In many areas, conversion from conventional production practices to conservation practices (minimum tillage, cover crops, crop rotation/diversity, manure/livestock addition) results in an immediate benefit to both crop yield and yield stability over space and time. It is my expectation that land areas that would have an immediate benefit would have soils that are highly erodible, course textured, and/or inherently low fertility. Conversely, I expect that high fertility soils may experience a more delayed benefit from conversion to conservation practices. This concept, combined with other factors, I believe, are responsible for the low adoption rates for conservation practices throughout the midwestern United States. Although soil loss in this region is greater than the sustainable replacement rate. Some research, including my own (An Analysis of Yield Variation Under Soil Conservation Practices), has taken on this challenge by relating conservation practices to yield stability through space and time. The goal is to establish that if yields are more stable under conservation systems, crop insurance premiums should reflect that reduction in risk, similar to the way a healthy lifestyle results in a lower health or life insurance premium. This incentive by reduced crop insurance may better drive adoption of conservation practices and preserve the resource. This is meant to open a discussion on the topic for students, researchers, policy makers, etc. to explore this idea. Please share your thoughts on this topic. Cheers!

More W. Ashley Hammac's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions