (struvite precipitation, ammonia stripping), biochar co-composting, and precision application tools (injection, variable-rate spreading, and real-time nutrient sensors). Adoption drivers such as regulatory frameworks (Clean Water Act, concentrated animal feeding operation permits, and California SB 1383), economic incentives (Environmental Quality Incentives Program [EQIP] cost-share and carbon and nutrient credit markets), and digital innovations are also evaluated alongside persistent barriers of high capital costs, logistical constraints in nutrient transport, knowledge gaps in emission quantification (CH4, N2O, and NH3), pathogen fate, and site-specific trade-offs among air, water, and soil quality. The review also outlines potential future scenarios, from incremental technology mainstreaming to integrated circular biorefineries, and highlights research priorities to optimize manure as a circular resource while safeguarding ecosystem and human health. By contextualizing manure management within a climate-resilient, circular agricultural economy, this review identifies the research gaps and informs researchers, extension agents, and policymakers on strategies to advance sustainable livestock systems in the United States and beyond.

Abstract The Mississippi River Basin has been extensively altered with levees, channelization, and agricultural land conversion. Much of the disturbed land was historically bottomland hardwood forests (BHF) and wetlands. As knowledge about sediment and nutrient nonpoint pollution has expanded, several wetland restoration and water quality monitoring programs have been developed through the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources and Conservation (e.g., the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, Environmental Quality Incentive Program, and Edge‐of‐Field (EOF) Water Quality Monitoring Activity). Traditional water quality monitoring includes the use of pressure transducers, piezometers, and grab samples. The EOF water quality monitoring system generally focuses on agricultural inputs and uses non‐contact measurement sensors. EOF monitoring stations include a flume, water sampler, and an ultrasonic level sensor. This system can monitor water quality in most flow conditions; however, BHF wetlands have more complex flow requiring a modification of the standard EOF station. By using a laser Doppler velocimeter (e.g., LaserFlow, Teledyne ISCO) in place of the flume and ultrasonic sensor, stage and velocity can be calculated in bidirectional flow at various speeds and levels. Nonetheless, more research is required into alternative instrumentation in complex heterogeneous hydrology found in BHFs.

Ranch-Level Economics of Lesser Prairie Chicken Conservation Practice Implementation

Abstract Financial assistance for cover cropping through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) has increased more than twentyfold in the past decade and a half. Available support for cover cropping increased further due to the Inflation Reduction Act, which provides significant funding for climate smart practices. In this study, we examine whether increases in available financial assistance lead to significant increases in producer participation in EQIP for cover cropping and whether these increases are additional on the landscape. We focus on the impacts of the National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI), which provides funding for cover crops and several other practices to producers in targeted watersheds on top of normal EQIP levels. We first estimate the impacts of NWQI on enrollment in EQIP using a watershed‐level panel of acres enrolled in EQIP for cover crops. We find that NWQI more than triples EQIP cover crop acreage compared to similar control watersheds. Driving the increase in enrolled acreage is a small increase in the share of applications receiving a contract, as well as a significant increase in the total number of applications received. We then utilize field‐level administrative data on cover cropping to estimate the impact of NWQI on cover crop adoption overall. We find evidence that the impacts of NWQI on cover cropping are largely additional.

Green initiatives are popular mechanisms globally to enhance environmental and human wellbeing. However, multiple green initiatives, when overlapping geographically and targeting the same participants, may interact with each other, giving rise to what is termed “spillover effects”, where one initiative and its outcomes influence another. This study examines the spillover effects among four major concurrent initiatives in the United States (U.S.) and China using a comprehensive dataset. In the U.S., we analysed county-level data in 2018 for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), both operational for over 25 years. In China, data from Fanjingshan and Tianma National Nature Reserves (2014–2015) were used to evaluate the Grain-to-Green Program (GTGP) and the Forest Ecological Benefit Compensation (FEBC) program. The dataset comprises 3106 records for the U.S. and 711 plots for China, including several socio-economic variables. The results of multivariate linear regression indicate that there exist significant spillover effects between CRP & EQIP and GTGP & FEBC, with one initiative potentially enhancing or offsetting another’s impacts by 22% to 100%. This dataset provides valuable insights for researchers and policymakers to optimize the effectiveness and resilience of concurrent green initiatives.

The suite of U.S. federal farm programs available to organic farmers includes conservation programs through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), risk management through crop insurance, and the Organic Certification Cost Share Program (commonly referred to as Organic Cost Share or just Cost Share). Of these programs, the Organic Cost Share is the most widely used. Many organic farmers do not enroll in conservation pro­grams or purchase crop insurance. The under­utilization of federal farm programs by organic producers is well known in the organic community, but there is a lack of systematic evidence about the rationale for not applying for or using programs. Using qualitative data collected through structured interviews, we find that many organic producers want to participate in the Organic Cost Share, EQIP, CSP, and crop insurance. Many are success­ful, but others face institutional, cultural, and programmatic barriers that prevent them from participating. A key recommendation from this study is the creation of specialized, highly trained crop insurance and conservation agents with expertise in organic farming systems to facilitate the application process and program use for conservation programs and crop insurance. The Organic Cost Share Program would have more impact if its funds were used to support beginning organic farmers in addition to small-scale farm operators.

Methods for assessing spillover effects between concurrent green initiatives

Farmers in the Great Lakes region of the U.S. face tremendous pressure to reduce nutrient losses from agriculture. Increasing crop rotation diversity with overwintering cover crops can support ecological processes that maintain productivity while improving multiple ecosystem functions, including nutrient retention. We conducted a mixed-methods study to understand how financial incentive programs impact transitions to cover cropping in Michigan. Michigan farms span a wide range of soil types, climate conditions, and cropping systems that create opportunities for cover crop adoption in the state. We tested the relationship between Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) payments for cover crops and cover crop adoption between 2008–2019, as measured by remote sensing. We coupled this quantitative analysis with interviews with 21 farmers in the Lake Erie watershed to understand farmers’ perspectives on how incentive programs could support greater cover crop adoption. Panel fixed effects regressions showed that EQIP increased winter cover crop presence. Every EQIP dollar for cover crops was associated with a 0.01 hectare increase in winter cover, while each hectare enrolled in an EQIP contract for cover crops was associated with a 0.86–0.93 hectare increase in winter cover. In semi-structured interviews, farmers reported that financial incentives were instrumental to cover crop adoption, but that program outcomes fall short of intended goals due to policy design problems that may limit widespread participation and effectiveness. Thus, strengthening EQIP and related conservation programs could support broader transitions to diversified farming systems that are more sustainable and resilient.

Examining cover crop agri-environmental program participation: Evidence from a western US farmer survey

Summary We present data from producers in the upper Great Plains of the US for whom at least one Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contract expired in the last seven years. The survey covered two groups, one with a retired CRP contract and a second with a retired CRP contract who then enrolled in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) program. Most respondents at least tried to re-enroll into CRP, many unsuccessfully. The CRP group primarily moved to crops on the former CRP land, while EQIP respondents focused on cattle and grazing. Awareness of the EQIP program on the part of the CRP group was only 58%. We compared groups regarding what they considered doing with the land at the end of their respective programs, CRP and EQIP. We examined group differences in motivations and attitudes and found evidence of convergence. We also evaluated these differences using effect size statistics to determine their importance to our overall questions. Our overall conclusion is that the groups have a long history of program participation and there is little difference between them in both their motivation to participate and willingness to do so in the future.

In the US, agriculture rapidly expanded beginning in the 1850s, influenced by homesteader policies and new technologies. With increased production also came widespread land-use/land-cover change. We analyze historical agricultural policies and associated land and water use trajectories with a focus on the Southern Great Plains (SGPs). Rapid changes in agriculture and reoccurring drought led to the infamous Dust Bowl, triggering new agricultural and land management policies, with lasting impacts on the landscape. To understand historical agricultural change, we use mixed methods, including archival literature and historical agricultural census data (1910 to 2017) from three counties in a tri-state (Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado) area of the SGPs. Our archival policy and agricultural census analysis illustrates 110 years of agricultural change, showing that agricultural policies and technological advances play an integral role in the development of agroecological systems, especially the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), and the Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP). Further, while communities began with distinct agricultural practices, agricultural policy development resulted in increasing uniformity in crop and livestock practices. The results suggest that there are sustainability lessons to be learned by looking to the land and water trajectories and accompanying unintended consequences of the past.

Discerning the process of cultivated land governance transition in China since the reform and opening-up-- Based on the multiple streams framework

Abstract Agroforestry plantings offer a promising ecologically based solution to address agricultural resource concerns while simultaneously achieving conservation goals, because they provide multiple benefits including reduced soil erosion, decreased nutrient runoff, increased biodiversity and greater farm income stability. Despite these benefits, the adoption of agroforestry practices remains low throughout the United States. One approach intended to increase the implementation of these ecologically beneficial practices is to offer financial incentives for landowners. Several USDA conservation programs provide applicant landowners with financial and technical resources to implement approved conservation practices, including tree planting. Missouri offers a unique socio-political context for the application of agroforestry tree plantings in established conservation programs as it is currently the only state with an Environmental Quality Incentives Program fund pool dedicated to agroforestry and woody crop establishment. To gather initial information on the potential for agroforestry in Missouri, seven conservation professionals from prominent agencies, including Natural Resource Conservation Service and University of Missouri Extension, were interviewed. The purpose of these interviews was to gather in-depth knowledge on (1) the current dialogue around trees in conservation programs between natural resource professionals and landowners (2) the relationships between landowners and conservation agencies and (3) the professionals' knowledge of and familiarity with agroforestry practices. Preliminary findings suggest there are misconceptions about the requirements and regulations for conservation programs among landowners and conservation professionals. Another common theme was that conservation agencies face challenges in forming long-term connections with landowners, and they rely primarily on landowners to reach out for assistance. Lastly, conservation professionals are supportive of agroforestry but wish for greater knowledge of the practices before promoting them to landowners. Due to the small sample size of interview participants, these insights provide one perspective into the agroforestry knowledge of natural resource professionals. These initial findings will help direct future research on how well natural resource professionals understand agroforestry concepts and how they are engaging with Missouri farmers to support them in planting trees on their land.

The climate crisis is worsening, and agricultural extraction is exacerbating the effects of these changes. The U.S. Congress has authorized conservation-minded programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to mitigate the impacts that agriculture has on the environment, yet the climate and land-health crises persist. A Systems Thinking-focused Agent Based Approach (ABA) reveals the system of EQIP perpetuates a culture of competition and conflict that stifles innovation. Remedying the wicked problems that persist in the EQIP system may be critical to creating a culture of sustainable-minded agriculture that this country needs to fight the larger battle against climate change.

Landowner satisfaction with conservation programs affects their participation decisions and subsequently effectiveness of these programs in improving environmental quality. This study determined the influence of landownership goals, environmental concerns, frequency of contacts with federal agencies, and socioeconomic factors on landowner satisfaction with available conservation programs in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley and East Gulf Coastal Plain sub-geographies of the Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks Landscape Conservation Cooperative. A generalized ordered logit model for each conservation program was constructed to analyze factors influencing landowner satisfaction levels with these programs. Of the 14 federal conservation programs assessed, the top programs, based on a satisfaction level, included Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA), Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), and Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP). The size of agricultural land owned, landownership goals including profit-making and personal recreation, concerns about wildlife habitat losses, and frequent contacts with federal agencies were positively related to landowner satisfaction levels. Better strategies addressing landowner’s environmental concerns, communicating technical knowledge, clarifying contract terms, and supporting financial resource leveraging will help reach the enrolled and non-enrolled landowners to increase their participation in conservation efforts.

Abstract The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is the primary conservation program on working agricultural land. The United States Department of Agriculture obligated over $15 billion through EQIP cost‐sharing contracts during the fiscal years 2009–2019. The voluntary nature of the program and the lack of performance assessment have led to speculations regarding the effectiveness of the program in delivering environmental benefits, in particular for improving water quality. This study provides quantitative estimates of the influence of EQIP payments on local water quality at a national scale. We link monitoring station level water quality readings with EQIP contract data and exploit the direction of river flow for identification. The estimated effects of EQIP vary across water quality measures. Estimates indicate that EQIP payments have significantly reduced biochemical oxygen demand and nitrogen, indicating improvements in water quality, but increased total suspended solids, fecal coliform, and phosphorus, suggesting that the implementation of certain conservation practices might have increased soil erosion and pathogen transfer, especially in watersheds with more agricultural production.

Abstract This study explores how aggregate payments received from two different U.S. agricultural conservation programs—the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)—influence county‐level cover crop adoption rates in the Corn Belt. We utilize 2006–2015 county‐level panel data with information on cover crop adoption rates and per acre conservation program payments to achieve the study objective. Cover crop adoption information is collected from a unique satellite‐based data set of soil health practices. Linear fixed effect models, fractional regression models, and a moment‐based instrumental variables model are used in the empirical analysis. Our estimation results suggest that EQIP payments have a statistically significant positive effect on cover crop adoption at the county level. In contrast, we find statistical evidence that CSP payments reduce the county‐level proportion of acres planted to cover crops. These opposing effects indicate that it is possible for conservation payment programs to have differing aggregate effects on adoption rates of specific conservation practices (e.g., cover crops in this case). Moreover, these results imply that not all conservation programs “are created equal” and differences in policy designs and focus areas may induce diverging effects in the uptake of particular conservation practices.

HighlightsDeveloped Useful Life Total Cost (ULTC) functions for 23 types of agricultural conservation practices.Derived each cost function from multiple ULTC estimates bracketing a range of design variations and sizes for each agricultural conservation practice.Developed Annual ULTC based on practice life cycle duration.Compared Prioritize, Target, Measure Application costs to ULTC.Recommend using ULTC rather than Prioritize, Target, Measure Application Environmental Quality Incentives Program payment as a cost surrogate. Abstract. The cost to achieve water quality goals is an essential piece of information necessary for assessing whether the expected societal benefits are worthy of investment.Within the United States, taxes generate the “public money” to pay to improve water quality. State and Federal Agencies distribute the public’s money to local governments and landowners as grants and cost-share to implement agricultural conservation practices (“practices”). Comparing the cost to improve water quality and the anticipated public benefit helps inform the investment decision.The lack of a robust method for estimating the cost of practices and developing a Water Quality Strategy hampers the ability to compare cost and benefits. Within Minnesota and North Dakota, Water Quality Practitioners commonly use the Prioritize, Target, Measure Application (PTMApp) to develop strategies to improve water quality. PTMApp utilizes the Environmental Quality Incentives Program payment as a surrogate to estimate practice cost. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program payment is a percentage of the estimated cost to implement a typical practice scenario, excluding the labor to plan, design and permit the practice; inspect the practice during construction; operate and maintain the practice; finance costs; and in most cases forgone income.We addressed the need for estimates of practice cost by developing Useful Life Total Costs (UTLCs) for 23 agricultural conservation practices. Useful Life Total Costs incurred throughout the practice life cycle begin with planning and end with reconstruction to maintain proper function. We developed multiple ULTCs (year 2020) for each practice by bracketing the range of design variations and sizes. Legacy PTMApp costs ranged from 1% to 55% of the UTLC, confirming underestimation of the actual practice costs.Cost functions developed by selecting the best-fit line between the ULTCs and a predominant practice physical characteristic are useful for developing Water Quality Strategies. The cost functions, recently incorporated into PTMApp, considerably improve the ability to estimate the actual cost to achieve water quality goals and societal benefits. Keywords: Benefits, Implementation, Life cycle, Planning, PTMApp, Useful life, Water quality.

Rigorous density estimates can inform management, conservation planning, and policy decisions. Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus; hereafter, bobwhite) populations are declining throughout their range, including the southeastern United States. Numerous private land conservation initiatives are underway to restore bobwhite populations in these areas, but baseline estimates of density spanning privately owned forests are sparse. This information gap makes it difficult to evaluate the population-level effects of these conservation programs or develop expectations for timelines to reach population targets. We sought to understand baseline densities across privately owned pine forests in the southeastern United States in areas targeted for bobwhite conservation. We sampled 138 pine stands a total of 286 times across Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina from 2018 to 2020 using autumn distance sampling point counts. We sampled 110 stands that were either planned or applied U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) management contracts, specifically Working Lands for Wildlife (WLFW) Northern Bobwhite partnerships or similar Environmental Quality Incentives Program contracts. The WLFW contracts were solely in focal counties identified in the National Bobwhite Conservation Initiative 2.0 plan and by cooperating state wildlife agencies. Contracts were on average 17.4 ha (SD = 27.0). We also sampled 28 areas with extensive (>200 ha) and intensive (e.g., at least every 3 years for the last ~10 years) habitat management for bobwhite. We used a hierarchical distance sampling model to estimate density. Density was lowest in North Carolina and South Carolina. Densities in Alabama were slightly greater, and greatest densities were in Georgia and Florida. However, the majority of observed densities were 2 coveys/40 ha or below, and all were below 4 coveys/40 ha. Large and intensively managed sites on average had 4 times greater density compared to smaller contracts. Specific densities will be reported in the future. Our sampling efforts fill an important information gap regarding densities throughout private lands in the southeastern United States. Our models indicate that bobwhite densities are generally low in pine forests of the Southeast even in counties identified as having the greatest conservation potential. The relatively greater densities at large and intensively managed sites illustrate the need for more intensive landscape-scale planning when implementing private land conservation. Pending research will compare densities at planned and applied NRCS contracts in the context of landscape-scale habitat amount.

This article overviews the prairie and tree planting tool or PT2 (1.0), an online GIS-based decision support tool for landowners interested in exploring opportunities to plant prairie or trees in and around their farm fields for conservation or production purposes. PT2 1.0 can be found online at: https://pt2.nrem.iastate.edu/. With the PT2 (1.0) users locate farm fields of interest in an online aerial photograph and mapping geographic information system (GIS). Users explore areas they are considering for prairie or tree cover by examining different data layers: soil maps, 2-foot contour topography maps, LiDAR hillshade maps, and a map of current land values based on estimated land rent. Users then utilize scaled dimensional drawing tools to measure and delineate areas of interest for planting trees and or prairie. Once an area is delineated, users select from drop-down menus prairie seed mixes or woody species that are suitable for the soils present, and users can select basic long-term management options. PT2 (1.0) estimates total annualized costs for tree or prairie establishment, long-term management, and opportunity costs (based on area weighted expected soil rent), and factors in the potential benefit of utilizing government cost-share programming, e.g., Environmental Quality Incentive Program or the Conservation Reserve Program. Key data layers are currently functional in Iowa, likewise the financial data underlying the cost analysis are specific to Iowa. PT2 (1.0) is, however, open source and open code and guidance is provided regarding how to access and adapt the data for use in other states.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10457-021-00686-8.