Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

 

AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION ON WORKING 

LANDS: TRENDS FROM 2004 TO PRESENT

Contributors:

Marci Baranski, Helena Caswell, Roger Claassen, Charlotte Cherry, Kirsten Jaglo, Alex 

Lataille, Sharon Pailler, Diana Pape, Anne Riddle, Drew Stilson, and Kate Zook.

Published by:

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Office of the Chief Economist

Washington, D.C. 20250

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and 

institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from 

discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity 

(including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, 

family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, 

or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted 

or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing 

deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with Disabilities:

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program 

information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should 

contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, 

program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To File an Employment Complaint:

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination 

Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online 

at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a

letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the 

form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed 

form or letter to USDA by:

1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

1400 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410;

2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or

3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

For more Information:

Marci Baranski, USDA Office of Energy and Environmental Policy, 

mbaranski@oce.usda.gov

Kate Zook, USDA Office of Energy and Environmental Policy, kzook@oce.usda.gov

Suggested Citation:

Baranski, M., Caswell, H., Claassen, R., Cherry, C., Jaglo, K., Lataille, A., Pailler, S., Pape, 

D., Riddle, A., Stilson, D. and Zook, K., 2018. Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: 

Trends From 2004 to Present. Technical Bulletin Number 1950. Office of the Chief 

Economist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 127 pages. November 2018.

Acknowledgements: 

USDA’s Office of the Chief Economist gratefully acknowledges and thanks the following 

individuals for the time and effort they provided to produce this report: From the USDA 

Economic Research Service, Roger Claassen, Sharon Pailler, and Anne Riddle. From ICF, 

Diana Pape, Kirsten Jaglo, and Alexander Lataille. The contributions of these teams played 

a key role in developing the analysis and producing this report. USDA would also like to 

acknowledge those who reviewed and commented on previous drafts of the report. 

Addressing these comments significantly improved the quality of this document. 

Cover photo credit:

Photos used for the cover are reprinted courtesy of: the USDA Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, South Dakota; Conservation Media Library NRCS/SWCS photo by 

Lynn Betts; and Shutterstock. 
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

 

CONTENTS

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 4

Purpose of Report 4

Agriculture and GHG Emissions 5

Practices That Reduce GHG Emissions and Provide Environmental Benefits 6

Overview of Goal, Research, Data Sources, and Agricultural Conservation Indicators8

Cropland 17

Overview of Cropland Agricultural Conservation Practices 17

Nitrogen Application 17

Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizers 34

Precision Agriculture 36

Cover Crops 46

Reduced Tillage 49

Recovery and Use of Biogas From Anaerobic Digesters for Manure 

Management 64

Overview of Anaerobic Digesters 64

Application 65

Digester Types 68

Digesters by USDA Farm Production Region 68

Observed Trends 69

Summary and Conclusions 70

Practices Included in the Report 70

Summary of Cropland Data 70

Summary of Anerobic Digester Data 72

Next Steps 72

Works Cited 74

Appendix A: USDA Data Sources on Agricultural Conservation Practices 86

Appendix B: Conservation Technology Innovation Center (CTIC) Cover Crop Data 89

Appendix C: Data Tables 93

Appendix D: Survey Questions 118
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Executive Summary 1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) supports the use of conservation practices and 

technologies on working lands as a strategy to improve environmental outcomes. Use of 

conservation practices on farms can produce a variety of benefits, including improved soil 

and water quality, carbon sequestration, reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, 

reduced production costs, and increased yields. Conservation practices on working lands 

also have tradeoffs between different environmental benefits and have variable costs to 

implement and maintain.

In order to improve the effectiveness of USDA and other organizations supporting 

agricultural conservation, it is important to understand recent trends in adoption of 

conservation practices. For USDA, we need this knowledge to inform setting priorities and 

managing natural resources. In recent years, the private sector, including companies within 

the food and agricultural sectors, have set greenhouse gas reduction targets. An essential 

aspect of tracking progress towards GHG goals is having underlying data on agricultural 

production practices, including conservation practices. In response to this data gap in the 

private sector and other data needs, researchers at USDA and ICF have produced this 

report which outlines adoption of conservation practices over the past decade.

Tracking every conservation practice is beyond the scope of this report; as a result, the 

scope was narrowed to track a subset of working-lands conservation practices producing a 

common benefit: reduced GHG emissions or increased carbon sequestration. Specifically, 

we included practices that were targeted as part of USDA’s Building Blocks for ClimateSmart Agriculture and Forestry initiative and narrowed those to practices for which survey 

data were available. Such practices include reduced tillage (mulch tillage and no tillage), 

nitrogen management, use of cover crops, use of precision agriculture technologies, and 

use of anaerobic digesters for manure, which generate GHG benefits by reducing 

emissions of nitrous oxide, methane, carbon dioxide, and/or increasing carbon 

sequestration. Reducing GHG emissions is not the only environmental benefit these 

practices provide. They can also reduce nutrient and sediment runoff, improve water 

quality, improve yields, and improve on-farm profitability, among other benefits.

This report fills an important gap in USDA publications in that it presents national- and 

regional-scale data on conservation practice and technology trends over the past decade. 

Data are primarily from the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS)-National Agricultural 

Statistics Service (NASS) Agricultural Resources Management Survey (ARMS) and the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) AgSTAR database. National-scale data 

from the USDA Conservation Effects Assessment Program on tillage were also included. 

For practices where data were available by crop type and region, we present data for corn, 

soy, and wheat. Results are presented regionally by cropping system and farm size. By 

combining publicly available survey data on the implementation rates of these agricultural 

practices between 2004 and 2016, this report provides an improved understanding of U.S. 

farmers’ use of conservation and establishes sector-wide trends in adoption of conservation 

practices during this time period. Importantly, this report tracks practices adopted by the 

agricultural community at large, reported only through statistically representative survey 
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Executive Summary 2 

data. As such, the results of this report do not distinguish between practices adopted with 

the support of USDA programs and those adopted without financial assistance or through 

other incentive programs. 

Nitrogen is an important agricultural input critical for crop production. Runoff and 

volatilization of nitrogen from the soil has negative impacts on atmospheric and water 

quality. Thus, applying nitrogen according to the “4Rs” (right source, right rate, right time, 

right place) can improve environmental outcomes. Over the time period studied, nitrogen 

rate increased slightly for corn, remained constant for soy, and remained about the same 

for wheat. The Southeast region had the highest nitrogen application rates in 2016 for corn. 

Nitrogen applied per bushel decreased slightly for corn from 2005 to 2016, for soy from 

2006 to 2012, and for wheat for 2004 to 2009. In terms of nitrogen application method and 

timing for corn production, results were relatively constant from 2005 to 2016 (fall vs. spring 

application and incorporation vs. no incorporation). Enhanced efficiency fertilizers are 

another avenue to increase the nitrogen-use efficiency of crops. From 2005 to 2010, use of 

enhanced efficiency fertilizers on corn increased from 8.5 percent to 12.5 percent.

Precision agriculture includes the use of various technologies, such as tractor guidance 

systems using a global positioning system (GPS), GPS soil sampling, and GPS yield 

mapping. These technologies help farms gather information on field conditions and sitespecific within-field limitations and allow for adjustments to production practices, such as 

variable-rate technology. Adoption of precision-agriculture techniques, including variablerate technology (VRT) and GPS guidance systems, increased substantially over the period 

studied. For corn grown in the Corn Belt, adoption of VRT increased from 6 to 8 to 35 

percent from 2005 to 2010 to 2016. Larger farms were more likely to adopt VRT. Adoption 

of VRT increased in all regions for corn. Similarly, for GPS-guided auto steer systems, the 

percent of corn acres grown using auto steer increased overall from 2005 to 2016 in all 

regions, except for the Southeast region which decreased from 2010 to 2016. Adoption 

rates of auto steer for corn increased from 13 to 47 to 56 percent in the Corn Belt from 2005 

to 2010 to 2016.

Cover crops, or crops that are not harvested, can contribute to conservation goals including 

reduced erosion, improved soil quality, and reduced GHG emissions. Adoption of cover 

crops increased from 2010 to 2015, though cover crop adoption is relatively low, overall. 

Cover crops were grown on a very small percentage of acres in each of the five major 

production regions. Nationally, the acreage of cover crops planted was 7.7 million acres in 

2010 (2 percent of all planted acres) and increased to 16.3 million acres in 2015 (4 percent 

of all planted acres). The Corn Belt had the largest increase in acres of cover crops planted 

from 2010 to 2015, while the Northeast had the highest ratio of adoption.

Tillage is the preparation of soil for seeding. It is also used to control weeds and pests and 

to incorporate fertilizers and manures. The more disruptive or intense the tillage, the higher 

the likelihood of soil erosion, nutrient runoff into nearby waterways, and the release of 

GHGs. Results on reduced tillage varied by crop and region. The proportion of acres grown 

using no tillage showed the greatest increase for wheat, increased slightly for corn, and 

decreased slightly for soybeans, based on ARMS data. The proportion of acres grown 

using some type of reduced tillage (mulch tillage or no tillage) was relatively constant for 

corn for 2005 to 2016, decreased for soybeans, and increased for wheat. Data from 

USDA’s Conservation Effects Assessment Program (CEAP) come from all crops over 3 
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Executive Summary 3 

consecutive years. Based on these data, the vast majority of crops grown annually (93 

percent) are grown using some type of reduced tillage from 2003 to 2006.

Anaerobic digester systems can reduce biogas (and methane emissions) by capturing the 

emitted gases and using them to generate electricity and/or heat or converting them to 

carbon dioxide (CO2). The number of operating digesters increased from 63 in 2004 to 248 

in 2017. Complete mix (35 percent) and plug flow digesters (42 percent) were the two most 

common types of anaerobic digesters built between 2004 and 2017. Most new digesters 

were fed by dairy cow manure (196 out of 248).

This report helps establish a baseline of adoption of select conservation practices and 

technologies on working lands in the United States. Ideally, this effort would be repeated 

every two years to incorporate new data and to add new practices. Lack of consistent, 

nationally and statistically relevant data has limited the types of conservation practices that 

can be described in detail. Large data gaps remain in data for grazing lands and manure 

management.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Introduction 4 

INTRODUCTION

Purpose of Report

Agricultural conservation has been a priority for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

since the 1930s, and USDA continues to promote conservation on working lands today

(USDA NRCS, 2018b; USDA, 2017). The use of conservation practices on farms can 

produce a variety of benefits, including improved soil and water quality, carbon 

sequestration, reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, reduced production costs, and 

increased yields (Boyle, 2006; Stute, 2013; Mitchell & Moore, 2014; Wade, Claassen, & 

Wallander, 2015). 

It is important to understand the trends in adoption of conservation practices over time in 

order to improve the effectiveness of USDA and other organizations supporting agricultural 

conservation. USDA conservation programs are only one of many avenues that inform 

farmers of conservation opportunities and incentivize farmers to adopt conservation 

practices. There are State conservation programs, programs managed by nongovernmental organizations, private-sector initiatives and coalitions, stewardship programs, 

and producer groups that encourage farmers to improve environmental outcomes. A wide 

diversity exists in the type and location of practices adopted across these programs. In 

addition, farmers may choose to adopt a conservation practice on their own, without a 

financial incentive. Without a firm understanding of which agricultural conservation practices 

are adopted in various regions across the United States, it is difficult to efficiently prioritize 

and set baselines and targets for their conservation strategies.

In addition to measuring progress toward conservation goals, studying trends in adoption 

can help identify patterns in farmer motivation, allowing USDA and other organizations to 

improve conservation program delivery. There are tradeoffs associated with implementing 

conservation practices on farms (Naidoo, et al., 2006). Although on-farm benefits (such as 

improved soil health and increased yield) can result from adopting conservation practices, 

there are typically up-front costs necessary to implement these practices (Boyle, 2006; 

Stute, 2013; Mitchell & Moore, 2014; Wade, Claassen, & Wallander, 2015; Carlisle, 2016). 

Therefore, it should not be assumed that farmers will adopt conservation in the absence of 

financial or educational support. Farm conservation ultimately requires action on the part of 

private landowners, who must go beyond conventional production methods and invest time 

and money to provide environmental benefits—ultimately generating public goods, such as 

cleaner air and water (Swinton, Rector, Robertson, Jolejole-Foreman, & Lupi, 2015).

USDA and other organizations encourage a wide variety of on-farm conservation practices, 

such as reduced tillage, irrigation management, and manure management planning. Each

conservation practice provides a set of environmental benefits, and these vary depending 

on the practice. Choosing to implement one practice, or a suite of practices, depends on the 

producer’s goals and operation, and organizations supporting farm conservation may 

encourage a particular practice to achieve a specific environmental outcome. 
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Introduction 5 

Tracking every conservation practice is beyond the scope of this report; as a result, the 

scope was narrowed to track a subset of working-lands conservation practices producing a 

common public benefit: reduced GHG emissions or increased carbon sequestration. 

Specifically, we included practices that were targeted as part of USDA’s Building Blocks for 

Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry initiative and narrowed that to practices for which 

survey data were available. Such practices include reduced tillage (mulch tillage and no 

tillage), nitrogen management, use of cover crops, use of precision agriculture 

technologies, and use of anaerobic digesters for manure, which generate GHG benefits by 

reducing emissions of nitrous oxide, methane, carbon dioxide, and/or increasing carbon 

sequestration (Eve, et al., 2014). Reducing GHG emissions is not the only environmental 

benefit these practices provide. They can also reduce nutrient and sediment runoff, improve 

water quality, improve yields, and improve on-farm profitability, among other benefits 

(Boyle, 2006; Stute, 2013; Mitchell & Moore, 2014; Wade, Claassen, & Wallander, 2015).

Results are presented regionally by cropping system and farm size. By combining publicly 

available survey data on the implementation rates of these agricultural practices between

2004 and 2016,

1

this report provides an improved understanding of U.S. farmers’ use of 

conservation and establishes sector-wide trends in adoption of conservation practices 

during this time period. Importantly, this report tracks practices adopted by the agricultural 

community at large, reported only through statistically representative survey data. As 

such, the results of this report do not distinguish between practices adopted with the 

support of USDA programs and those adopted without financial assistance or through 

other incentive programs. 

This report fills an important gap in USDA publications in that it presents national- and 

regional-scale data on conservation practice and technology trends. By identifying current 

adoption rates and trends of select agricultural conservation practices that both reduce 

GHG emissions and provide additional environmental benefits, USDA and other 

organizations can better understand farmers’ actions today and develop strategies to 

increase adoption of these practices in the future. 

Agriculture and GHG Emissions

Agriculture comprised approximately 9 percent of all GHG emissions in the United States in 

2015, the majority of which came from agricultural soil management (including nitrogen 

fertilization resulting in nitrous oxide emissions), enteric fermentation, and manure 

management (EPA, 2017b). Conservation practices with the potential to reduce nitrous 

oxide emissions include variable rate technology (VRT) used for fertilizer application and 

improved nitrogen management, such as the use of nitrogen stabilizers and nitrogen

inhibitors (ICF International, 2013; Butchee, May, & Arnall, 2011; Balafoutis, Koundouras, 

Anastasiou, Fountas, & Arvanitis, 2017). Conservation practices that have been shown to 

increase carbon sequestration and/or reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from soils 

include growing cover crops and using reduced tillage (ICF International, 2013; ICF 

International, 2016). Digesters, by design, reduce GHG emissions by capturing and utilizing 

 

1 Tracking varies for each type of conservation program or practice. Data on acres using these practices are 

determined through agricultural surveys, such as those conducted by USDA ARMS or CEAP. See section 1.3.2 

for more information on these surveys.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Introduction 6 

or burning methane emissions produced from the breakdown of manure by anaerobic 

microbes (USDA NRCS, 2009; ICF International, 2013).

Practices That Reduce GHG Emissions and Provide 

Environmental Benefits

For the purposes of this report, the focus is on those conservation practices that reduce 

GHG emissions while also providing additional environmental benefits. Specifically, the 

report addresses:

 Cropland conservation practices, including:

- Soil health-related practices that improve soil organic matter, enhance soil carbon 

sequestration, and reduce emissions from soils and equipment.

- Nitrogen stewardship practices that reduce nitrous oxide emissions, potentially 

reduce impacts to water quality, and provide cost savings to farmers by reducing 

inputs. This is accomplished by focusing on the right timing of application, using the 

right nutrient source, right placement, and applying the right amount of nutrients

(typically referred to as the “4Rs”).

 Manure management, manure treatment, and renewable energy production from use 

of anaerobic digesters.

Within each of these categories, we focus on specific practices. A definition of each of the 

practices included in this report is provided below. 

Soil Health

 Tillage Management for four categories:

- Conventional tillage: Less than 15 percent residue cover remaining. Moldboard 

plow or other intensive tillage used such as chisel or disc. Cultivation and/or 

herbicides for weed control (Osteen, Gottlieb, & Vasavada (eds.), 2012).

- Mulch tillage: 15 to 30 percent residue cover remaining. No use of moldboard plow 

and intensity of tillage reduced. Soil is disturbed prior to planting, using less 

intensive tillage tools. Cultivation and/or herbicide for weed control (Osteen, 

Gottlieb, & Vasavada (eds.), 2012).

- Reduced tillage: Term that refers to any tillage practice that results in greater than 

15 percent of residue cover remaining, including mulch tillage, no tillage, or a 

combination of the two practices. Other publications may use the term “conservation 

tillage.” 

- No tillage: 30 percent or greater of the soil surface covered by residue after 

planting. No tillage performed. Weed control typically accomplished primarily with 

herbicides (Osteen, Gottlieb, & Vasavada (eds.), 2012).

 Soil Tillage Intensity Rating (STIR)2: STIR is a rating scale based on the kind, severity,

and number of ground-disturbing activities in a crop field. Lower numbers indicate less 

 

2 STIR ratings are an evaluation tool, not a production practice. However, they are included on this list as STIR 

ratings are used to categorize CEAP tillage practices later in the report.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Introduction 7 

overall disturbance to the soil. No tillage management requires a STIR value of 10 to 30 

or less.3 Values may range from 0 to 200. Components of STIR include:

- Operating speed of tillage equipment,

- Tillage equipment type,

- Tillage depth,

- Percent of surface area disturbed (USDA NRCS, 2006; USDA NRCS, 2008).

 Cover Crop: A crop which is not harvested. Conservation purpose includes reducing 

soil erosion, improving soil’s physical and biological properties, supplying nutrients, and 

suppressing weeds (USDA RMA, 2016). 

Nitrogen Stewardship

 Nutrient Management: Managing the amount (rate), source, placement (method of 

application), and timing of plant nutrients and soil amendments (NRCS, NHCP, 2012).

 Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizers: Fertilizer products with characteristics that allow 

increased plant uptake and reduce the potential of nutrient losses to the environment 

(e.g., gaseous losses, leaching, or runoff) when compared to an appropriate reference 

product (AAPFCO, 2013).

 Precision Agriculture: A management system that is information and technology

based, and site-specific. The system typically uses one or more of the following sources 

of data: soils, crops, nutrients, pests, moisture, or yield, for optimum profitability, 

sustainability, and protection of the environment (USDA NRCS, 2007).

- Variable Rate Technology (VRT): Computer-controlled equipment that continually 

readjusts the application. Sampling data provide the development of a prescription 

for nutrients, pesticides, seeds, or irrigation water to be applied to each area. In the 

application of nutrients, pesticides, and seeds, this may include “on the fly” 

adjustments in the field, which are made possible by a GPS receiver that recognizes

the area and provides a prescription for specific areas in the field. Computercontrolled nozzles can also vary the type and amounts of specific inputs according 

to the variable rate application plan (USDA NRCS, 2007).

- Integrated Guidance Systems (Auto steering equipment): A GPS guidance 

system that steers agricultural equipment with centimeter accuracy. These systems 

provide reduced inputs by decreasing gaps and overlaps, as well as delivering 

fertilizer directly to the seed trench more accurately (USDA NRCS, 2007).

Manure Management

 Manure Digesters: Animal excreta with or without straw are collected and 

anaerobically digested in a large containment vessel (complete mix or plug flow 

digester) or a covered lagoon. Digesters are designed and operated for waste 

stabilization by the microbial reduction of complex organic compounds to CO2 and 

methane (CH4), which are captured and flared or used as a fuel (EPA, 2016b). An 

anaerobic digester is a component of a waste management system that provides 

biological treatment in the absence of oxygen (USDA NRCS, 2009).

 

3

In this report, STIR ratings of <30 are considered “no tillage.”
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Introduction 8 

Overview of Goal, Research, Data Sources, and 

Agricultural Conservation Indicators

Goal

This project was developed to establish a baseline using data from 2004 to present and to

frame a process for tracking adoption of select agricultural conservation practices that both 

reduce GHG emissions and provide additional environmental benefits from 2018 and 

beyond. By identifying current adoption rates and trends at the regional and national levels, 

USDA may be able to better understand farmers’ actions today and develop strategies to 

increase future adoption of these practices. Additionally, as described above, use of these 

practices can reduce the net GHG emissions produced by agriculture (USDA NRCS, 

2017h). As the United States estimates agricultural GHG emissions annually in the U.S. 

Greenhouse Gas Inventory, a better understanding of the adoption rates of these practices 

can be used to improve GHG estimates for the agriculture sector. 

Research 

A targeted literature search was conducted to summarize publicly available data on adoption 

of the selected conservation practices. The search focused primarily on peer-reviewed journal 

articles, reports, and databases from Federal and State agencies (e.g., USDA, EPA) and 

agriculture industry reports. Specifically of interest were reports and/or databases on the 

historical and current use of the conservation practices of interest in the United States, 

especially those that could be used for time-series analyses for adoption of the conservation 

practice. Table 2 lists the terms that were evaluated in the literature search.

TABLE 1. Conservation-Related Terms for Literature Search

 Reduced Tillage

- Soil Tillage Intensity Rating (STIR)

- Erosion control measures

- Types of tillage

 Double Cropping

 Cover Crops

- Planting data

- Type of cover crop

- Termination method

- Termination date

 Nutrient Management

- Application timing

- Fertilizer type

- Application method

- Application rate

 Nutrient Management (continued)

- Nitrogen inhibitors

- Compost additions

- Manure additions

- Slow-release fertilizers

 Manure Management

- Percent of livestock managed by 

each manure management system 

(by State, livestock type)

- Manure management systems (e.g., 

anaerobic lagoons, ponds, deep-pit 

manure storage, covered lagoons)

- Methane capture

- Land application of manure

- Per unit greenhouse gas (GHG)

intensity
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Introduction 9 

Results from the literature search indicated that the desired granularity of data was not 

available for most of the agricultural practices or categories listed above. In certain

categories, such as use of nitrogen inhibitors, limited data were available at the national 

level, and very detailed data were available at the State level.

Our literature search indicated that there were several data sources that could provide 

enough data at the level of granularity needed to establish a baseline for some 

conservation practices. Each of these sources and the data provided are described below.

USDA NASS/ERS ARMS 

Through a joint enterprise of USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and 

Economic Research Service (ERS), a wide range of farming-related data is collected 

through the Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS). ARMS surveys do not 

cover the entire United States. The survey is designed to provide coverage of farms in the 

48 contiguous States plus State-level data for 15 major cash receipt States (USDA, 2018).

Survey sample rates are weighted so that sampled States are calibrated to official USDA 

estimates for production and acreage where possible. However, not all States are sampled 

each year, based on the target crop.4 Thus, total crop acreage reported from ARMS is 

typically about 90 to 95 percent of official USDA acreage estimates from the USDA Census 

of Agriculture.

For this report, ERS compiled data on tillage practices (mulch tillage and no tillage), 

average nitrogen application rates, and precision agriculture (both VRT and guidance 

steering) by farm size, crop type (corn, soybean, and wheat), and production region for the 

years between 2004 and 2016 for which data were collected— corn (2005, 2010, and 2016

surveys), soybean (2006 and 2012 surveys), and wheat (2004 and 2009 surveys). 

Additionally, ERS compiled data on nitrogen application timing and application method by 

farm size and USDA region for corn in 2005, 2010, and 2016. For cover crops, data on farm 

size (including both crop and animal production) and number of acres where cover crops 

were planted were compiled by ERS by region for which data were collected (2010, 2011, 

2012, and 2015 surveys). As the data were grouped by farm production region, no 

confidential or sensitive information was shared.

USDA Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) 

CEAP is a multi-agency effort to quantify the environmental effects of conservation 

practices and programs and develop a science base for managing the agricultural 

landscape for environmental quality (USDA CEAP, 2017a). CEAP integrates the National 

Resources Inventory (NRI), geospatial databases, conservation practice implementation 

data, and partner monitoring data with analytical models and methods. CEAP Assessments 

are carried out at field, watershed, and landscape scale and include analysis of the 

cumulative effects and benefits of conservation practices on natural resources and the 

environment (USDA CEAP, 2017a). For this report, data on tillage in a 2003-2006 multiyear rotation were provided by NRCS and ERS. 

 

4 For more information on ARMS sampling and analysis, see https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/armsfarm-financial-and-crop-production-practices/documentation/
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Introduction 10 

A more comprehensive list of USDA sources of conservation data (for cropland, sensitive 

lands, and livestock) is available in Appendix A.

As the goal of this project is to track U.S. adoption of agricultural conservation practices that 

both enhance carbon sequestration and reduce GHG emissions as well as provide 

additional environmental benefits, our literature review demonstrated that large data gaps 

remain for many of the practices of interest (see TABLE 1 for the terms that were evaluated 

in the literature search). The practices for which enough data were found to either 

determine a change in practice over time or establish a baseline of current practice

adoption are:

 Nitrogen application amount, timing and method5

 VRT

 Integrated guidance systems (auto steering equipment)

 Cover crops

 Reduced tillage

 Anaerobic digesters

Note on Statistical Significance and Uncertainty in This Report

Any practice-adoption data with a relative standard error of 50 percent or higher are not 

included in this report. Consequently, all of the adoption estimates reported are significantly 

different from zero with 95 percent confidence. However, it is important to note that the 

trend estimates are not necessarily significantly different from each other, particularly 

when the differences are small (error bars are not included in this report). Therefore, for the 

majority of practices included in this report, conclusions drawn about trends in adoption 

over time are not necessarily statistically valid and should instead be interpreted as 

anecdotes.

Appendix C contains tables showing the number of data points for each region and the 

relative standard error (RSE) for each data set used in the report. When possible, data in 

the report are aggregated in two different ways: (1) by USDA region at all farm sizes; and 

(2) by farm size (i.e., <250 acres, 250–299 acres, 1,000+ acres) at the national level. The 

data source and the specific data used for each practice are described in more detail below.

USDA Regions and Crop Production Areas 

Farm Production Regions

Data presented in this report are shown either at the national level or aggregated into farm 

production regions. FIGURE 1 is a map showing the contiguous 48 States broken into 10

Farm Production Regions. Crop production in Alaska and Hawaii is not included in this 

report. See Appendix C for a list of States in each region.

 

5 Data on nitrogen application timing and method are for corn only.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Introduction 11 

FIGURE 1. Farm Production Regions

Source: (Aillery, et al., 2005)

U.S. Crop Production Data

Data for most of the crop conservation practices included in this report are specific to corn, 

soybeans, and wheat. Corn, soybeans, and wheat were chosen to track conservation

practice trends as, combined, they consistently account for approximately 65–70 percent of 

cropland in the United States and data are available on these practices for multiple years

from USDA ARMS. For example, in 2007, corn, soybeans, and wheat (including winter, 

spring, and durum) comprised approximately 67 percent (207 million acres) of the 309.6 

million harvested cropland acres, based on Census of Agriculture data (USDA, 2014). 

Similarly, in 2012, 220 million combined acres of corn, soybeans, and wheat were grown 

out of the 315 million harvested cropland acres (70 percent) (USDA, 2014).

In contrast, some of the data in this report are not specific to corn, soybeans, and wheat. 

For example, in addition to the crop-specific data, reduced tillage also includes an analysis 

of the types of tillage used during multi-year crop rotations on croplands. For cover crops, 

data are for farm-wide changes in acreage regardless of the cash crop.

U.S. Farmland

In 2012, the Census of Agriculture indicated that the proportion of U.S. farmland is

approximately 915 million acres, making up slightly more than 40 percent of all U.S. land. 

Of these acres, 45.4 percent were permanent pasture, 42.6 percent were cropland, 8.4

percent were woodland, and the remaining 3.6 percent acres were livestock facilities, 

farmsteads, buildings, etc. (USDA, 2014). These acreages and land use breakdowns are 
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Introduction 12 

nearly identical to those indicated by the 2007 Census of Agriculture (922 million farmland 

acres, 44.3 percent permanent pasture, 44 percent cropland, 8.2 percent woodland, and 

3.4 percent other) (USDA, 2014). A map showing 2012 farmland as a percentage of land 

area by county is shown in FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2. U.S. Farmland as a Percentage of Land Area by County, 

2012

Source: (USDA, 2014)

Corn Production Regions

Corn is the most widely produced feed grain in the United States, accounting for more than 

95 percent of total production and use for livestock (Corn and Other Feed Grains: 

Overview, 2017c). Based on ARMS surveys, in 2005, approximately 77,161,000 acres were 

planted; in 2010, approximately 81,894,000 acres were planted; and approximately 

86,856,000 acres were planted in 2016 (USDA ERS, 2005; USDA ERS, 2010b; USDA 
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Introduction 13 

ERS, 2016a).

6 The regions with the highest production levels include the Corn Belt, the 

Northern Plains, and the Lake States (see FIGURE 3 below for more details). These 

regions make up approximately 90 percent of U.S. corn production.

FIGURE 3. United States Corn Production Regions, 2010–2014

Source: (USDA OCE, 2014a). USDA NASS = National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

Soybean Production Regions

Soybeans are the dominant oilseed produced in the United States, accounting for about 90 

percent of U.S. oilseed production (USDA ERS, 2017b). Based on ARMS surveys, in 2006, 

approximately 73,278,000 acres were planted, and approximately 74,247,000 acres were 

planted in 2012 (USDA ERS, 2006; USDA ERS, 2012b). Like corn production, the regions 

 

6 Note that the values in this report are from ARMS surveys, which have acreages that are approximately 90-

95% of the acreages in the Census of Agriculture. To remain consistent, acreages of the selected production 

practices and total acreages are all from ARMS surveys in this report.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Introduction 14 

with the highest production levels include the Corn Belt, the Northern Plains, and the Lake 

States (see FIGURE 4 below for more details). 

FIGURE 4. United States Soybean Production Regions, 2010–2014

Source: (USDA OCE, 2014c). USDA NASS = National Agricultural Statistics Service.

Wheat Production Regions

Wheat ranks third among U.S. field crops in planted acreage and production, behind corn 

and soybeans. The three main types of wheat planted in the United States are winter, 

spring, and durum wheat (USDA ERS, 2017d). ARMS data used in this report include 

combined production data from all three types. Based on ARMS data, in 2004, 

approximately 53,598,000 acres were planted and approximately 52,206,000 acres were 

planted in 2009 (USDA ERS, 2004a; USDA ERS, 2004b; USDA ERS, 2004c; USDA ERS, 

2009a; USDA ERS, 2009b; USDA ERS, 2009c). The regions with the highest wheat 

acreage include the Northern Plains, the Southern Plains, and the Mountain regions (see

FIGURE 5, FIGURE 6, and FIGURE 7 below for more details). 
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Introduction 15 

FIGURE 5. United States Winter Wheat Production Regions, 2010–2014

Source: (USDA OCE, 2014e). USDA NASS = National Agricultural Statistics Service.

FIGURE 6. United States Spring Wheat Production Regions, 2010–2014

Source: (USDA OCE, 2014d). USDA NASS = National Agricultural Statistics Service.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Introduction 16 

FIGURE 7. United States Durum Wheat Production Regions, 2010–2014

Source: (USDA OCE, 2014b). USDA NASS = National Agricultural Statistics Service.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 17 

CROPLAND

Overview of Cropland Agricultural Conservation 

Practices

As described above, data for several types of agricultural practices were collected and 

analyzed for this report. These practices include:

 Amount of nitrogen applied by planted acre and yield

 Nitrogen timing and application method (corn only)

 Variable rate technology (VRT)

 Integrated guidance systems (auto steering equipment)

 Cover crops

 Reduced tillage

When possible, data were collected by year, region, and farm size either for land used for 

crops and livestock (cover crops), cropland (mulch tillage/no tillage) or for corn, soybean,

and wheat (nitrogen application amount, timing, and method;

7 precision agriculture; and 

mulch tillage/no tillage). 

Nitrogen Application

Nitrogen fertilizer is an important input in crop production. Applied annually, 40 to 70

percent of the fertilizer nitrogen applied is utilized by the crop, resulting in crop production

(Johnson, 2011). Average application rates (on acres that receive nitrogen) vary across 

regions due to variations in crop mixes, soil and climatic conditions, and current fertilizer 

recommendations. As a general rule, rates are higher for corn than for wheat and nitrogen 

is typically not applied to soybeans (Wade, Claassen, & Wallander, 2015; La Menza, 

Monzon, Specht, & Grassini, 2017; Mourtzinis, et al., 2018).

For most crops, increasing nitrogen application rate increases yield until a crop-specific 

maximum yield is reached. Nitrogen addition beyond this point will not result in any 

additional yield gains and may actually result in decreased yield. Additionally, as more 

nitrogen is applied, more is lost to the environment through volatilization into the air, 

leaching into ground water, emission from soil to air, and runoff into surface water (USDA 

ERS, 2016c). This loss increases dramatically as more nitrogen is applied in excess of the 

maximum yield. See FIGURE 8 for the effect of nitrogen fertilizer application rate on corn 

yield and soil nitrogen. 

 

7 Data on nitrogen application timing and method are for corn only.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 18 

FIGURE 8. Effects of Nitrogen Fertilizer Application Rate on Corn Yield 

and Soil Nitrogen

Source: (Hauck, 1990). Redrawn from California Agriculture, University of California, 31(5), 24-25 ©1977 The Regents of the 

University of California.

Reactive forms of excess nitrogen fertilizer, such as ammonia (NH3), ammonium (NH4), 

nitrogen oxides (NOx), nitrous oxide (N2O), and nitrate (NO3), can lead to acidification and 

eutrophication (nutrient enrichment) effects on forests, soils, and freshwater aquatic 

ecosystems; nitrate contamination of drinking water aquifers; biodiversity losses in 

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems; and other adverse effects (Ribaudo, et al., 2011). 

TABLE 2 below shows avenues of loss and percentage loss for different types of nitrogen. 

TABLE 2. Principal Nitrogen Forms

Avenues 

of Loss Principal Nitrogen Forms

Percent 

Loss

Immobilization Organic (-NH2), Ammonium (NH4

+

) and Nitrate (NO3

-

) 10 – 40%

Denitrification Nitrate (NO3

-

) and Nitrite (NO2

-

) 5 – 35%

NH3

Volatilization

Ammonia (NH3), Urea (CO=(-NH2)2 0 – 30% 

Leaching Nitrate (NO3

-

) and Urea (CO=(-NH2)2 0 – 20% 

Erosion Organic (-NH2), Ammonium (NH4

+

) and Nitrate (NO3

-

) 0 – 20%

Source: (Johnson, 2011)
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 19 

Application of nitrogen fertilizers to soils is the largest source of GHG emissions in 

agriculture. In 2015, it accounted for approximately 75 percent of N2O emissions and 3.8

percent of total emissions in the United States (EPA, 2017b).

Nutrient management helps ensure that crops have the nutrients they need while 

minimizing the opportunity for nutrients to be lost to the environment through runoff, 

leaching, or volatilization (Wade, Claassen, & Wallander, 2015). Increasing plant nitrogenuse efficiency (NUE) (i.e., maximizing the amount of applied fertilizer that makes it into the 

crop) can maintain or increase plant yield even while reducing fertilizer application 

(Ribaudo, et al., 2011; Robertson, et al., 2013). NUE for crops can be improved through 

using the “4Rs” in nitrogen application: applying the right source, at the right rate, at the

right time, in the right place (USDA NRCS, 2017a). Studies indicate that the majority of corn 

grown in the United States could use improvements in NUE and that such improvements 

(i.e., use of the 4Rs) could potentially reduce nitrogen emissions by 20–80 percent 

(Ribaudo, et al., 2011; Snyder & Fixen, 2012).

To improve nitrogen application timing, synchronization of application and crop nitrogen 

demand (i.e., applying the nitrogen when the plant most needs it) can increase nitrogen 

availability to the crop while reducing excess nitrogen in the soil. Determining the “best” 

nitrogen application timing requires considering multiple factors, including: specific plant 

needs, workload, application costs, seasonal differences in fertilizer price, and the risks of 

weather impeding application at the right time (Ribaudo, et al., 2011). Using corn as an 

example, instead of applying nitrogen in the fall without using a nitrogen inhibitor, improved

nitrogen application timing8 could mean either using split application (i.e., applying part of 

the nitrogen pre-plant and part of the nitrogen at or after planting), applying nitrogen at 

planting, or applying nitrogen after planting when plant needs are greatest (Ribaudo, et al., 

2011; Robertson, et al., 2013; USDA NRCS, 2017a).

Nitrogen fertilizer placement can affect the availability of nitrogen to crop uptake and the

sucepability of nitrogen to be transformed into reactive forms. Fertilizer placement falls into 

two general types: 

1. Applied to surface of soil and not incorporated (i.e., broadcast).

2. Surface applied then incorporated into the soil or applied below the soil surface (i.e.,

broadcast and mechnically incorporated, injection of nutrients below the soil surface, or 

subsurface band application).

When nitrogen fertilizer is broadcast on the soil surface, it is less available to plant roots for 

uptake and, depending on conditions, has been found to have up to 50 percent higher N2O 

emission rates than incorporated fertilizer (USDA NRCS, 2017a; Ribaudo, et al., 2011; 

Paustian, et al., 2016; Millar, Robertson, Grace, Gehl, & Hoben, 2010; Cavigelli, Del 

Grosso, Liebig, & al., 2012; Snyder C. , 2016). As such, incorporating fertilizer into the soil 

typically increases plant NUE and reduces N2O emissions.

 

8

“Improved nitrogen application timing” is defined as applying nitrogen at a time(s) that will increase plant NUE. 

In this report, improved nitrogen application timing includes split application before and at planting and 

application after planting. Nitrogen application in the fall before planting is not considered to be “improved” 

nitrogen application timing in this report, as we assume no nitrogen inhibitor is applied.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 20 

Nitrogen Application Amount Key Findings:

 Corn had the highest nitrogen per acre application rate and the highest percentage of 

applied acres of the three crops studied.

 The total amount of nitrogen applied to corn9increased from between 2005 and 2016,

while the average pounds of nitrogen per bushel10 decreased during this time period.

 Wheat had the highest nitrogen per bushel application rate of the crops studied.

 Soybeans had the largest increase in total nitrogen applied nationally despite having the 

lowest application rate. The increase in applied nitrogen from 2006 to 2012 was due to 

an increase in applied acres. The national average pounds of nitrogen/bushel for 

soybeans remained about the same from 2006 to 2012.

Reasons for Adoption Trends:

 Differences in application rates for corn, soy, and wheat are due to crop-specific 

nitrogen needs (Wade, Claassen, & Wallander, 2015).

 The decrease over time in the average pounds of nitrogen per bushel for corn and 

wheat could be an indication of improved nitrogen management of these crops, in 

addition to increases in yield per acre (USDA ERS, 2016d).

 The dramatic increase in percentage of applied acres of nitrogen for soybeans and the

slight increase in pounds of nitrogen per bushel from 2004 to 2009 could be due to 

newer production practices encouraging nitrogen fertilization to increase soybean yield

(La Menza, Monzon, Specht, & Grassini, 2017; Mourtzinis, et al., 2018).

Application Amount

In this report, data on the total acreage of crops, the mean amount of nitrogen fertilizer 

applied per acre, and per bushel to corn, soybean, and wheat crops are from USDA ARMS. 

The estimation of amount applied per bushel is based on the survey respondent’s estimate 

of the yield of that crop, not actual yield. The corn data are from the 2005, 2010, and 2016

surveys; the soybean data are from the 2006 and 2012 surveys; and the wheat data are 

from 2004 and 2009 surveys. Data were obtained from USDA ERS.

The specific questions on nitrogen application in the ARMS surveys that provided the data 

used in this report are listed in Appendix D (USDA ERS, 2004a; USDA ERS, 2004b; USDA 

ERS, 2004c; USDA ERS, 2005; USDA ERS, 2006; USDA ERS, 2009a; USDA ERS, 2009b; 

USDA ERS, 2009c) (USDA ERS, 2010b; USDA ERS, 2012b; USDA ERS, 2016a).

Data are presented in two ways: (1) mean nitrogen pounds per treated acre or per bushel 

by USDA region and (2) mean nitrogen pounds per treated acre or per bushel by farm size 

(<250 acres, 250–299 acres, 1,000+ acres) at the national level. The relative standard error 

was too high (>50 percent) to present data by both farm size and by USDA region.

 

9 Total amount of nitrogen applied is determined by multiplying total applied acres x mean pounds/acre. 

10 Based on estimated yield.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 21 

Nitrogen Applied to Corn Crops

Based on ARMS data, 77.2 million acres of corn were planted in 2005, 81.9 million acres 

were planted in 2010, and 86.9 million acres were planted in 2016. The regions with the 

highest acreage were the Corn Belt, the Northern Plains, and the Lake States. On average 

between the 3 survey years, these regions made up approximately 90 percent of U.S. corn 

acreage. 

FIGURE 9 shows a breakdown of nitrogen per treated acre for corn in eight of the 

production regions, aggregated by region or farm size. Key findings indicate:

 On corn acres where nitrogen was applied, mean application rates increased between 

2005, 2010 and 2016 in the three major production regions. 

 Mean nitrogen application rates increased from 2005 to 2016 in the Corn Belt, the 

Northern Plains, and the Lake States. 

 In 2016, the Southeast had the highest mean nitrogen application rate (165 

pounds/acre) and the Northeast had the lowest application rates (78 pounds/acre). 

 Larger farms, on average, applied more nitrogen per acre in 2016 than medium or small 

farms. Small farms applied the least nitrogen per acre in that year, on average.

 Total nitrogen application (total applied acres times mean pounds/acre) for corn

covered by ARMS was approximately 9.23 X 109 pounds in 2005, 9.79 X 109 pounds in 

2010, and 1.1 X 1010 pounds in 2016.

 The average national rate for nitrogen applied to corn increased from 121 to 128 

pounds per acre.

See Appendix C for more detail.11

FIGURE 10 presents the nitrogen applied per expected yield in bushels. Key findings 

indicate:

 For nitrogen per bushel,

12 mean application rates decreased between 2005 and 2016 in 

the three major production regions (see FIGURE 10a). 

 In 2016, the Southeast had the highest mean nitrogen application rates (1.20 

pounds/bushel) and the Northeast had the lowest application rates (0.57 

pounds/bushel). 

 While total U.S. nitrogen application increased during the same period, the average 

pounds of nitrogen per bushel for corn decreased slightly from 0.84 in 2005 to 0.77 in 

2016.

 Small farms, on average, applied slightly less nitrogen per bushel than medium or large 

farms in 2016.

 

11 Appendix C presents the data tables used to generate the graphics provided throughout the report. Please 

see Appendix C for additional details for all the cropland conservation practices.

12 Nitrogen per bushel is determined by dividing total amount of nitrogen applied by farmer estimated yield for 

nitrogen treated acres. Nitrogen per bushel values only apply to acres treated by nitrogen.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 22 

FIGURE 9. Nitrogen Applied to Treated Corn Crops 

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2005, 

2010, and 2016.

A. U.S. map showing planted acres of corn by U.S. State. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted acres; darker 

colors indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres. Grey color indicates no data. M = million.

B. Graph of national average of applied pounds of nitrogen per treated acre by farm size. Lightest color indicates earliest

timepoint (2005), medium color indicates mid timepoint (2010), and darkest color indicates latest time point (2016).

C. Graph of average applied pounds of nitrogen per treated acre by USDA region (upper graph) and total number of acres 

where nitrogen is applied by region (lower). Box designates the three largest-producing regions. Regions sorted from left 

to right from most to least planted corn acres. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted acres; darker colors 

indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres. M = million.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 23 

FIGURE 10. Nitrogen Applied to Corn Crops by Yield 

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2005,

2010, and 2016.

A. Graph of average applied pounds of nitrogen per bushel (based on farmer estimated yield) by USDA region. Box 

designates the three largest-producing regions. Regions sorted from left to right from most to least planted corn acres. 

Color intensity is correlated to number of planted acres; darker colors indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate 

fewer planted acres.

B. Graph of national average applied pounds of nitrogen per bushel (based on estimated yield) by farm size. Lightest color 

indicates earliest timepoint (2005), medium color indicates mid timepoint (2010), and darkest color indicates latest time 

point (2016).
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 24 

Nitrogen Applied to Soybean Crops

According to ARMS, approximately 15 percent of soybean acres had nitrogen applied in the 

Corn Belt, 37 percent in the Northern Plains, and 26 percent in the Lake States on average 

in 2006 and 2012. Nitrogen was applied to a much lower percentage of acres in soybean 

than corn (22 percent of acres vs. 97 percent of acres). The mean nitrogen application rate 

per acre for soybeans is much lower than the rate for corn because soybeans are a 

nitrogen-fixing crop. As indicated in FIGURE 11:

 On acres where nitrogen was applied, mean application rates increased slightly in the 

Corn Belt, stayed constant in the Lake States, and decreased in the Northern Plains

from 2006 to 2012.

 The Corn Belt, Delta, and Appalachia regions all had the highest mean nitrogen 

application rates (19 pounds/acre), and the Northern Plains had the lowest application 

rate (12 pounds/acre).

 In 2012, small farms had the highest mean nitrogen application rate per treated acre (18 

pounds), followed by large farms (16 pounds) and medium farms (15 pounds).

 The national average for nitrogen applied to soybeans remained constant from 2006 to 

2012 at 17 pounds per acre.

 Total U.S. nitrogen application (total applied acres times mean pounds/acre) was 

approximately 2.17 X 108 pounds in 2006 and 3.45 X 108 pounds in 2012.

FIGURE 12 presents nitrogen application by yield. Key findings indicate:

 For nitrogen per bushel13 for soybeans, application rates remained relatively constant in 

the main three soybean-growing regions (see FIGURE 12a).

 Mean nitrogen application rates per bushel increased slightly in the Corn Belt, 

decreased slightly in the Northern Plains, and increased slightly in the Lake States. 

 In 2012, Appalachia again had the highest mean nitrogen application rate (0.46 

pounds/bushel), and the Northern Plains had the lowest application rate (0.30 

pounds/bushel).

 In 2012, medium farms had the lowest pounds per bushel application rate (0.34 

pounds/bushel) followed by small farms (0.39 pounds/bushel) and large farms (0.41 

pounds/bushel).

 The national average pounds of nitrogen per bushel for soybeans remained about the 

same at 0.39 in 2006 to 0.37 in 2012.

 

13 Nitrogen per bushel is determined by dividing total amount of nitrogen applied by farmer estimated yield for 

nitrogen treated acres. Nitrogen per bushel values only apply to acres treated by nitrogen.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 25 

FIGURE 11. Nitrogen Applied to Treated Soybean Crops

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2006 

and 2012.

A. U.S. map showing planted acres of soybeans by U.S. State. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted acres; 

darker colors indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres. Grey color indicates no data. M = 

million.

B. Graph of national average of applied pounds of nitrogen per treated acre by farm size. Lighter color indicates earlier 

timepoint (2006), darker color indicates later timepoint (2012).

C. Graph of average applied pounds of nitrogen per treated acre by USDA region (upper graph) and total number of acres 

where nitrogen is applied by region (lower). Box designates the three largest-producing regions. Regions sorted from left 

to right from most to least planted soybean acres. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted acres; darker colors 

indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres. M = million.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 26 

FIGURE 12. Nitrogen Applied to Soybean Crops by Yield 

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2006 

and 2012.

A. Graph of average applied pounds of nitrogen per bushel (based on farmer estimated yield) by USDA region. Box 

designates the three largest-producing regions. Regions sorted from left to right from most to least planted soybean

acres. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted acres; darker colors indicate more planted acres, lighter colors 

indicate fewer planted acres.

B. Graph of national average applied pounds of nitrogen per bushel (based on estimated yield) by farm size. Lighter color 

indicates earlier timepoint (2006), darker color indicates later timepoint (2012).

Nitrogen Applied to Wheat Crops

Based on ARMS data, approximately 53.6 million acres of wheat were planted in 2004 and 

52.2 million acres planted in 2009. The regions with the highest acreage were the Northern 

Plains, the Southern Plains, and the Mountain regions. Approximately 92 percent of wheat 

acres had nitrogen applied in the Northern Plains, approximately 75 percent in the Southern 

Plains, and approximately 59 percent in the Mountain region on average in 2004 and 2009. 

In total, these regions made up 84 percent of U.S. wheat acreage in 2004 and 85 percent of 

wheat acreage in 2009.

FIGURE 13 presents nitrogen applied by treated area. The key findings indicate:

 From 2004 to 2009, mean nitrogen application rates increased slightly from 63 to 65 

pounds per acre in the Northern Plains, decreased from 70 to 55 pounds per acre in the 

Southern Plains, and increased from 55 to 62 pounds per acre in the Mountain region. 

In 2009, the Corn Belt had the highest mean nitrogen application rate (92 pounds/acre) 

and the Southern Plains had the lowest application rates (55 pounds/acre). 
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 27 

 Small farms had the highest average nitrogen usage rates and medium and large farms 

have lower rates.

 Total U.S. nitrogen application (total applied acres times mean pounds/acre) was 

approximately 3.55 X 109 pounds in 2004 and 3.36 X 109 pounds in 2009.

 The national average for nitrogen application for wheat remained about constant

between 2004 and 2009.

FIGURE 14 presents nitrogen application by yield. Key findings indicate:

 For nitrogen per bushel14, mean application rates decreased from 1.42 to 1.33 pounds 

in the Northern Plains, decreased from 1.58 to 1.46 pounds in the Southern Plains, and 

increased from 1.08 to 1.24 pounds in the Mountain region from 2004 to 2009 (see 

FIGURE 14a). 

 In 2009, the Corn Belt and the Southern Plains had the highest mean nitrogen 

application rate (1.46 pounds/bushel) and the Pacific region had the lowest application 

rates (1.22 pounds/bushel). 

 The amount of nitrogen per bushel decreased slightly for all three farm sizes, with 

negligible differences in nitrogen per bushel between the three farm sizes in 2009 (see 

FIGURE 14b).

 Consistent with the decrease in total nitrogen applied for wheat, the national average 

pounds of nitrogen per bushel slightly decreased from 1.40 pounds in 2004 to 1.34

pounds in 2009.

 

14 Nitrogen per bushel is determined by dividing total amount of nitrogen applied by farmer estimated yield for 

nitrogen treated acres. Nitrogen per bushel values only apply to acres treated by nitrogen.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 28 

FIGURE 13. Nitrogen Applied to Treated Wheat Crops 

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2004 

and 2009.

A. U.S. map showing planted acres of wheat by U.S. State. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted acres; darker 

colors indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres. Grey color indicates no data. M = million.

B. Graph of national average of applied pounds of nitrogen per treated acre by farm size. Lighter color indicates earlier 

timepoint (2004), darker color indicates later timepoint (2009).

C. Graph of average applied pounds of nitrogen per treated acre by USDA region (upper graph) and total number of acres 

where nitrogen is applied by region (lower). Box designates the three largest-producing regions. Regions sorted from left 

to right from most to least planted wheat acres. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted acres; darker colors 

indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres. M = million.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 29 

FIGURE 14. Nitrogen Applied to Wheat Crops by Yield 

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2004 

and 2009.

A. Graph of average applied pounds of nitrogen per bushel (based on farmer estimated yield) by USDA region. Box 

designates the three largest-producing regions. Regions sorted from left to right from most to least planted wheat acres. 

Color intensity is correlated to number of planted acres; darker colors indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate 

fewer planted acres.

B. Graph of national average applied pounds of nitrogen per bushel (based on estimated yield) by farm size. Lighter color 

indicates earlier timepoint (2004), darker color indicates later timepoint (2009).

Nitrogen Application Timing and Method for Corn

In this report, data on nitrogen fertilizer application timing and method on corn acres are 

from USDA ARMS. Specifically, the corn data are from the 2005, 2010, and 2016 

surveys.15 The ARMS data on fertilizer timing are divided into three categories: (1) fertilizer 

applied in the fall, (2) fertilizer applied in the spring and/or at planting, and (3) fertilizer 

applied after planting. The USDA ERS has analyzed this data in terms of percentage of 

fertilizer applied. Thus, this analysis captures the overall timing of fertilizer application by 

quantity but does not describe the frequency of multiple fertilizer applications (sometimes 

called split application). As the data for application timing are expressed as a percentage of 

total amount of nitrogen applied (and not the percentage of acres grown using specific 

 

15 The specific questions on nitrogen application timing and method in the ARMS surveys that provided the data 

used in this report (USDA ERS, 2005; USDA ERS, 2010b; USDA ERS, 2016a) are listed in Appendix D.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 30 

application timing), it is not possible to determine how many corn acres were grown with 

each of the different nitrogen application timings.

The timing and application method data are presented in two ways:

 As indicated in FIGURE 15, for application timing, data are presented as (1) percent of 

total nitrogen applied at a given time (fall application, spring and/or at planting, and after 

planting) by USDA region, and (2) percent of total nitrogen applied at a given time by 

farm size (<250 acres, 250–299 acres, 1,000+ acres) at the national level. 

 As indicated in FIGURE 16, for application method, data are presented as (1) percent of 

total nitrogen applied using a given application method (with or without incorporation 

into the soil) by USDA region, and (2) percent of total nitrogen applied using a given 

application method by farm size (<250 acres, 250–299 acres, 1,000+ acres) at the 

national level. 

The relative standard error was too high (>50 percent) to present data by both farm size 

and by USDA region. Note that data for some region years16 are not included due to relative 

standard error rates of greater than 50 percent. 

Application Timing Key Findings:

 Around 80 percent of the total nitrogen applied to corn covered by ARMS was applied in 

the spring, at planting, or after planting in 2016. Timing of fertilizer remained relatively 

constant over the 3 survey years.

 In the three regions producing 90 percent of U.S. corn, the majority of nitrogen was 

applied in the spring, at planting, and/or after planting over the survey time series (see 

FIGURE 15c). 

 In the Corn Belt, there was a slight increase in nitrogen applied after planting from 21

percent to 26 percent from 2005 to 2016.

 In the Northern Plains, nitrogen applied in the fall increased from 11 percent to 17

percent from 2005 to 2016. Application in the spring and at planting decreased and 

application after planting remained relatively stable.

 In the Lake States, nitrogen application in the fall decreased from 24 percent to 19

percent from 2005 to 2016. Application after planting increased from 19 percent to 24

percent over the same time period.

 In the Corn Belt and Northern Plains, the proportion of fertilizer applied in the fall 

remained constant or increased over the survey time series.

 Farm size appears to impact the timing of nitrogen application. In 2016, small farms had 

the lowest application of fertilizers in the fall, and large farms had the largest (see 

FIGURE 15b). 

Application Method Key Findings:

 Approximately 77 percent of the nitrogen applied to corn was incorporated into the soil

in 2016, a slight decrease from 81 percent in 2005.

 One of the three main production regions, the Northern Plains showed a slight increase 

in the percentage of nitrogen incorporated into the soil between 2005 and 2016, from 70

percent to 73 percent. Over the same period, the Corn Belt decreased slightly from 86

 

16 A “region year” is a given region in a specific year. For example, data on the percent of corn acres fertilized in 

the fall in the Mountain region in 2005 and 2010 had an RSE > 50%. Therefore, the corn “region years” of 

Mountain, 2005 and 2010 are not included in this report.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 31 

percent to 84 percent and the Lake States decreased from 85 percent to 69 percent of 

nitrogen incorporated into the soil.

 The percentage of total nitrogen applied with incorporation increased slightly (3 percent) 

from 70 percent in 2005 to 73 percent in 2016 in the Northern Plains, while it decreased 

slightly (2 percent) from 86 percent in 2005 to 84 percent 2016 in the Corn Belt and 

decreased (16 percent) from 85 percent in 2005 to 69 percent in 2016 in the Lake 

States. 

 In lesser producing regions, the percentage total nitrogen applied and incorporated 

decreased (3 percent) in the Southern Plains from 87 percent in 2005 to 76 percent in 

2010 to 84 percent in 2016 and decreased (22 percent) in the Northeast from 68

percent in 2005 to 48 percent in 2010 to 46 percent in 2016.

 Farm size appears to impact use of incorporation, where large farms have the highest 

percentage followed by mid-sized and small farms, all of which decreased over time 

(see FIGURE 16b).

Reason for Adoption Trends:

 Multiple public and private partnerships are working to improve fertilizer application 

methods and timing (including through 4R partnerships), which include improving 

application timing and methods (IPNI, 2017; The Fertilizer Institute, 2017; TNC, 2017; 

USDA NRCS, 2011).
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 32 

FIGURE 15. Timing of Nitrogen Application for Corn

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2005, 

2010, and 2016.

A. U.S. map showing planted acres of corn by U.S. State. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted acres; darker 

colors indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres. Grey color indicates no data. M = million.

B. Graph of the average percentage of total nitrogen applied at a given time by farm size at the national level. Red color 

indicates percentage of total nitrogen applied after planting, orange color indicates percentage of total nitrogen applied 

before and/or at planting, and yellow color indicates percentage of total nitrogen applied in the fall.

C. Graph of the average percentage total nitrogen applied at a given time by USDA region (upper graph) and total number 

of acres where nitrogen is applied by region (lower). Box designates the three largest-producing regions. Regions sorted 

from left to right from most to least planted corn acres. Color indicates the percentage of total nitrogen applied at a given 

time as described above in b). M = million.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 33 

FIGURE 16. Method of Nitrogen Application for Corn Crops

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2005, 

2010, and 2016.

A. U.S. map showing planted acres of corn by U.S. State. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted acres; darker 

colors indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres. Grey color indicates no data. M = million.

B. Graph of average percentage of total nitrogen applied using a given application method by farm size at the national level. 

Red color indicates the percentage of total nitrogen applied with incorporation into the soil; yellow color indicates the 

percentage of nitrogen applied with no incorporation into the soil.

C. Graph of the average percentage of total nitrogen applied using a given application method by USDA region (upper 

graph) and total number of acres where nitrogen is applied by region (lower). Box designates the three largest-producing 

regions. Regions sorted from left to right from most to least planted corn acres. Color indicates the percentage of total 

nitrogen applied using a given method (with or without incorporation into the soil) as described above in b). M = million.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 34 

Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizers

One way to reduce the amount of nitrogen lost to the environment is by using enhanced 

efficiency fertilizers (EEFs),17 which include nitrification inhibitors, urease inhibitors, and 

chemical-coated fertilizers (USDA ERS, 2016c). These products function by slowing the 

process through which fertilizers are broken down into byproducts that can be volatilized, 

leached, and/or are utilized by the plant. As such, EEFs have been shown to reduce both 

fertilizer quantities needed and GHG emissions (Smith, Martino, Cai, & Gwary, 2007). Use 

of EEFs is recommended by USDA NRCS as a part of the nutrient management 

conservation practice standard (USDA NRCS, 2012).

Chemicals included in this category include urease inhibitors (UIs), which block or slow the 

breakdown of urea to ammonia, and nitrification inhibitors (NIs), which block or slow the 

transformation of ammonia or ammonium N to nitrate or other byproducts. See TABLE 2 for 

common nitrogen byproducts.

Several UIs and NIs are available for use by U.S. farmers. These inhibitors include: 

 N-(N-butyl)thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT), such as urease inhibitor Agrotain® 

 2-Chloro-6-(trichloromethyl)pyridine, also called nitrapyrin, such as nitrification inhibitors

N-Serve® and Instinct®

 Dicyandiamide (DCD), such as nitrification inhibitors Agrotain Plus®, SuperU®, and 

Guardian® 

In this report, data on the mean amount of EEF applied per acre to corn are from USDA 

ARMS. Specifically, the corn data are from the 2005 and 2010 surveys (USDA ERS, 

2017a). The 2016 survey did not include a question on EEFs. The specific questions on 

EEF application in the ARMS surveys that provided the data used in this report (USDA 

ERS, 2005; USDA ERS, 2010b) are listed in Appendix D. Questions on EEF application 

from other sources (not included in this report) (USDA NRCS, 2003; USDA NRCS, 2004; 

USDA NRCS, 2005; USDA NRCS, 2006; USDA NRCS, 2015; Bierman, Rosen, Venterea, 

& Lamb, 2011; Arbuckle & Rossman, 2014) (USDA ERS, 2004a; USDA ERS, 2004b; 

USDA ERS, 2004c; USDA ERS, 2009a; USDA ERS, 2009b; USDA ERS, 2009c) are also 

listed in Appendix D. As provided in TABLE 3, data are presented in a table rather than 

graphically as a majority of data points are statistically unreliable due to low sample size. 

While several resources were found that contained limited information on NI or UI adoption 

rates, no readily available data sources of regional or national level NI or UI adoption rates 

over time were located (USDA NRCS, 2003; USDA NRCS, 2004; USDA NRCS, 2005; 

USDA NRCS, 2006; Bierman, Rosen, Venterea, & Lamb, 2011; Arbuckle & Rossman, 

2014) (USDA ERS, 2004a; USDA ERS, 2004b; USDA ERS, 2004c; USDA ERS, 2005; 

USDA ERS, 2009a; USDA ERS, 2009b; USDA ERS, 2009c; USDA ERS, 2006). The most 

complete data set on EEF use is ARMS data on corn for 2005 and 2010 (TABLE 3).

However, the vast majority of the data available are statistically unreliable at the State level 

(as indicated by the asterisks) and cannot be used to assess trends. For the States with 

data in 2005 and 2010 (Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, and Ohio), the percentage of 

planted acres treated with EEFs increased over time. However, given the unreliability of the 

 

17 In this report we refer specifically to EEFs used to slow the breakdown of nitrogenous fertilizers, also known 

as nitrogen inhibitors (NIs).
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 35 

data for all of these States except Illinois, it is impossible to determine if there is an actual 

increase in EEF use or if the increase is an artifact of the unreliable data. 

TABLE 3. Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizer Use in Corn (percent of 

planted acres)

State 2005 2010

All States 8.493 12.457

Colorado --- ---

Georgia --- ---

Illinois 27.619 27.885

Indiana 13.453* 43.818*

Iowa --- 13.149*

Kansas --- ---

Kentucky 6.498* ---

Michigan 6.205* ---

Minnesota 5.3* 8.303*

Missouri 2.739* 11.749*

Nebraska --- 6.285*

New York 5.729* ---

North Carolina --- ---

North Dakota --- ---

Ohio 7.406* 3.567

Pennsylvania 10.982* ---

South Carolina --- ---

South Dakota --- ---

Texas --- ---

Wisconsin 12.28* ---

*= Statistically unreliable due to low sample size

Source: (USDA ERS, 2017a)

Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizers (EEF) Key Findings:

 Insufficient data were available for EEFs used in wheat and soybean production, and 

limited data were available for corn production. 

 Illinois was the only State that had statistically reliable data on EEF use on corn for both 

2005 and 2010. Use of EEFs in Illinois remained at about 28 percent for both years.

18

 At the national level, the use of EEFs in corn increased from 8.5 percent in 2005 to 12.5

percent in 2010.

 

18 Data in TABLE 3 are specifically for “Nitrogen inhibitor used” for both 2005 and 2010 from the USDA ARMS 

Nutrient Use and Management Report.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 36 

 Approximately 10 percent of corn farmers adopted use of EEFs in 2010 (Weber & 

McCann, 2014).

Reason for Adoption Trends:

 Use of enhanced efficiency fertilizers has been correlated and/or shows a strong 

connection with:

- farmer age (younger farmers are more likely to adopt EEFs);

- use of other “current technologies” (e.g., precision agriculture);

- region;

- price (less likely to adopt when prices are higher);

- irrigation use;

- use of reduced tillage; and 

- access to information on EEFs (receiving “no recommendation” is negatively 

correlated to adoption) (Weber & McCann, 2014).

Precision Agriculture

Precision agriculture includes the use of various technologies, such as tractor guidance 

systems using a global positioning system (GPS), GPS soil sampling, and GPS yield 

mapping. These technologies help farms gather information on field conditions and sitespecific within-field limitations and allow for adjustments to production practices, such as

variable-rate technology (VRT) for the application of inputs (fertilizer, seeds, irrigation water, 

pesticides) (Schimmelpfennig, 2016b). Potential benefits of precision agriculture include 

reduced inputs resulting in cost reductions, more efficient use of production inputs, and 

significant environmental benefits such as improved soil and water quality and reduced 

GHG emissions (USDA NRCS, 2007). While there are numerous precision agriculture 

technologies, this report focuses on two of the key technologies: variable rate technology 

(VRT) used for nitrogen fertilizer application and guidance or auto steer using GPS. 

Precision Agriculture Key Findings:

 Insufficient data resulted in limited analysis of VRT used in corn and wheat production, 

auto steer use in corn, and completely prevented analysis of VRT use in soybean 

production.

 Corn and wheat both had relatively low percentage of acres grown using VRT which 

increased over time. VRT used for corn increased 23 percent over 11 years and for 

wheat increased 4 percent over 4 years (from 7 percent in 2004 to 11 percent in 2009).

 Corn, soybeans, and wheat had relatively higher percentage of acres grown using auto 

steer than VRT, all of which increased over time. Auto steer used for corn increased 39

percent over 11 years (from 15 percent in 2005 to 45 percent in 2010 to 54 percent in 

2016), for soybeans increased 25 percent over 6 years (from 20 percent in 2006 to 45

percent in 2012), and for wheat increased 26 percent in 4 years (from 16 percent in 

2004 to 42 percent in 2009).

 For crops for which there were data available, farm size appeared to impact the 

percentage of acres grown using VRT and auto steer. Small farms had the lowest 

adoption percentage followed by mid-sized and large farms, all of which increased 

over time.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 37 

Reasons for Adoption Trends:

 Lower adoption of VRT (compared to auto steer) is consistent with the requirement for 

specialized equipment that must be tailored for each crop and the relatively low ease of 

use and functionality (Schimmelpfennig, 2016a).

 Higher adoption rates of auto steer are consistent with its ease of use, and the high 

functionality of yield and soil maps, which have increased along with adoption rates

(Schimmelpfennig, 2016a).

 Higher adoption rates of VRT and auto steer by large farms compared to medium and 

small farms are consistent with the economies of scale, higher education rates, and 

comfort level of new technology adoption associated with large producers (USDA NIFA, 

2017).

Variable Rate-Input Application Technology (VRT)

Variable rate technology (VRT) allows farmers to customize the application of inputs 

(fertilizer, seeds, irrigation water, and pesticides) using GPS data, often from yield and soil 

maps and guidance systems. The use of VRT requires specialized machinery with 

automated controls for specific input flow rates that are integrated into application

equipment (Schimmelpfennig, 2016a). Use of VRT can improve input efficiency and reduce 

GHG emissions by reducing both fuel use and over-application of nitrogen fertilizer (USDA, 

2016; Schimmelpfennig, 2016b).

In this report, data on the percentage of acres of corn and wheat where VRT is used for 

nitrogen fertilizer application are from USDA ARMS. Specifically, the corn data are from 

the 2005, 2010, and 2016 surveys and the wheat data are from the 2004 and 2009 

surveys. There were not enough data points to analyze VRT use for production of 

soybeans over time.

The specific questions on VRT use in the ARMS surveys that provided the data used in this 

report (USDA ERS, 2004a; USDA ERS, 2004b; USDA ERS, 2004c; USDA ERS, 2005; 

USDA ERS, 2009a; USDA ERS, 2009b; USDA ERS, 2009c; USDA ERS, 2010b; USDA 

ERS, 2016a) are listed in Appendix D.

Data are presented in two ways, (1) percent of acres where VRT was used by production

region; and (2) percent of acres where VRT was used by farm size (<250 acres, 250–299 

acres, 1,000+ acres) at the national level. The relative standard error was too high (>50

percent) to present data by both farm size and by production region. Note that data for 

some region years are not included due to relative standard error rates of greater than 50

percent. See individual sections below for more details.

VRT Used on Corn Crops

The Corn Belt, the Northern Plains, and the Lake States regions had the highest corn 

production in 2005, 2010, and 2016 (see FIGURE 3 above and FIGURE 17 below). Data 

were available for all 3 survey years in these regions. Due to high relative standard error of 

available data, this report only presents 2016 data for the Southern Plains, Appalachia, and 

Southeast regions, and only 2010 and 2016 data for the Northeast and Mountain regions.

FIGURE 17 presents the use of VRT on corn crops. Key findings indicate:

 The percentage of corn acres grown using VRT increased from 2005 to 2010 to 2016 in 

all regions for which there are multiple years of data. 
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 38 

 Rates increased from 6 to 8 to 35 percent in the Corn Belt, from 5 to 13 to 28 percent in 

the Northern Plains and from 2 to 11 to 21 percent in the Lake States. 

 The Corn Belt had the most acres of corn grown using VRT (approximately 2.1 million 

acres in 2005, approximately 3.2 million acres in 2010, and 13.4 million acres in 2016). 

 Farm size appears to impact the percentage of acres grown using VRT, where small 

farms have the lowest percentage followed by mid-sized and large farms, all of which 

have increased over time.

 Small farms (<250 acres) had the lowest percentage of corn acres grown using VRT in 

2005, 2 percent, which increased to 6 percent in 2010 and 10 percent in 2016. Midsized farms (250–299 acres) grew 5 percent of acres with VRT in 2005, which 

increased to 11 percent in 2010 and 29 percent in 2016, and large farms (1,000+ acres) 

grew 7 percent of corn acres with VRT in 2005, which increased to 11 percent in 2010

and 40 percent in 2016. 

 In total, VRT was applied to approximately 5 percent corn of acres in 2005, 

approximately 10 percent in 2010, and approximately 28 percent in 2016.

VRT Used on Soybean Crops

While the 2006 and 2012 ARMS surveys asked farmers about VRT use for soybean 

production, there were not sufficient data. Therefore, no data on VRT use for soybean 

production are included in this report. 

VRT Used on Wheat Crops

On average between 2004 and 2009, approximately 7 percent of acres utilized VRT in the 

Northern Plains, approximately 10 percent in the Southern Plains,

19 and approximately 8 

percent in the Mountain region. There were not sufficient data to determine the percentage

of wheat acres using VRT in the Southern Plains for both years, and only 2009 data for are 

presented for that region. Key findings as indicated in FIGURE 18 include:

 The percentage of wheat acres grown using VRT increased slightly from 2004 to 2009 

in all regions for which there are sufficient data.

 Rates increased from 5 to 8 percent in the Northern Plains and from 5 to 10 percent in 

the Mountain region. There were not enough data to determine the percentage of acres 

grown using VRT in the Southern Plains in 2004, but VRT was used on 10 percent of 

acres in 2009. 

 The Northern Plains had the most acres of wheat grown using VRT (approximately 1.2 

million acres in 2004 and approximately 1.8 million acres in 2009). 

 Farm size appears to impact the percentage of acres grown using VRT, where small 

farms have the lowest percentage followed by mid-sized and large farms, all of which 

have increased over time.

 Small farms (<250 acres) had the lowest percentage of wheat acres grown using VRT 

in 2004, 2 percent, which increased to 7 percent of acres in 2009. Mid-sized farms 

(250–299 acres) grew 5 percent of acres using VRT in 2004, which increased to 11

percent of acres in 2009, and large farms (1,000+ acres) grew 11 percent of wheat 

acres in 2005 and 2009. 

 

19 Only 2009 data are included for the Southern Plains as there were not enough data to determine percent of 

acres grown with VRT in 2004.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 39 

 In total, VRT was applied to approximately 7 percent of wheat acres in 2004, and 

approximately 11 percent of wheat acres in 2009.

FIGURE 17. Variable Rate Technology (VRT) Utilized on Corn Crops 

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2005, 

2010, and 2016.

A. Introduction U.S. map showing planted acres of corn by USDA region. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted 

acres; darker colors indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres. Grey color indicates no 

data. M = million.

B. Graph of national percentage of acres where VRT is used by farm size. Lightest color indicates earliest timepoint (2005), 

medium color indicates mid timepoint (2010), and darkest color indicates latest time point (2016).

C. Graph of percentage of acres where VRT is used by USDA region (upper graph) and total number of acres where VRT is 

used by USDA region (lower). Box designates the three largest-producing regions. Regions sorted from left to right from 

most to least planted corn acres. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted acres; darker colors indicate more 

planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 40 

FIGURE 18. Variable Rate Technology (VRT) Utilized on Wheat Crops 

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2004 and 2009.

A. U.S. map showing planted acres of wheat by USDA region. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted acres; darker 

colors indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres. Grey color indicates no data. M = million.

B. Graph of national percentage of acres where VRT is used by farm size. Lighter color indicates earlier timepoint (2004), 

darker color indicates later timepoint (2009).

C. Graph of percentage of acres where VRT is used by USDA region (upper graph) and total number of acres where VRT is 

used by USDA region (lower). Box designates the three largest-producing regions. Regions sorted from left to right from 

most to least planted wheat acres. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted acres; darker colors indicate more 

planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres. M = million.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 41 

Guidance or Auto Steer

Auto (or assisted) steer is a GPS-based guidance system that provides centimeter-level 

accuracy of agricultural equipment. Auto steer functions though real time kinematic 

correction of GPS signals and requires three components:

1. GPS system (receive and process the signals)

2. Software (input of control maps)

3. Hardware (mechanical equipment to steer the tractor)

Auto-steering systems can either be added-on to existing equipment or may come included 

in the purchase of new equipment (USDA NRCS, 2007). The advantages of auto steer 

include reducing operator fatigue, improving efficiency and saving money by reducing overand under-application of sprays (nutrients or pesticides), improving the seeding of field crop 

rows, and reducing GHG and water quality emissions by reducing both fuel use and overapplication of nitrogen fertilizer (USDA, 2016; Schimmelpfennig, 2016b).

In this report, data on the percentage of acres of corn, soybean, and wheat crops where 

auto steer is used are from USDA ARMS. Specifically, the corn data are from the 2005, 

2010, and 2016 surveys, the soybean data are from the 2006 and 2012 surveys and the 

wheat data are from 2004 and 2009 surveys. The specific questions on nitrogen 

application in the ARMS surveys that provided the data used in this report (USDA ERS, 

2004a; USDA ERS, 2004b; USDA ERS, 2004c; USDA ERS, 2005; USDA ERS, 2006; 

USDA ERS, 2009a; USDA ERS, 2009b; USDA ERS, 2009c) (USDA ERS, 2010b; USDA 

ERS, 2012b; USDA ERS, 2016a) are listed in Appendix D.

Data are presented in two ways, (1) percent of acres where auto steer was used by USDA 

region and (2) percent of acres where auto steer was used by farm size (<250 acres, 250–

299 acres, 1,000+ acres) at the national level. The relative standard error was too high (>50

percent) to present data by both farm size and by USDA region. Note that data for some 

region years are not included due to relative standard error rates of greater than 50 percent. 

See individual sections below for more details.

For all crop types, farm size appears to impact the percentage of acres grown using auto 

steer, where small farms have the lowest percentage followed by mid-sized and large 

farms, all of which have increased over time.

Use of Auto Steer on Corn Crops

There were not sufficient data to determine the percentage of corn acres grown using auto 

steer for all region years. Specifically, there are only 2010 and 2016 data for the Southeast 

region. As indicated in FIGURE 19, key findings indicate:

 The percentage of corn acres grown using auto steer increased overall from 2005 to 

2016 in all regions, except for the Southeast region which decreased from 2010 to 

2016.

20

 Rates increased from 13 to 47 to 56 percent in the Corn Belt, from 23 to 51 to 67

percent in the Northern Plains and from 9 to 35 to 46 percent in the Lake States. 

 

20 Due to an RSE > 50 there are no data for the Southeast Region in 2005.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 42 

 The region producing the most corn, the Corn Belt, had the most acres of corn grown 

using auto steer (approximately 4.9 million acres in 2005, approximately 18.3 million 

acres in 2010 and approximately 20.9 million acres in 2016). 

 Small farms (<250 acres) had the lowest percentage of corn acres grown using auto 

steer in 2005, 6 percent, increasing to 18 percent of acres in both 2010 and 2016. Midsized farms (250-299 acres) grew 13 percent of acres with auto steer in 2005,

increasing to 41 percent in 2010 and 57 percent in 2016, and large farms (1,000+ 

acres) grew 33 percent of corn acres with auto steer in 2005, increasing to 74 percent in 

2010 and 79 percent in 2016. 

 In total, auto steer was used on approximately 15 percent of corn acres in 2005, 45

percent in 2010, and 54 percent in 2016.

Use of Auto Steer on Soybean Crops

On average, between 2006 and 2012, 33 percent of acres were produced with auto steer in 

the Corn Belt, 40 percent in the Northern Plains, and 31 percent in the Lake States. As 

indicated in FIGURE 20, key findings include:

 The percentage of soybean acres grown using auto steer increased from 2006 to 2012 

in all regions.

 Rates increased from 18 to 47 percent in the Corn Belt, from 30 to 49 percent in the 

Northern Plains, and from 17 to 44 percent in the Lake States. 

 The Corn Belt had the most acres of soybeans grown using auto steer (approximately 

6.6 million acres in 2006 and approximately 15.7 million acres in 2012). 

 Small farms (<250 acres) had the lowest percentage of soybean acres grown using 

auto steer in 2006, 6 percent, increasing to 28 percent of acres in 2012. Mid-sized 

farms (250-299 acres) grew 18 percent of acres with auto steer in 2006, increasing to 

46 percent of acres in 2012, and large farms (1,000+ acres) grew 37 percent of 

soybean acres with auto steer in 2006, increasing to 59 percent in 2012. 

 In total, auto steer was applied to approximately 20 percent of soybean acres in 2006 

and 45 percent of acres in 2012.

Use of Auto Steer on Wheat Crops

In the three regions with the most wheat acreage, 34 percent of acres were produced with 

auto steer in the Northern Plains, 19 percent in the Southern Plains, and 35 percent in the 

Mountain region on average between 2004 and 2009. As indicated in FIGURE 21, key 

findings include:

 The percentage of wheat acres grown using auto steer increased from 2004 to 2009 in 

all regions.

 Rates increased from 20 to 47 percent in the Northern Plains, from 10 to 27 percent in 

the Southern Plains, and from 17 to 53 percent in the Mountain region.

 The Northern Plains had the most acres of wheat grown using auto steer 

(approximately 4.7 million acres in 2004 and approximately 10.7 million acres in 2009). 

 Small farms (<250 acres) had the lowest percentage of wheat acres grown using auto 

steer in 2004, 5 percent, increasing to 20 percent of acres in 2009. Mid-sized farms 

(250–299 acres) grew 13 percent of acres with auto steer in 2004, increasing to 36

percent in 2009, and large farms (1,000+ acres) grew 24 percent of wheat acres with 

auto steer in 2005, increasing to 54 percent in 2009. 
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 43 

 In total, auto steer was used on approximately 16 percent of wheat acres in 2004 and 

42 percent of wheat acres in 2009.

FIGURE 19. Use of Auto Steer on Corn Crops 

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2005, 

2010, and 2016.

A. U.S. map showing planted acres of corn by USDA region. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted acres; darker 

colors indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres. Grey color indicates no data. M = million.

B. Graph of national percentage of acres where auto steer is used by farm size. Lightest color indicates earliest timepoint 

(2005), medium color indicates mid timepoint (2010), and darkest color indicates latest timepoint (2016).

C. Graph of percentage of acres where auto steer is used by USDA region (upper graph) and total number of acres where 

auto steer is used by USDA region (lower). Box designates the three largest-producing regions. Regions sorted from left 

to right from most to least planted corn acres. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted acres; darker colors 

indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres. M = million.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 44 

FIGURE 20. Use of Auto Steer on Soybean Crops 

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2006 

and 2012.

A. U.S. map showing planted acres of soybeans by USDA region. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted acres; 

darker colors indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres. Grey color indicates no data. M = 

million.

B. Graph of national percentage of acres where auto steer is used by farm size. Lighter color indicates earlier timepoint 

(2006), darker color indicates later timepoint (2012).

C. Graph of percentage of acres where auto steer is used by USDA region (upper graph) and total number of acres where 

auto steer is used by USDA region (lower). Box designates the three largest-producing regions. Regions sorted from left 

to right from most to least planted soybean acres. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted acres; darker colors 

indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres. M = million.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 45 

FIGURE 21. Use of Auto Steer on Wheat Crops 

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2004 and 

2009.

A. U.S. map showing planted acres of wheat by USDA region. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted acres; 

darker colors indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres. Grey color indicates no data. M = 

million.

B. Graph of national percentage of acres where auto steer is used by farm size. Lighter color indicates earlier timepoint 

(2004), darker color indicates later timepoint (2009).

C. Graph of percentage of acres where auto steer is used by USDA region (upper graph) and total number of acres where 

auto steer is used by USDA region (lower). Box designates the three largest-producing regions. Regions sorted from left 

to right from most to least planted wheat acres. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted acres; darker colors 

indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres. M = million.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 46 

Cover Crops

Cover crops can contribute to conservation goals including reduced erosion, improved soil 

quality, and reduced GHG emissions. Depending on the specific conditions, management, 

and conservation objective, grasses, legumes, and brassicas are all commonly used as 

cover crops either as single species or mixes of multiple species (USDA NRCS, 2017f).

Cover crops are not harvested and are typically grown either during fallow periods (when 

harvested crops are not grown) or grown simultaneously with main crops (such as in an 

orchard or vineyard, called intercropping). Benefits of adding cover crops to a system 

include: erosion control; improving soil structure, moisture, and nutrient content; reducing

nitrate leaching; increasing beneficial soil biota; suppressing weeds; providing pollinators

food; providing wildlife and pollinator habitat; and as forage for farm animals. Cover crops 

can also reduce GHG emissions and provide energy and cost savings by adding nitrogen to 

the system and increasing availability of soil nutrients, thereby reducing the need to apply 

fertilizer (USDA NRCS, 2017e; USDA NRCS, 2010; USDA NRCS, 2017f; USDA NRCS, 

2010). Studies have also found that cover crops can help mitigate climate change by 

increasing soil carbon sequestration (Clark, 2012; Olson, Al-Kaisi, Lal, & Lowery, 2014; 

Eagle, et al., 2012). Cover crop data for the 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2015 USDA NASS/ERS 

ARMS were obtained from USDA ERS. Additional data on cover crop adoption were 

obtained from the Conservation Technology Innovation Center (CTIC) (see Appendix B).

These data, however, were not collected in a statistically representative manner, so they 

are not included in the main report, but are available in the appendix.

In this report, data on the percentage of acres and the number of acres of cover crops 

grown are from USDA ARMS III CRR surveys in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2015. The data 

include acreage from all types of farms, including those farms where crops are the main 

product and those where livestock are the main product. 

FIGURE 22 presents the data in two ways, (1) percent of total acres of cover crops grown

by USDA region, and (2) acres of cover crops grown by USDA region. Note that these data 

are not shown in some region years due to high relative standard errors (>50 percent).

Specifically, the regions and years not included in the analysis due to RSE being greater 

than 50% include: 2010 Northern Plains, 2010 Southern Plains, 2010 Lake States, and 

2010 and 2015 Delta regions.

Cover crops were grown on a very small percentage of acres in each of the five major 

regions. Some regions grew cover crops on a smaller area, but a slightly higher proportion

of farms, than the main farm production regions.

Use of Cover Crops Key Findings:

 Both the percentage of acres grown with cover crops and the number of acres of cover 

crops grown increased from 2010 to 2015 in all but two regions.

 The Corn Belt had the largest increase in cover crops planted (approximately 3.3 million 

acres) from approximately 518,000 acres in 2010 to 3.8 million acres in 2015, followed 

by the Southern Plains, which increased approximately 1.6 million acres from 

approximately 758,000 acres in 2011 to approximately 2.3 million acres in 2015. 

 Two regions showed decreases in the percentage of acres grown with cover crops and 

the number of acres planted with cover crops between 2010 and 2015. The Delta 

decreased approximately 309,000 acres from approximately 538,000 acres in 2011 to 
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 47 

approximately 230,000 acres in 2012, and the Mountain region decreased 

approximately 324,000 acres from approximately 1.2 million acres in 2010 to 

approximately 860,000 acres in 2015.21

 Nationally, the acreage of cover crops planted was 7.7 million acres in 2010 (2 percent 

of all planted acres), 6.1 million acres in 2011 (2 percent of all planted acres), 12.8 

million acres in 2012 (2 percent of all planted acres) to 16.3 million acres in 2015

(4 percent of all planted acres).

Reasons for Adoption Trends:

 Funding by Federal and State programs to encourage planting of cover crops (USDA 

NRCS IA, 2016; USDA NRCS, 2013).

 Positive impacts of cover crops on cash crop yield and soil, including increasing soil 

organic matter and moisture, reducing compaction, and capturing and recycling soil 

nutrients (CTIC, 2013; 2014; 2015; 2016; Taylor, 2015).

 

21 Note that the Mountain region had the most complex pattern of cover crop acreage and percent of acres 

grown with approximately equal acreage in 2010 (1.2 million acres) and 2012 (1.1 million acres) and much lower 

levels in 2011 (approximately 189,000 acres) and 2015 (approximately 860,000 acres).
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 48 

FIGURE 22. Use of Cover Crops on Farmland for Crops and Livestock

by USDA Region 

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2010, 

2011, 2012, and 2015.

A. Graph of the percentage of cover crops grown on total farmland acres (including land to grow crops and livestock) by 

USDA region and year. Box indicates the five largest-producing regions. Regions sorted from left to right from most to 

least total farmland acres. Color intensity is correlated to the year; the lighter the color, the earlier the year in the time 

series. 

B. Graph of the number of acres grown with cover crops by USDA region and year. Box indicates five largest-producing 

regions. Regions sorted from left to right from most to least farmland acres. Color intensity is correlated to the year; the 

lighter the color the earlier the year in the time series. M = million.

C. Graph of the total number of farmland acres (including land to grow crops and livestock) by USDA region and year. Box 

indicates the five largest-producing regions. Regions sorted from left to right from most to least total farmland acres. 

Color intensity is correlated to the year; the lighter the color, the earlier the year in the time series. M = million.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 49 

Reduced Tillage

Tillage is the preparation of soil for seeding. It is also used to control weeds and pests and 

to incorporate fertilizers and manures. The more disruptive or intense the tillage, the higher 

the likelihood of soil erosion, nutrient runoff into nearby waterways, and the release of 

GHGs. A strong correlation exists between tillage intensity (i.e., amount of soil disturbed) 

and the amount of soil organic carbon lost to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Reducing 

tillage (by tilling less intensely or less frequently) enables the soil to retain organic matter, 

soil moisture, and potentially more soil carbon and can reduce costs and fuel use (USDA 

ERS, 2017e; USDA NRCS, 2016a). Studies have found that long-term no tillage (i.e., 10 or 

more years) results in increased soil carbon sequestration compared to shorter periods or 

seasonal no tillage (Abdalla, Chivenge, Ciais, & Chaplot, 2016). 

Tillage can be categorized by the amount of residue left on the field and/or by Soil Tillage 

Intensity Rating (STIR). This report uses an older scale of STIR categories, which is 

consistent with analysis of the 2003 to 2006 CEAP study (USDA CEAP, 2011). General 

tillage categories included in this report are:

 No tillage: least intensive form of tillage. STIR rating less than 30 for all crops in a 

multi-year rotation.

 Seasonal no tillage: multi-year tillage rotation which includes at least one crop of no 

tillage (STIR rating less than 30) and other crops with mulch tillage (STIR rating less 

than 100).

 Mulch tillage: higher tillage rating than no-till, but lower intensity of tillage than 

conventional tillage. STIR rating between 30 and 100 for all crops in a multi-year 

rotation.

 Seasonal mulch tillage: multi-year tillage rotation which includes at least one crop of 

mulch tillage (STIR rating between 30 and 100) and other crops with conventional 

tillage (STIR rating greater than 100).

 Conventional tillage: most intensive form of tillage. STIR rating greater than 100 for all 

crops in rotation.

In this report, two different data sources were used to determine reduced tillage practices:

1. USDA NASS/ERS ARMS In this report, data on the percentage of acres of corn, 

soybean, and wheat crops where no tillage and mulch tillage were used are from 2005, 

2010, and 2016 corn surveys, 2006 and 2012 soybean surveys, and 2004 and 2009 

wheat surveys. As these data are each from independent, 1-year surveys, they offer a 

snapshot in time of which crop was grown and which tillage system was used in the 

year of the survey. For example, if a farmer grows a rotation of corn with mulch tillage 

and soybeans with no tillage, the survey will only capture one type of tillage. As such, 

the data do not capture crop rotations or multi-year tillage trends. The specific questions 

on tillage practices in the ARMS surveys that provided the data used in this report 

(USDA ERS, 2004a; USDA ERS, 2004b; USDA ERS, 2004c; USDA ERS, 2005; USDA 

ERS, 2006; USDA ERS, 2009a; USDA ERS, 2009b; USDA ERS, 2009c) (USDA ERS, 

2010b; USDA ERS, 2012b; USDA ERS, 2016a) are listed in Appendix D.

2. USDA NRCS CEAP In this report, data on the percentage of multi-year total cultivated 

cropland rotations grown under continuous no tillage, seasonal no tillage, continuous 

mulch tillage, seasonal mulch tillage, and continuous conventional tillage are from the 
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 50 

2003–2006 USDA CEAP national survey data. Unlike the ARMS surveys, the CEAP 

data capture a 3-year crop and tillage rotation, which gives a more nuanced 

understanding of farming practices in each USDA region. However, as this 3-year 

rotation is used as a single data point, it is not currently possible to determine changes 

in tillage over time. Future inclusion of 2015–2016 CEAP survey data (USDA NRCS, 

2016b) will allow for this analysis. The specific questions on tillage practices in the 

CEAP surveys that provided the data used in this report (USDA NRCS, 2003; 2004; 

2005; 2006) are listed in Appendix D.

Reduced Tillage Key Findings – ARMS Data:

 The proportion of acres grown using some type of reduced tillage (mulch tillage or no 

tillage) was relatively constant for corn for 2005 to 2016, decreased for soybeans, and 

increased for wheat. Wheat had the largest percentage increase and increase in 

acres.

22 The area of mulch tillage and no tillage is dependent on the total number of 

acres grown for those crops; thus, percentage is a more meaningful metric.

- For corn, reduced tillage was used on 76 percent of acres in 2005 and 80 percent of

acres in 2016.

- For soybeans, reduced tillage was used on 82 percent of acres in 2006 and 82

percent of acres in 2012.

- For wheat, reduced tillage was used on 46 percent of acres in 2004 and 66 percent

of acres in 2009.

 For no tillage, wheat had the largest in percentage and in acres, from 22 percent of 

acres in 2004 to 41 percent of acres in 2009, followed by corn, which increased 29

percent of acres in 2005 to 33 percent of acres in 2016.

 Soybeans had a decrease in both percentage and total number of acres grown under 

no tillage, from 47 percent of acres in 2006 to 44 percent of acres in 2012.

 There were not sufficient data to determine the percentage of wheat acres grown using 

no tillage for all region years; there are only 2009 data for the Southern Plains. 

Reduced Tillage Key Findings – CEAP Data:

 The vast majority of crops grown annually (93 percent) are grown using some type of 

reduced tillage.

- No tillage (continuous or seasonal) was used on 122.4 million acres annually (43

percent) between 2003 and 2006.

- Mulch tillage (continuous or seasonal) was used on 138.5 million acres annually (50

percent) between 2003 and 2006.

 More acres of crops were grown under continuous (long-term) no tillage or mulch tillage

rotations than seasonal no tillage or mulch tillage rotations.

 68.2 million acres (24 percent) were grown annually under continuous no tillage and 

54.1 million acres (19 percent) were grown annually under seasonal no tillage between 

2003 and 2006.

 75.5 million acres (27 percent) were grown annually under continuous mulch tillage and 

62.9 million acres (23 percent) were grown annually under seasonal mulch tillage 

between 2003 and 2006.

 

22 These values do not include no tillage and total wheat acres grown in the Southern Plains region in 2004.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 51 

USDA ARMS Tillage Data

Data are presented individually (no tillage and mulch tillage are graphed separately) and in 

two ways, (1) percent of acres where a reduced tillage (mulch or no-till) practice was used 

by USDA region; and (2) percent of acres where a reduced tillage practice was used by 

farm size (<250 acres, 250–299 acres, 1,000+ acres) at the national level. The relative 

standard error was too high (>50 percent) to present data by both farm size and by USDA 

region. Note that data for some crop region years are not included due to relative standard 

error rates of greater than 50 percent. Please see individual sections for more details.

No Tillage and Mulch Tillage Used on Corn Crops

In the three regions producing 90 percent of U.S. corn, 26 percent of acres were produced 

with no tillage and 58 percent were produced with mulch tillage in the Corn Belt (84 percent

reduced tillage overall), 51 percent with no tillage and 37 percent with mulch tillage in the 

Northern plains (88 percent reduced tillage overall), and 14 percent with no tillage and 47

percent with mulch tillage in the Lake States (61 percent reduced tillage overall) on average 

between 2005, 2010, and 2016. 

FIGURE 23 presents use of no tillage on corn crops. Key findings indicate:

 The percent of corn acres grown using no tillage increased in five out of eight regions 

from 2005 to 2016 and decreased in three regions.

 Rates of no tillage remained about constant in the Corn Belt at 27 percent in 2005 and 

25 percent in 2016, increased from 46 to 57 percent in the Northern Plains, and 

remained about constant in the Lake States at 10 percent in 2005 and 12 percent in 

2016. 

 Farm size does not appear to have a clear impact on the percentage of acres grown 

using no tillage, where all farm sizes have around one-third of acres grown using no 

tillage in 2016.

 Small farms (<250 acres) had the lowest percentage of corn acres grown using no 

tillage in 2005, 22 percent, which increased to 34 percent in 2016. Mid-sized farms 

(250–299 acres) grew 33 percent of acres with no tillage, which remained about 

constant. Large farms (1,000+ acres) grew 29 percent of corn acres with no tillage in 

2005, which increased to 34 percent of acres in 2016. 

 In total, approximately 29 percent of corn acres were grown using no tillage in 2005, 33

percent in 2010, and 33 percent in 2016. 

FIGURE 24 presents use of mulch tillage on corn crops. Key findings indicate:

 The percentage of corn acres grown using mulch tillage increased in seven out of eight 

regions and decreased in one region from 2005 to 2016 (see FIGURE 24b). 

 Rates in the Corn Belt increased from 57 percent in 2005 to 61 percent in 2016, 

decreased from 42 to 30 percent in the Northern Plains, and increased from 40 to 51

percent in the Lake States. 

 Farm size appears to impact the percentage of acres grown using mulch tillage.

Whereas small farms remained relatively constant in the percentage of acres grown 

with mulch tillage, mid-sized farms had increased percentage of land grown under 

mulch tillage, and large farms had decreases in the percentage of acres grown using 

mulch tillage (see FIGURE 24c). 
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 52 

 In total, approximately 47 percent of corn acres were grown using mulch tillage in 2005,

48 percent in 2010, and 47 percent in 2016.

FIGURE 23. Use of No Tillage on Corn Crops 

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2005, 

2010, and 2016.

A. U.S. map showing planted acres of corn by USDA region. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted acres; darker 

colors indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres. Grey color indicates no data. M = million.

B. Graph of percentage of acres produced using no tillage by farm size and year. Lightest color indicates earliest timepoint 

(2005), medium color indicates mid-timepoint (2010), and darkest color indicates latest time point (2016). M = million.

C. Graph of percentage of corn acres using no tillage by USDA region and year (upper graph) and total number of acres 

where no tillage was used by USDA region and year (lower). Box indicates three largest-producing regions. Regions 

sorted from left to right from most to least planted corn acres. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted acres; 

darker colors indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 53 

FIGURE 24. Use of Mulch Tillage on Corn Crops 

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2005, 

2010, and 2016.

A. U.S. map showing planted acres of corn by USDA region. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted acres; darker 

colors indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres. Grey color indicates no data. M = million.

B. Graph of percentage of acres produced using mulch till by farm size and year. Lightest color indicates earliest timepoint 

(2005), medium color indicates mid-timepoint (2010), and darkest color indicates latest time point (2016).

C. Graph of percentage of corn acres using mulch till by USDA region and year (upper graph) and total number of acres 

where mulch till was used by USDA region and year (lower). Box indicates three largest-producing regions. Regions 

sorted from left to right from most to least planted corn acres. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted acres; 

darker colors indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres. M = million.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 54 

No Tillage and Mulch Tillage Used on Soybean Crops

FIGURE 25 presents the use of no tillage on soybean crops. Key findings indicate:

 The percentage of soybean acres grown using no tillage increased in 2 of 5 regions 

from 2006 to 2012.

 Rates decreased from 56 to 50 percent in the Corn Belt, remained about constant from

45 to 47 percent in the Northern Plains, and decreased from 23 to 18 percent in the 

Lake States. 

 Farm size appears to impact the percentage of acres grown using no tillage, where 

small farms had the lowest percentage in 2005, but all three farm sizes had similar 

percentage in 2012.

 Small farms (<250 acres) had the lowest percentage of soybean acres grown using no 

tillage in 2006, 40 percent, which remained about constant at 41 percent of acres in 2012. 

Mid-sized farms (250–299 acres) grew 47 percent of acres with no tillage in 2006, which 

decreased to 40 percent of acres in 2012, and large farms (1,000+ acres) grew 50

percent of soybean acres with no tillage in 2006, which decreased to 42 percent in 2012. 

 In total, approximately 47 percent of soybean acres were grown using no tillage in 2006 

and 44 percent in 2012. 

FIGURE 26 presents the use of mulch tillage on soybean crops. Key findings indicate:

 The percentage of soybean acres grown using mulch tillage increased in two regions 

and decreased slightly in three regions from 2006 to 2012 (see FIGURE 26b). 

 Rates increased from 32 to 38 percent in the Corn Belt, remained about the same from

38 to 36 percent in the Northern Plains, and were stable from 45 percent to 47 percent

in the Lake States. 

 Farm size appears to have little impact the percentage of acres grown using mulch tillage, 

where all farm sizes have similar percentage of use (34–40 percent) (see FIGURE 26c). 

 Small farms (<250 acres) had the highest percentage of soybean acres grown using 

mulch tillage in 2006, 36 percent, which remained constant in 2012. Mid-sized farms 

(250–299 acres) grew 35 percent of acres with mulch tillage in 2006, which increased to 

40 percent of acres in 2012, and large farms (1,000+ acres) grew 35 percent of 

soybean acres with mulch tillage in 2006, which remained about the same at 34 percent

in 2012. 

 In total, 35 percent of soybean acres were grown using mulch tillage in 2006 and 38

percent in 2012.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 55 

FIGURE 25. Use of No Tillage on Soybean Crops 

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2006 and 2012.

A. U.S. map showing planted acres of soybeans by USDA region. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted acres; 

darker colors indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres. Grey color indicates no data. M =

million.

B. Graph of percentage of acres produced using no tillage by farm size and year. Lighter color indicates earlier timepoint 

(2006), darker color indicates later timepoint (2012).

C. Graph of percentage of soybean acres using no tillage by USDA region and year (upper graph) and total number of 

acres where no tillage was used by USDA region and year (lower). Box indicates three largest-producing regions. 

Regions sorted from left to right from most to least planted soybean acres. Color intensity is correlated to number of 

planted acres; darker colors indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres. M = million.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 56 

FIGURE 26. Use of Mulch Tillage on Soybean Crops 

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2006 and 2012.

A. U.S. map showing planted acres of soybeans by USDA region. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted acres; darker 

colors indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres. Grey color indicates no data. M = million.

B. Graph of percentage of acres produced using mulch till by farm size and year. Lighter color indicates earlier timepoint 

(2006), darker color indicates later timepoint (2012).

C. Graph of percentage of soybean acres using mulch till by USDA region and year (upper graph) and total number of acres 

where mulch till was used by USDA region and year (lower). Box indicates three largest-producing regions. Regions 

sorted from left to right from most to least planted soybean acres. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted 

acres; darker colors indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres. M = million.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 57 

Use of No Tillage and Mulch Tillage on Wheat Crops

FIGURE 27 presents the use of no tillage on wheat crops. Key findings indicate:

 The percentage of wheat acres grown using no tillage increased from 2004 to 2009 in 

all regions for which there are data.

 Rates increased from 23 to 48 percent in the Northern Plains, and from 37 to 53 percent

in the Mountain region. There were not enough data to determine the percentage of 

acres grown using no tillage in the Southern Plains in 2004, but it was used on 23

percent of acres in 2009.

 Farm size appears to impact the percentage of acres grown using no tillage.

 Small farms (<250 acres) had the mid-range percentage of wheat acres grown using no 

tillage 24 percent, which increased to 37 percent of acres in 2009. Mid-sized farms 

(250–299 acres) had the lowest percentage in both years, 19 percent of acres with no 

tillage in 2004, which increased to 34 percent of acres in 2009, and large farms (1,000+ 

acres) grew the highest percentage of acres with no tillage in both years, 25 percent in 

2005, which increased to 49 percent in 2009. 

 In total, approximately 22 percent of wheat acres were grown using no tillage in 2004 

and 41 percent in 2009.

FIGURE 28 presents the use of mulch tillage on wheat crops. Key findings indicate:

 The percentage of wheat acres grown using mulch tillage increased from 2004 to 2009 

in three regions, remained constant in one region, and decreased in two regions.

 Rates decreased from 22 to 19 percent in the Northern Plains, increased from 24 to 33

percent in the Southern Plains, and remained stable from 25 to 26 percent in the 

Mountain region. 

 Farm size appears to impact the percentage of acres grown using mulch tillage, where 

small farms have the highest percentage followed by mid-sized and large farms.

 Small farms (<250 acres) had the highest percentage of wheat acres grown using 

mulch tillage in 2004, 29 percent, which increased slightly to 31 percent of acres in 

2009. Mid-sized farms (250–299 acres) grew 25 percent of acres with mulch tillage in 

2004, which increased to 29 percent of acres in 2009, and large farms (1,000+ acres) 

grew 21 percent of wheat acres with mulch tillage in 2005, which remained about the 

same at 20 percent in 2009. 

 In total, approximately 24 percent of wheat acres were grown using mulch tillage in 

2004 and 25 percent in 2009. 
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 58 

FIGURE 27. Use of No Tillage on Wheat Crops 

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2004 and 2009.

A. U.S. map showing planted acres of wheat by USDA region. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted acres; darker 

colors indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres. Grey color indicates no data. M = million.

B. Graph of percentage of acres produced using no tillage by farm size and year. Lighter color indicates earlier timepoint 

(2004), darker color indicates later timepoint (2009).

C. Graph of percentage of wheat acres using no tillage by USDA region and year (upper graph) and total number of acres 

where no tillage was used by USDA region and year (lower graph). Box indicates three largest-producing regions. 

Regions sorted from left to right from most to least planted wheat acres. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted 

acres; darker colors indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres. M = million.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 59 

FIGURE 28. Use of Mulch Tillage on Wheat Crops

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2004 and 2009.

A. U.S. map showing planted acres of wheat by USDA region. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted acres; darker 

colors indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres. Grey color indicates no data. M = million.

B. Graph of percentage of acres produced using mulch till by farm size and year. Lighter color indicates earlier timepoint 

(2004), darker color indicates later timepoint (2009).

C. Graph of percentage of wheat acres using mulch till by USDA region and year (upper graph) and total number of acres 

where mulch till was used by USDA region and year (lower). Box indicates three largest-producing regions. Regions 

sorted from left to right from most to least planted wheat acres. Color intensity is correlated to number of planted acres; 

darker colors indicate more planted acres, lighter colors indicate fewer planted acres. M = million.

USDA CEAP Tillage Data

Data are sorted in two ways, (1) by tillage practice (percent of acres grown using a given 

tillage practice over a crop rotation) in each production region; and (2) by production region 

(percent of acres grown using each type of tillage practice over a crop rotation). The relative 

standard error is too high (>50 percent) to present data by farm size. Differences in results 
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 60 

between the CEAP and ARMS data are due to differences in sampling methods, sample 

sizes, and crop types.

Simple Cropland Rotation Graph

To simplify the data, the graph in this section has grouped 3-year tillage categories to be 

similar to those used in the ARMS data. They include:

 No tillage: comprised of the continuous no tillage category (STIR rating < 30 for all 

crops in a multi-year rotation) and the seasonal no tillage category (at least one crop of 

no tillage (STIR rating< 30) and other crops with mulch tillage (STIR rating <100)).

23

 Mulch tillage: comprised of the continuous mulch tillage category (STIR rating between 

30 and 100 for all years in a multi-year rotation) and the seasonal mulch tillage category 

(multi-year tillage rotation that has at least 1 year of mulch tillage (STIR rating between 

30 and 100) and other years with conventional till (STIR rating >100)).

 Continuous conventional tillage: STIR rating > 100 for all years in rotation.

Total cropland during this period was approximately 279.7 million acres annually between 

2003 and 2006. (The combined acres of corn, soybean and wheat from ARMS was 

approximately 208.4 million acres around the same time period). The four major producing 

regions are the Northern Plains (79.128 million acres), the Corn Belt (78.8 million acres),

the Lake States (33.4 million acres) and the Southern Plains (31.9 million acres), which 

comprised approximately 80 percent of total U.S. cropland annually from 2003 to 2006.

As indicated in FIGURE 29, findings include:

 No tillage and mulch tillage were used on the vast majority of acres in three of the four 

major production regions, with 45 percent no tillage and 46 percent mulch tillage used in 

the Northern Plains (91 percent total reduced till), 54 percent no tillage and 43 percent

mulch tillage used in the Corn Belt (97 percent total reduced till), and 23 percent no 

tillage and 66 percent mulch tillage used in the Lake States (89 percent total reduced 

till). In the Southern Plains, 11 percent of acres used no-till and 37 percent used mulch 

tillage (48 percent total reduced till).

 The areas with the largest percent of acres grown using no tillage (from highest to 

lowest percent) are: Appalachia (62 percent), Corn Belt (54 percent), Mountain (50

percent), Northern Plains (45 percent), Southeast (42 percent), Pacific (41 percent), 

Northeast (38 percent), Delta (28 percent), Lake States (23 percent), and Southern 

Plains (11 percent). Combined, 122.4 million acres were grown annually under no 

tillage from 2003 to 2006. 

 The areas with the largest percentage of acres grown using mulch tillage (from highest 

to lowest percentage) are: Lake States (66 percent), Delta (56 percent), Pacific (51

percent), Northeast (48 percent), Northern Plains (46 percent), Southeast (45 percent), 

Mountain (44 percent), Corn Belt (43 percent), Southern Plains (37 percent), and 

Appalachia (30 percent). Combined, 138.5 million acres were grown annually under 

mulch tillage from 2003 to 2006. 

 

23 Note: Data for determining tillage categories were not taken directly from survey questions. Each field 

operation was assigned a STIR rating using operation-specific STIR ratings provided by NRCS.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 61 

FIGURE 29. Crop Rotations Split Into Three Tillage Categories for 2003 to 2006

Source: USDA Economic Research Service analysis based on Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) data for 

2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.

A. Graph of percentage and number of planted acres grown using a given tillage type (no tillage, mulch tillage, and 

continuous conventional till) for all cropland acres by USDA region. Graph is sorted by acres grown under no tillage (left),

mulch tillage (center), and continuous conventional till (right). Orange bars indicate percentage of cropland acres grown 

using a given tillage type by region (units on left axis). Length of the green bars indicate number of acres grown using a 

given tillage type by USDA region (units on right axis). Width of green bars is correlated to number of total planted acres; 

thicker bars indicate more planted acres; thinner bars colors indicate fewer planted acres. Regions sorted from left to 

right from most to least planted cropland acres. Box indicates the four largest-producing regions. K = thousand.

B. Graph of percentage and number of planted acres grown using a given tillage type (no tillage, mulch tillage, and 

continuous conventional till) for all cropland acres by USDA region. Graph is sorted by USDA region. Identical to the 

graph above, orange bars indicate percentage of cropland acres grown using a given tillage type by region (units on 

bottom axis). Length of green bars indicate number of acres grown using a given tillage type by USDA region (units on 

top axis). Width of green bars is correlated to number of total planted acres; thicker bars indicate more planted acres; 

thinner bars colors indicate fewer planted acres. Regions sorted from left to right from most to least planted cropland 

acres. K = thousand.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 62 

Complex Cropland Rotation Graph 

To get a deeper understanding of multi-year tillage trends, the graph in this section has 

categorized the data to include continuous no tillage, mulch tillage, and conventional till as 

well as seasonal no tillage and seasonal mulch till. By dividing the data into “continuous” 

and “seasonal” categories, it is possible to see multi-year tillage management trends, which 

may include no tillage for some years but mulch tillage other years. As many of the 

environmental and climate benefits of no tillage and mulch tillage result from continuous 

use of these production methods, it is important to understand multi-year tillage 

management trends (Grandy, 2006; Stavi, 2011).

General tillage categories included in this section are:

 Continuous no tillage: least intensive form of tillage. STIR rating < 30 for all years in a 

multi-year rotation.

 Seasonal no tillage: multi-year tillage rotation that has at least 1 year of no till (STIR 

rating< 30) and other years with mulch tillage (STIR rating between 30 and 100). 

 Continuous mulch tillage: mid-range intensity of tillage. STIR rating between 30 and 

100 for all years in a multi-year rotation.

 Seasonal mulch tillage: multi-year tillage rotation that has at least 1 year of mulch 

tillage (STIR rating between 30 and 100) and other years with conventional till (STIR 

rating >100). 

 Continuous conventional tillage: most intensive form of tillage. STIR rating > 100 for 

all years in rotation.

FIGURE 30 indicates the following findings:

 Continuous no tillage, seasonal no tillage, continuous mulch tillage, and seasonal mulch 

tillage are used on the vast majority of acres grown in three of the four major producing 

regions. 

 In the Northern Plains, 28 percent of acres are grown using continuous no tillage, 17

percent of acres are grown using seasonal no tillage, 22 percent of acres are grown 

using continuous mulch tillage, and 24 percent are grown using seasonal mulch tillage 

(91 percent total reduced till).

 In the Corn Belt, 25 percent of acres are grown using continuous no tillage, 28 percent

of acres are grown using seasonal no tillage, 32 percent of acres are grown using 

continuous mulch tillage, and 12 percent are grown using seasonal mulch tillage (97

percent total reduced till).

 In the Lake States, 10 percent of acres are grown using continuous no tillage, 12

percent of acres are grown using seasonal no tillage, 38 percent of acres are grown 

using continuous mulch tillage, and 28 percent are grown using seasonal mulch tillage

(89 percent total reduced till).

 In the Southern Plains, 6 percent of acres are grown using continuous no tillage, 6

percent of acres are grown using seasonal no tillage, 18 percent of acres are grown 

using continuous mulch tillage, and 19 percent are grown using seasonal mulch tillage

(48 percent total reduced till). 

 Overall, continuous mulch tillage was used for crop production on the most acres (75.5 

million), followed by continuous no tillage (68.2 million acres), seasonal mulch tillage

(62.9 million acres), seasonal no tillage (54.1 million acres), and continuous 

conventional till (36.9 million acres). 
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Cropland 63 

 The data indicate that between 2003 and 2006, 55 percent of crops grown using 

reduced-till were grown using continuous reduced-till (i.e., continuous no tillage or 

continuous mulch tillage) and 45 percent of crops using reduced-till were grown using 

seasonal reduced till (i.e., seasonal no tillage or seasonal mulch tillage) annually.

FIGURE 30. Crop Rotations Split Into Five Tillage Categories for 2003 to 2006

Source: USDA Economic Research Service analysis based on Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) data for 2003, 2004, 

2005, and 2006.

A. Graph of percentage and number of planted acres grown using a given tillage type (continuous no tillage, seasonal no tillage, continuous 

mulch tillage, seasonal mulch tillage, and continuous conventional till) for all cropland acres by USDA region. Graph is sorted by acres 

grown under the different tillage types; from left to right continuous no tillage, seasonal no tillage, continuous mulch tillage, seasonal mulch 

tillage, and continuous conventional till. Orange bars indicate percentage of cropland acres grown using a given tillage type by region 

(units on left axis). Length of green bars indicate number grown using a given tillage type by USDA region (units on right axis). Width of 

green bars is correlated to number of total planted acres; thicker bars indicate more planted acres; thinner bars colors indicate fewer 

planted acres. Regions sorted from left to right from most to least planted cropland acres. Box indicates the four largest-producing regions. 

K = thousand.

B. Graph of percentage and number of planted acres grown using a given tillage type (continuous no tillage, seasonal no tillage, 

continuous mulch tillage, seasonal mulch tillage, and continuous conventional till) for all cropland acres by USDA region. Graph is 

sorted by USDA region. Identical to the graph above, orange bars indicate percentage of cropland acres grown using a given tillage 

type by region (units on bottom axis). Length of green bars indicate number grown using a given tillage type by USDA region (units on 

top axis). Width of green bars is correlated to number of total planted acres; thicker bars indicate more planted acres; thinner bars 

colors indicate fewer planted acres. Regions sorted from left to right from most to least planted cropland acres. K = thousand.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Recovery and Use of Biogas from Anaerobic Digesters for Manure Management 64 

RECOVERY AND USE OF BIOGAS FROM ANAEROBIC 

DIGESTERS FOR MANURE MANAGEMENT

Overview of Anaerobic Digesters

When stored or treated in anaerobic conditions (without oxygen), livestock manure 

decomposes to produce biogases. Biogases are comprised of between 60 and 80 percent 

methane (CH4) which is both a potential energy source and a potent greenhouse gas (EPA, 

2017b; EPA, 2004). In 2015, most of the emissions from livestock manure, 66.3 million 

metric tons of CO2 equivalent, came from anaerobic decomposition (EPA, 2017b).

Anaerobic digester systems can reduce biogas (and methane emissions) by capturing the 

emitted gases and using them to generate electricity and/or heat or converting them to CO2 

(Pape, 2016). Anaerobic digesters can also reduce water contamination risks, improve 

nutrient recovery and recycling, reduce odors during storage and decomposition, and may 

increase net farm income as gas can be used on-site or sold off-site (EPA, 2004; USDA, 

EPA, & DOE, 2014).

Farmers generally select a specific digester technology based on which digester will work 

best with their existing manure handling system. The three most commonly used types of 

anaerobic digester technologies are:

 Covered lagoon: used to treat and produce biogas from liquid manure with less than 3 

percent solids. Generally, large lagoon volumes are required, preferably with depths 

greater than 12 feet. The typical volume of the required lagoon can be roughly 

estimated by multiplying the daily manure flush volume by 40 to 60 days. Covered 

lagoons for energy recovery are compatible with flush manure systems in warm 

climates. Covered lagoons may be used in cold climates for seasonal biogas recovery 

and odor control (gas flaring). There are two types of covers, bank-to-bank and 

modular. A bank-to-bank cover is used in moderate to heavy rainfall regions. A modular 

cover is used for arid regions (EPA, 2004).

 Complete mix: engineered tanks, above or below ground, that treat slurry manure with 

a solids concentration in the range of 3 to 10 percent. These structures are heated and 

require less land than lagoons. Complete mix digesters are compatible with 

combinations of scraped and flushed manure (EPA, 2004). 

 Plug flow system: engineered, heated, rectangular tanks that treat scraped dairy 

manure with a range of 11 to 13 percent total solids. Swine manure cannot be treated 

with a plug flow digester due to its lack of fiber (EPA, 2004).

Anaerobic Digester Key Findings:

 The total number of operational digesters in the United States increased from 63 in 

2004 to 248 in 2017 (EPA, AgSTAR Livestock Anaerobic Digester Database, 2018). 

 Plug flow and complete mix digesters were the most common type of technology in 

operation, representing nearly 80 percent of all digesters in the AgStar program.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Recovery and Use of Biogas from Anaerobic Digesters for Manure Management 65 

 One-third of operational digesters are located in the Northeast. Between 2004 and 

2017, this region also had the greatest increase in digesters, with 68 new systems

coming online. 

 The majority of digesters were fed by dairy cattle manure. Between 2004 and 2017, the 

proportion of digesters fed by dairy cattle manure increased from 65 percent to 79 

percent. 

Reasons for Adoption Trends:

 Plug flow and complete mix digesters provide greater potential to generate electricity 

than covered anaerobic lagoon digesters, and thus may be a more popular option in 

States that have renewable energy portfolio standards or other renewable energy 

incentives.

 Adoption of State renewable energy portfolio standards can increase the adoption of 

anaerobic digesters, as was seen in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and New York (Sam, 

2017; Simmons, 2016; Wheeler, 2015; NYSERDA, 2016).

 In Vermont, the Green Mountain Power Renewable Development Fund provided

farmers financial incentives for anaerobic digesters (EPA, 2016a).

 Growth in the number of digesters may be attributable to demonstrated production and 

reliability, State and Federal funding programs, energy utility interest, and revenue 

potential (Zaks, 2011).

Application

Data on the adoption of anaerobic digesters analyzed in this report were collected from the 

AgSTAR Database of Livestock Digesters (EPA, 2018). AgSTAR is a voluntary effort 

sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), which encourages the use 

of biogas capture and use at animal feeding operations that manage manure (EPA, 2004). 

Data for each digester that began operation between 2004 and 2017 were collected by 

operating year, State, population number feeding digesters (used to determine farm size), 

and type of animal feeding the digester.

The data are represented in three ways: (1) number of digesters by digester type, (2) number 

of digesters by farm size, and (3) number of digesters by USDA farm production region.

Digester Adoption between 2004 and 2017

Between 2004 and 2017, the number of operational digesters increased at an average 

annual rate of 11 percent, increasing from 63 in 2004 to 248 in 2017. The largest number of 

new installations occurred in 2008, with 34 new digesters coming online. Wisconsin, New 

York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont accounted for nearly 50 percent of newly installed 

digesters that came online during this time period (EPA, AgSTAR Livestock Anaerobic 

Digester Database, 2018). Wisconsin, New York, and Pennsylvania had renewable energy 

portfolio standards that were signed into law in the 2004 to 2006 timeframe, which may 

have encouraged the development of anaerobic digesters in each State (NYSERDA, 2018; 

Wisconsin Public Service, 2018; Pennsylvania General Assembly, 2004). Similarly, 

Vermont’s Clean Energy Development Fund, established in 2005, may have encouraged 

digester development during this timeframe.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Recovery and Use of Biogas from Anaerobic Digesters for Manure Management 66 

Between 2004 and 2017, 37 digesters were initiated but have since shut down. These 

digesters went out of operation due to bankruptcies declared by the operation (not 

necessarily related to the digester), operational challenges, or loss of staff to continue 

maintenance. 

The number of new digesters coming online decreased significantly after 2013, with fewer 

than 10 digesters coming online annually between 2014 and 2017. Market trends during 

this time period may have impacted the adoption of digesters.24

Digester Adoption by Animal Type and Farm Size

Between 2004 and 2017, the majority of operational digesters were fed by dairy cattle 

manure (FIGURE 31). According to the EPA AgStar database, the operational digesters in 

2017 managed manure from approximately 458,000 dairy cattle (i.e., approximately 4.9

percent of the total dairy cattle population) (EPA, 2018) (USDA NASS, 2018). Of this total, 

approximately 35 percent of dairy cattle manure managed with an anaerobic digester is 

from New York, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, or Vermont. Another 27 percent of total dairy 

cattle manure managed by an aerobic digester is from cattle in the Pacific region 

(California, Washington, and Oregon). Sixty-five percent of the dairy anaerobic digesters 

were installed on operations with 1,000 head of dairy cattle or more (FIGURE 32). 

Eight digesters installed between 2004 and 2017 manage manure from beef cattle. Beef 

cattle are kept generally on pastures or feedlots, where manure collection is more 

challenging than collection from dairy farms. All beef digesters are located on operations 

with 2,500 head of cattle or more. Six digesters were installed on poultry farms in the same 

time period, with animal populations ranging from 84,000 to 600,000.

 

24 Natural gas electric power prices experienced a sharp and sustained price drop beginning in 2009, which may 

have impacted new digester systems coming online. Alternatively, the generation costs associated with solar 

photovoltaic systems fell by 65 percent between 2010 and 2017, which may have made the technology more 

attractive to farmers than digesters. The information on natural gas prices was obtained from (U.S. EIA, 2018)

and the information on solar PV generation costs is from (Fu, Feldman, Margolis, Woodhouse, & Ardani, 2017).
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Recovery and Use of Biogas from Anaerobic Digesters for Manure Management 67 

FIGURE 31. Number of Operational Digesters by Animal Type and 

by Year

Graph showing the number of operational digesters by animal type from 2004 to 2017. Each color within a bar represents a 

different animal type. Digesters that were reported as under construction were omitted. In cases where systems are no longer 

operational but the closure date is not provided, ICF conservatively assumed that the digester went offline in the same year. 

Source: (EPA, 2018)

FIGURE 32. Number of Operational Dairy Digesters by Farm Size

Graph showing the number of operational dairy digesters between 2004 and 2017 by farm size. Each color within a bar 

represents a different farm size. Digesters that were reported as under construction were omitted. In cases where systems are 

no longer operational, but the closure date is not provided, ICF conservatively assumed that the digester went offline in the 

same year. Source: (EPA, 2018)
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Recovery and Use of Biogas from Anaerobic Digesters for Manure Management 68 

Digester Types

FIGURE 33 presents the distribution of digesters by technology. In 2017, the majority of

operational digesters were complete mix digesters (35 percent of digesters) and plug flow 

digesters (42 percent of digesters). Although the absolute number of plug flow digesters 

was higher, the rate of increase for complete mix digesters was higher, growing 15 percent

annually compared to 11 percent over the 13-year period. The number of operational 

covered anaerobic lagoons increased at an annual rate of 8 percent between 2004 and 

2017, increasing from 15 to 43 covered lagoons during this time period. Covered anaerobic 

lagoons represent 17 percent of all mitigation technologies installed and registered by 

AgStar. The type of technology used for the remainder of AgStar projects was either 

unknown or uncommon (e.g., fixed film technology). 

FIGURE 33. Number of Operational Digesters by Technology and by 

Year

Graph showing the cumulative number of digesters in operation between 2004 and 2017 by type of digester. Each color within 

a bar represents a different technology. Digesters that were reported as under construction were omitted. In cases where 

systems are no longer operational, but the closure date is not provided, ICF conservatively assumed that the digester went 

offline in the same year. Source: (EPA, 2018)

Digesters by USDA Farm Production Region 

Approximately one-third of all digesters are located in the Northeast region, which includes 

New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Maryland, Rhode Island, 

Massachusetts, Delaware, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Between 2004 and 2017, 68 

digesters came online in the Northeast, the most of any region. The Lake States, driven by 

strong representation by Wisconsin, has the second largest number of digesters, with 

approximately 21 percent of all operational digesters at the end of 2017. The Northern 

Plains and Southern had the fewest number of operational digesters in the country, with two 
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Recovery and Use of Biogas from Anaerobic Digesters for Manure Management 69 

and three digesters in 2017, respectively. FIGURE 34 presents the distribution of 

operational digesters by USDA production region.

FIGURE 34. Number of Operational Digesters by USDA Farm 

Production Region

The graph shows the cumulative number of digesters that were operational between 2004 and 2017 by USDA region. Each 

color within a bar represents a different USDA region. Digesters that were reported as under construction were omitted. In 

cases where systems are no longer operational, but the closure date is not provided, ICF conservatively assumed that the 

digester went offline in the same year. Source: (EPA, 2018)

Observed Trends

Overall, 256 digesters were installed from 2004 to 2017.

25 However, the rate of increase in 

both the number of new digesters and the population feeding digesters has declined 

since 2013.

The growth in the number of new digesters in operation has mostly come from dairy 

operations (155 new digesters), while the number of new digesters in operation fed by 

swine increased by 16 from in 2004 to 2017, new digesters in operation fed by beef cattle 

increased by eight, new digesters in operation fed by poultry increased by three, and new 

digesters in operation fed by multiple animal types increased by three. The population of 

animals feeding digesters has grown along with the increase in the total number of 

operational digesters. The number of digesters in operation has grown the most in the 

Northeast region since 2004 and the least in the Northern and Southern Plains.

 

25 This count includes digesters that came online and went offline within this 13-year span.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Summary and Conclusions 70 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This report was developed to evaluate U.S. adoption of selected agricultural conservation 

practices that both reduce GHG emissions and provide additional environmental benefits

between 2004 and 2016 (see 

TABLE 1 for a full list of practices). By conducting a literature search to find data for the 

practices of interest, USDA established where further research is required to fill data gaps 

for some practices, and, where data are available, set baselines and established processes

for tracking progress on further adoption rates. By identifying current adoption rates and 

trends of adoption at the regional and national levels, USDA and other farming- and foodrelated entities can better understand farmers’ actions today and develop strategies to 

increase future adoption of these practices. 

Results from the literature search indicated that the desired granularity of data was not 

available for most of the agricultural practices or categories listed in 

TABLE 1. For example, limited data on the use of enhanced efficiency fertilizers were

available at the national level, and there were no data that covered all States in the United 

States for multiple years.

Practices Included in the Report

The practices for which enough data were found to either determine a change in practice 

over time or establish a baseline of current practice are:

Cropland

 Nitrogen application

 Enhanced efficiency fertilizers

 Precision agriculture (VRT and auto steering)

 Use of cover crops

 Reduced tillage (mulch till and no till)

Recovery and Use of Biogas From Anaerobic Digesters for Manure Management 

 Anaerobic digesters

Summary of Cropland Data

Adoption of the conservation practices on working lands reviewed in this report is variable. 

Continued data collection on these practices will allow for more robust analyses in the 

future.

Practices that increased over time include precision agriculture and use of cover crops. For 

example, use of precision agriculture (VRT and auto steer) increased over time for all crops 

for which there are data. Specifically, VRT use increased from 5 percent in 2005 to 28
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Summary and Conclusions 71 

percent in 2016 for corn, and from 7 percent in 2004 to 11 percent in 2009 for wheat. Auto 

steer increased from 15 percent in 2005 to 54 percent in 2016 for corn, from 20 percent in 

2006 to 45 percent in 2012 in soybeans, and from 16 percent in 2004 to 42 percent in 2009 

in wheat, based on ARMS data. Despite the increases in use, the overall relatively low 

percent of adoption of these technologies shows that there is opportunity for substantial 

increases in adoption.

The data for cover crops showed increased use over time, but overall had very low 

adoption rates. Cover crops were grown on approximately 2 percent of farmland acres in

2010, and 4 percent of farmland acres in 2015 (including for both crop and livestock 

production). 

Trends in the use of reduced tillage varied by specific crop and tillage type. The proportion 

of acres grown using no tillage showed the greatest increase for wheat (from 22 percent in 

2004 to 41 percent in 2009), increased slightly for corn (from 29 percent in 2005 to 33

percent in 2016) and decreased slightly for soybeans (at 47 percent in 2006 and 44 percent

in 2012) based on ARMS data. 

While there were no ARMS trend data for all cropland acres combined, the CEAP data 

show that more acres of crops were grown under continuous no tillage or mulch tillage

rotations than seasonal no tillage or mulch tillage rotations for the 2003 to 2006 timespan. 

While the data indicate that the majority of farmers are using reduced tillage practices, a 

further shift from seasonal practices to continuous practices would result in additional soil 

and climate benefits (Abdalla, Chivenge, Ciais, & Chaplot, 2016). Once released, the next 

series of CEAP data will allow for a more nuanced analysis of tillage trends.

Nitrogen management practices are complex and can be analyzed a variety of ways. In 

this report, we presented the data as fertilizer rate (pounds per treated acre) and fertilizer 

per yield (pounds per bushel). For corn, the total amount of nitrogen applied increased 

from approximately 9.23 X 109 pounds in 2005 to 1.1 X 1010 pounds in 2016, but the 

average pounds of nitrogen per bushel decreased slightly from 0.84 in 2005 to 0.77 in 

2016 based on ARMS data. This means that while the absolute amount of nitrogen 

applied increased, the amount applied per yield decreased. For wheat, both total nitrogen 

applied and the national average pounds of nitrogen/bushel decreased slightly from

approximately 3.55 X 109 pounds (1.40 pounds/bushel) in 2004 to 3.36 X 109 pounds 

(1.34 pounds/bushel) in 2009. Soybeans had the largest increase in total nitrogen applied 

nationally (60 percent). The increase in applied nitrogen, from approximately 2.17 X 108

pounds in 2006 to 3.45 X 108 pounds in 2012, was due to an increase in applied acres 

from 18 percent in 2006 to 27 percent in 2012. The national average pounds of nitrogen 

per bushel for soybeans decreased slightly from 0.39 in 2006 to 0.37 in 2012. The cause 

of the increase in applied acres could be due to newer production practices which 

encourage nitrogen fertilization to increase soybean yield (La Menza, Monzon, Specht, & 

Grassini, 2017; Mourtzinis, et al., 2018).

In terms of nitrogen application timing and method for corn production, results were mixed 

based on analysis of the ARMS data. The timing of nitrogen application was relatively 

constant from 2005 to 2016, with most (around 80 percent) applied in the spring, at or after 

planting. The percentage of total nitrogen applied with incorporation has decreased over 

time from 81 percent in 2005 to 79 percent in 2010 to 77 percent in 2016. Improved 
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Summary and Conclusions 72 

nitrogen application timing could be the result of multiple public and private partnerships 

working to improve plant Nitrogen Use Efficiency (including through 4R partnerships),

which includes improved fertilizer timing and application methods (IPNI, 2017; The Fertilizer 

Institute, 2017; TNC, 2017; USDA NRCS, 2011).

Lack of sufficient data meant that many desired practices could not be included in this 

report, that national or regional trends could not be determined, that trends in that some 

practices could not be included for all crops, and for numerous practices, some years could 

not be included. While the CEAP data allowed for a detailed understanding of tillage during 

a multi-year crop rotation, access to additional multi-year rotations is required to determine 

trends in these practices.

Summary of Anaerobic Digester Data 

Overall, the cumulative number of digesters in operation and the cumulative number of 

animals feeding those digesters has increased from 2004 to 2017, however the rate of 

increase slowed between 2013 to 2017 compared to the rate from 2005 to 2013 (EPA, 2018)

 The total number of digesters in the United States increased from 63 in 2004 to 248 in 

2017. 

 Complete mix (35 percent) and plug flow digesters (42 percent) are the two most 

common types of anaerobic digesters built between 2004 and 2017.

 The Northeast region had the greatest increase in the number of digesters with 68 new 

digesters coming online from 2004 to 2017. 

 Most digesters were fed by dairy cow manure (196 out of 248 operational digesters in 

2017).

 The increase in adoption of digesters was likely in part due to the adoption of State 

renewable energy portfolio standards in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and New York (Sam, 

2017; Simmons, 2016; Wheeler, 2015; NYSERDA, 2016).

 Growth in the number of digesters may also be attributable to demonstrated production 

and reliability, State and Federal funding programs, energy utility interest, and revenue

potential (Zaks, 2011).

Next Steps

The data collected in this report are a first attempt to aggregate publicly available data and 

determine baselines and adoption trends for the selected practices in Table 2. As stated 

previously, publicly available data are insufficient to determine baselines or track adoption 

trends for the following practices:

 Erosion control measures

 Double cropping

 Enhanced efficiency fertilizers

 Compost additions

 Manure additions

 Slow-release fertilizers

 Nitrogen use efficiency
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Summary and Conclusions 73 

 Tree planting on sensitive lands

 Water table management on sensitive lands

 Re-flooding of set-aside lands on sensitive lands

 Management of hydric soils on sensitive lands

 Percentage of livestock managed by each manure management system (by State, 

livestock type)

 Methane capture

 Land application of manure

 Per unit GHG intensity of manure

To determine baselines and adoption trends for these missing practices, new survey 

questions or research projects will need to be initiated to collect data over time. 

For the conservation practices reviewed in this report, continued collection of data or 

enhanced/improved collection of data will further the understanding of adoption of these 

practices over time. Areas where data collection could be improved include:

 Enhanced efficiency fertilizer uses in corn, soy, and wheat (improved data for corn and 

data for soy and wheat)

 VRT use in corn, soy, and wheat (improved data in corn and wheat and data in soy)

 Auto steer in corn (improved data)

 Cover crop use in all crops (improved data)

 No till use in wheat (improved data)

 Reduced tillage in all agriculture (additional data points)

Further analysis of the data collected in this report may also lead to a better understanding 

of areas where conservation performance could be improved. 
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Works Cited 74 

WORKS CITED

AAPFCO. (2013). Official publication number 65. Association of American Plant Food 

Control Officials. Retrieved from http://www.aapfco.org/publications.html

Abdalla, K., Chivenge, P., Ciais, P., & Chaplot, V. (2016, June 21). No-Tillage Lessens Soil 

CO2 Emissions the Most Under Arid and Sandy Soil Conditions: Results from a 

Meta-Analysis. Biogeosciences, 13, 3619-3633. doi:10.5194/bg-13-3619-2016

Aillery, M., Gollehon, N., Johansson, R., Kaplan, J., Key, N., & Rihaudo, M. (2005). 

Managing manure to improve air and water quality. Agricultural Economics Report, 

6, 65.

Arbuckle, J., & Rossman, H. (2014). Iowa Farmers' Nitrogen Management Practices and 

Perspectives. Iowa State University. Retrieved from 

http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=extension_commu

nities_pubs

Balafoutis, A., Koundouras, S., Anastasiou, E., Fountas, S., & Arvanitis, K. (2017). Life 

Cycle Assessment of Two Vineyards after the Application of Precision Viticulture 

Techniques: A Case Study. Sustainability, 9(11).

Bierman, P., Rosen, C., Venterea, R., & Lamb, J. (2011). Survey of Nitrogen Fertilizer Use 

on Corn in Minnesota. Retrieved from 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/DataFiles/52816/27883_W_2010_Corn_Phase2

_Questionnaire_Production_Practices_And_Costs_Q_COP_CPP.pdf?v=40877

Boyle, K. P. (2006). The Economics of On-site Conservation Tillage. Portland, OR: West 

National Technology Support Center. Retrieved from 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/16/nrcs143_009593.doc

Butchee, K., May, J., & Arnall, B. (2011). Sensor based nitrogen management reduced 

nitrogen and managed yield. Crop Management, 10(1).

Carlisle, L. (2016). Factors influencing farmer adoption of soil health practices in the United 

States: a narrative review. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 40(6), 583-

613. Retrieved from 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21683565.2016.1156596

Cavigelli, M., Del Grosso, S., Liebig, M., & al., e. (2012). US Agricultural Nitrous Oxide 

Emissions: Context, Status, and Trends. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 

10, 537-546.

Clark, A. (2012). Managing Cover Crops Profitably. Sustainable Agriculture Research and 

Education (SARE). Retrieved from http://www.sare.org/LearningCenter/Books/Managing-Cover-Crops-Profitably-3rd-Edition

Congress of the United States. (1996). Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act . 

Public Law 104-127. Retrieved from 

https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ127/PLAW-104publ127.pdf
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Works Cited 75 

Congress of the United States. (2002). Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. 

Public Law 107-171. Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW107publ171/pdf/PLAW-107publ171.pdf

Congress of the United States. (2008). Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. Public 

Law 110-246. Retrieved from 

https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/pl110-246.pdf

Congress of the United States. (2014). Agricultural Act of 2014. H.R. 2542. Retrieved from 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr2642enr/pdf/BILLS-113hr2642enr.pdf

CTIC. (2013). 2012-13 Cover Crop Survey. Conservation Technology Information Center 

(CTIC), Conservation Technology Information Center. Sustainable Agriculture 

Research & Education. Retrieved from 

http://www.ctic.org/media/pdf/Cover%20Crops/SARECTIC%20Cover%20Crop%20Survey%202013.pdf

CTIC. (2014). 2013-14 Cover Crop Survey. Joint publication of the Conservation 

Technology Information Center and the North Central Region Sustainable 

Agriculture Research and Education Program. Retrieved from 

http://www.ctic.org/media/CoverCrops/CTIC_04_Cover_Crops_report.pdf

CTIC. (2015). 2014-15 Cover Crop Survey. Conservation Technology Information Center. 

Joint publication of the Conservation Technology Information Center and the North 

Central Region Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program. Retrieved 

from http://www.ctic.org/media/pdf/20142015CoverCropReport_Draft6.pdf

CTIC. (2016). 2015-16 Cover Crop Survey. Conservation Technology Information Center. 

Joint publication of the Conservation Technology Information Center and the North 

Central Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. 

Retrieved from 

http://www.ctic.org/media/CoverCrops/2016CoverCropSurvey_Final.pdf

Eagle, A. J., Olander, L. P., Henry, L. R., Haugen-Kozyra, K., Millar, N., & Robertson, G. P. 

(2012). Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Potential of Agricultural Land Management in 

the United States: A Synthesis of the Literature. Durham, NC: Nicholas Institute 

Environmental Policy Solutions. Retrieved from 

https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/publications/ni_r_10-

04_3rd_edition.pdf

EPA. (2004). AgSTAR Handbook – A Manual For Developing Biogas Systems at 

Commercial Farms in the U.S. EPA.

EPA. (2016a). Improving Project Outcomes & Growing the Anaerobic Digestion Industry.

Washington, D.C.: EPA.

EPA. (2016b). U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2014 - Annex 3, Part B.

Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory2016-annex-3-additional-source-or-sink-categories-part-b.pdf

EPA. (2017b). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2015. United 

States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-

02/documents/2017_complete_report.pdf
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Works Cited 76 

EPA. (2018, April). AgSTAR Livestock Anaerobic Digester Database. Washington, D.C., 

U.S.

Eve, M., Pape, D., Flugge, M., Steele, R., Man, D., Riley-Gilbert, M., & Biggar, S. (2014). 

Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Agriculture and Forestry: Methods for EntityScale Inventory. Washington, DC: Office of the Chief Economist, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture.

Fu, R., Feldman, D., Margolis, R., Woodhouse, M., & Ardani, K. (2017). U.S. Solar 

Photovoltaic System Cost Benchmark: Q1 2017. Golden, CO: National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory. Retrieved from https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf

Grandy, A. S. (2006). Do productivity and environmental trade-offs justify periodically 

cultivating no-till cropping systems? Agronomy Journal, 98(6) , 1377-1383.

Hauck, R. (1990). Agronomic and Public Aspects of Soil Nitrogen Research. Soil Use and 

Management, 6(2), 66-70.

ICF International. (2013). Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Options and Costs for Agricultural 

Land and Animal Production within the United States. Washington, DC. Retrieved 

from 

https://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_change/mitigation_technologies/GHG_Mitigation

_Options.pdf

ICF International. (2016). Managing Agricultural Land for Greenhouse Gas Mitigation within 

the United States. Report prepared for USDA, Climate Change Program Office.

IPNI. (2017). 4 Nutrient Stewardship. Retrieved from International Plant Nutrition Institute: 

http://www.ipni.net/4R

Johnson, R. (2011). The Nitrogen Cycle. Boise, Idaho: United States Department of 

Agriculture. Retrieved from 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs144p2_046108.pdf

La Menza, N., Monzon, J., Specht, J., & Grassini, P. (2017). Is soybean yield limited by 

nitrogen supply? Field Crops Research, 213, 204-212.

Millar, N., Robertson, G., Grace, P., Gehl, R., & Hoben, J. (2010). Nitrogen Fertilizer 

Management for Nitrous Oxide (N2O) Mitigation in Intensive Corn (Maize) 

Production: An Emissions Reduction Protocol for US Midwest Agriculture. Mitigation 

and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 15(2), 185-204.

Mitchell, P. D., & Moore, V. (2014). Economics of Cover Crops. Wisconsin Cover Crops 

Conference. Madison, WI. Retrieved from 

http://www.aae.wisc.edu/pdmitchell/Production/EconomicsCoverCrops.pdf

Mourtzinis, S., Kaur, G., Orlowski, J. M., Shapiro, C. A., Lee, C. D., Wortmann, C., . . . 

Conley, S. P. (2018). Soybean response to nitrogen application across the United 

States: A synthesis-analysis. Field Crops Research, 215, 74-82. Retrieved from 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037842901731033X

Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Ferraro, P. J., Polasky, S., Ricketts, T. H., & Rouget, M. (2006). 

Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends in Ecology and 

Evolution, 21(12). Retrieved from 

http://www.uvm.edu/giee/pubpdfs/Naidoo_2006_TRENDS_in_Ecology_and_Evoluti

on.pdf
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Works Cited 77 

NRCS, NHCP. (2012). Natural Resources Conservation Services Conservation Practice 

Standard Nutrient Management. Code 590. Retrieved from 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1046433.pdf

NYSERDA. (2016). New York State Renewable Portfolio Standard Annual Performance 

Report through December 31, 2015. Albany, NY: New York State Energy Research 

and Development Authority.

NYSERDA. (2018). Renwable Portfolio Standard. Retrieved 07 18, 2018, from Clean

Energy Standard: https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/All-Programs/Programs/CleanEnergy-Standard/Renewable-Portfolio-Standard

Olson, K. R., Al-Kaisi, M., Lal, R., & Lowery, B. (2014). Examining the paired comparison 

method approach for determining soil organic carbon sequestration rates. Journal of 

Soil and Water Conservation, 69(6), 193A-197A.

Osteen, C., Gottlieb, J., & Vasavada (eds.), U. (2012). Agricultural Resources and 

Environmental Indicators, 2012 Edition. Economic Information Bulletin Number 98, 

Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved 

from http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/132048/files/EIB98.pdf

Pape, D. J.-G. (2016). Managing Agricultural Land for Greenhouse Gas Mitigation within 

the United States. Report prepared by ICF International under USDA Contract No. 

AG-3144-D-1. USDA.

Paustian, K., Lehmann, J., Ogle, S., Reay, D., Robertson, G., & Smith, P. (2016). ClimateSmart Soils. Nature, 532(7597), 49-57.

Pennsylvania General Assembly. (2004). Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act -

Enactment. 2004 Act 213. Retrieved from 

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/li/uconsCheck.cfm?yr=2004&sessInd=0&ac

t=213

Ribaudo, M., Delgado, J., Hansen, L., Livingston, M., Mosheim, R., & Williamson, J. (2011). 

Nitrogen In Agricultural Systems: Implications for Conservation Policy. United States 

Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service.

Robertson, G., Bruulsema, T., Gehl, R., Kanter, D., Mauzerall, D., Rotz, C., & Williams, C. 

(2013). Nitrogen-Climate Interactions in US Agriculture. Biogeochemistry, 114(1-3), 

41-70.

Sam, A. B. (2017). How Incentives Affect the Adoption of Anaerobic Digesters in the United 

States. Sustainability, 11-12.

Schahczenski, J. (2014). Federal Conservation Resources for Sustainable Farming. NCAT. 

Retrieved from https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/download.php?id=280

Schimmelpfennig, D. (2016a). Precision Agriculture Technologies and Factors Affecting 

Their Adoption. Retrieved 2017, from https://www.ers.usda.gov/amberwaves/2016/december/precision-agriculture-technologies-and-factors-affectingtheir-adoption/

Schimmelpfennig, D. (2016b). Farm Profits and Adoption of Precision Agriculture, ER-217.

USDA, ERS. Retrieved from https://www.ers.usda.gov/amberwaves/2016/december/precision-agriculture-technologies-and-factors-affectingtheir-adoption/
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Works Cited 78 

Simmons, R. T. (2016). Renewable Portfolio Standards: Pennsylvania. Logan, UT: Institute 

of Political Economy, Utah State University.

Smith, P., Martino, D., Cai, Z., & Gwary, D. (2007). Chapter 8: Agriculture in Climate 

Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Snyder, C. (2016). Reducing Nitrogen Losses from Fields with the 4Rs: A Focus on Nitrous 

Oxide Emissions. Nitrogen Program Director. Conway, Arkansas, USA: International 

Plant Nutrition Institute.

Snyder, C., & Fixen, P. (2012). Plant Nutrient Management and Risks of Nitrous Oxide 

Emission. J Soil Water Conserv, 67, 137A-144A.

Stavi, I. L. (2011). On-farm effects of no-till versus occasional tillage on soil quality and crop 

yields in eastern Ohio. Agronomy for sustainable development, 31(3),, 475-482.

Stubbs, M. (2016). Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land Rehabilitation.

Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wpcontent/uploads/assets/crs/R42854.pdf

Stute, J. (2013). Cover Crop Economics: The green behind the green. UW Extension. 

Retrieved from http://fyi.uwex.edu/sustag/files/2013/02/Economics-of-CoverCrops.pdf

Swinton, S., Rector, N., Robertson, G., Jolejole-Foreman, C., & Lupi, F. (2015). Farmer 

decisions about adopting environmentally beneficial practices. In S. Hamilton, J. 

Doll, & G. Robertson, The Ecology of Agricultural Landscapes: Long-Term 

Research on the Path to Sustainability (pp. 340-359). New York, NY: Oxford 

University Press.

Taylor, C. (2015, January 21). Cover Crops Provide Multiple Benefits, Higher Yields. 

National Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved September 11, 2017, from 

https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2015/01/21/cover-crops-provide-multiple-benefitshigher-yields

The Fertilizer Institute. (2017). What are the 4Rs? (T. F. Institute, Producer) Retrieved from 

4 Nutrient Stewardship: http://www.nutrientstewardship.com/4rs/

TNC. (2017). Western Lake Erie Basin. Working with Agriculture: the 4Rs of Nutrient 

Stewardship. Retrieved from The Nature Conservancy: 

https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/areas/greatlakes/explore/

nutrient-stewardship-4rs.xml

U.S. EIA. (2018). U.S. Price of Natural Gas Sold to Commercial Consumers. U.S. Energy 

Information Administration. Retrieved from 

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3020us3a.htm

USDA. (2011b). USDA Consensus Statement. (O. Economist, Producer) Retrieved from 

United States Department of Agriculture: 

https://www.usda.gov/oce/sustainable/definitions.htm

USDA. (2014). Farms and Farmland: Numbers, Acreage, Ownership, and Use. 2012 

Census of Agriculture. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from 

https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/Highlights/Far

ms_and_Farmland/Highlights_Farms_and_Farmland.pdf
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Works Cited 79 

USDA. (2016). USDA Building Blocks for Climate Smart Agriculture and Forestry: 

Implementation Plan and Progress Report. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Retrieved from https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/building-blocksimplementation-plan-progress-report.pdf

USDA. (2017). Conservation. Retrieved August 31, 2017, from 

https://www.usda.gov/topics/conservation 

USDA. (2018). Conservation. Retrieved September 18, 2018, from 

https://www.usda.gov/topics/conservation

USDA. (2018, 05 04). Surveys. Retrieved from Agricultural Resource Management 

(ARMS): 

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Ag_Resource_Mana

gement/index2.php

USDA CEAP. (2011). Assessment of the Effects of Conservation Practices on Cultivated 

Cropland in the Chesapeake Bay Region. Conservation Effects Assessment Project 

(CEAP). Retrieved from 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1042076.pdf

USDA CEAP. (2017a). Conservation Effects Assessment Project. United States 

Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved from 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/technical/nra/ceap/#

USDA CRP. (2017a). Conservation Reserve Program. Retrieved from United States 

Department of Agriculture: Farm Service Agency: 

https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservationprograms/conservation-reserve-program/index

USDA ERS. (2004a). Durum Wheat Production Practices and Costs Report. Agricultural 

Resource Management Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, DC: 

National Agricultural Statistics Service. Retrieved from 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/DataFiles/52816/27986_w_5e2004_5edurum_2

0wheat_5ephase2_20questionnaire_5eq_5ecop_cpp_1_.pdf?v=40877

USDA ERS. (2004b). Spring Wheat Production Practices and Costs Report. Agricultural 

Resource Management Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, DC: 

National Agricultural Statistics Service. Retrieved from 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/DataFiles/52816/27990_w_5e2004_5espring_20

wheat_5ephase2_20questionnaire_5eq_5ecop_cpp_1_.pdf?v=40877

USDA ERS. (2004c). Winter Wheat Production Practices and Costs Report. Agricultural 

Resource Management Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, DC: 

National Agricultural Statistics Service. Retrieved from 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/DataFiles/52816/27992_w_5e2004_5ewinter_20

wheat_5ephase2_20questionnaire_5eq_5ecop_cpp_1_.pdf?v=40877

USDA ERS. (2005). Corn Production Practices and Costs Report. Agricultural Resource 

Management Survey (ARMS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, DC: 

National Agricultural Statistics Service. Retrieved from 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/DataFiles/52816/27972_w_5e2005_5ecorn_5ep

hase2_20questionnaire_5eq_5ecop_cpp_1_.pdf?v=40877
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Works Cited 80 

USDA ERS. (2006). Soybean Production Practices and Costs Report. Agricultural 

Resource Management Survey (ARMS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service. Retrieved from 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/DataFiles/52816/27960_w_5e2006_5esoybeans

_5ephase2_20questionnaire_5eq_5ecop_cpp_1_.pdf?v=40877

USDA ERS. (2009a). Durum Wheat Production Practices and Costs Report. Agricultural 

Resource Management Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, DC: 

National Agricultural Statistics Service. Retrieved from 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/DataFiles/52816/27901_w_5e2009_5edurum_2

0wheat_5ephase2_20questionnaire_20production_20practices_20__20costs_5eq_

5ecop_cpp_1_.pdf?v=40877

USDA ERS. (2009b). Spring Wheat Production Practices and Costs Report. Agricultural 

Resource Management Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, DC: 

National Agricultural Statistics Service. Retrieved from 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/DataFiles/52816/27906_w_5e2009_5espring_20

wheat_5ephase2_20questionnaire_20production_20practices_20__20costs_5eq_5

ecop_cpp_1_.pdf?v=40877

USDA ERS. (2009c). Winter Wheat Production Practices and Costs Report. Agricultural 

Resource Management Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, DC: 

National Agricultural Statistics Service. Retrieved from 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/DataFiles/52816/27908_w_5e2009_5ewinter_20

wheat_5ephase2_20questionnaire_20production_20practices_20__20costs_5eq_5

ecop_cpp_1_.pdf?v=40877

USDA ERS. (2010a). Agricultural Resource Management Survey: Costs and Returns 

Report. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service. Retrieved from 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/DataFiles/52816/27878_W_2010_CRR_Phase3

_Questionnaire_Q_FOH.pdf?v=40877

USDA ERS. (2010b). Corn Production Practices and Costs Report. Agricultural Resource 

Management Survey (ARMS), United States Department of Agriculture. 

Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service. Retrieved from 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/DataFiles/52816/27883_W_2010_Corn_Phase2

_Questionnaire_Production_Practices_And_Costs_Q_COP_CPP.pdf?v=40877

USDA ERS. (2011). Agricultural Resource Management Survey: Costs and Returns Report.

Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service. Retrieved from 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/DataFiles/52816/33836_W_2011_CRR_Phase3

_Questionnaire_Q_FOH.pdf?v=41241

USDA ERS. (2012a). Agricultural Resource Management Survey: Costs and Returns 

Report. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service. Retrieved from 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/DataFiles/52816/33795_W_2012_CRR_Phase3

_Questionnaire_Q_FOH.pdf?v=41241

USDA ERS. (2012b). Soybean Production Practices and Costs Report. Agricultural 

Resource Management Survey (ARMS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service. Retrieved from 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/DataFiles/52816/33801_W_2012_Soybean_Pha

se2_Questionnaire_Production_Practices_And_Costs_Q_COP_CPP.pdf?v=41740
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Works Cited 81 

USDA ERS. (2015). Agricultural Resource Management Survey: Costs and Returns Report.

Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service. Retrieved from 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/DataFiles/52816/54266_W_2015_CRR_Phase3

_Questionnaire_Q_FOH.pdf?v=42299

USDA ERS. (2016a). Corn Production Practices and Costs Report for 2016. Agricultural 

Resource Management Survey (ARMS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. St. Louis, 

MO: National Agricultural Statistics Service. Retrieved from 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/DataFiles/83637/W%5E2016%5ECorn%5EPhas

e2%20Questionnaire%20Production%20Practices_Costs%5EQ%5ECOP_CPP.pdf

?v=42877

USDA ERS. (2016c). Chemical Inputs Overview. United States Department of Agriculture 

Economic Research Service. Retrieved from https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farmpractices-management/chemical-inputs/

USDA ERS. (2016d, October 12). Nutrient Management. Retrieved September 10, 2017, 

from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service: 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-practices-management/crop-livestockpractices/nutrient-management/

USDA ERS. (2017a). Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) Tailored Reports: 

Crop Production Practices, Nutrient Use and Management, Corn. Retrieved from 

United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Services: 

https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=17883

USDA ERS. (2017b, July 26). Background. Retrieved from United States Department of 

Agriculture Economic Research Service: 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/soybeans-oil-crops/background/

USDA ERS. (2017c). Corn and Other Feed Grains: Overview. Retrieved from United States 

Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service: 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn/

USDA ERS. (2017d). Overview. Retrieved from United States Department of Agriculture 

Economic Research Service: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/wheat/

USDA ERS. (2017e, April). Soil Tillage and Crop Rotation. Retrieved 2017, from 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-practices-management/crop-livestockpractices/soil-tillage-and-crop-rotation/

USDA FS. (2017). Conservation Education: Programs. Retrieved August 31, 2017, from 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/conservationeducation/programs 

USDA FSA. (2017a). Conservation Programs. Retrieved August 31, 2017, from 

https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/

USDA NASS. (2018, May 4). Statistics by Subject. Retrieved from National Agricultural 

Statitstics Service: 

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_Subject/result.php?551C6376-6206-3DB1-

A353-

92605E21EAE3§or=ANIMALS%20%26%20PRODUCTS&group=LIVESTOCK&

comm=CATTLE
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Works Cited 82 

USDA NIFA. (2017). Adoption of Precision Agriculture. (U. D. Agriculture, Producer, & 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture) Retrieved August 28, 2017, from 

Precision, Geospatial & Sensor Technologies Programs: 

https://nifa.usda.gov/adoption-precision-agriculture

USDA NRCS. (2003). Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP). Washington, DC: 

National Agricultural Statistics Service. Retrieved from 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_013508.pdf

USDA NRCS. (2004). Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP). Washington, DC: 

National Agricultural Statistics Service. Retrieved from 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_013394.pdf

USDA NRCS. (2005). Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP). Washington, DC: 

National Agricultural Statistics Service. Retrieved from 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1041940.pdf

USDA NRCS. (2006). Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP). Washington, DC: 

National Agricultural Statistics Service. Retrieved from 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1041938.pdf

USDA NRCS. (2006). Soil Tillage Intensity Rating (STIR). Minnesota: Natural Resources 

Conservation Service United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_022735.pdf

USDA NRCS. (2007). Precision Agriculture: NRCS Support for Emerging Technologies.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

Greensboro, NC: United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources 

Conservation Services. Retrieved from 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1043474.pdf

USDA NRCS. (2008). Soil Tillage Intensity Rating. United States Department of Agriculture. 

Retrieved from 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_010153.pdf

USDA NRCS. (2009). Anaerobic Digeser - 366 Information Sheet. Conservation Practice 

Information Sheet. Retrieved from 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_026500.pdf

USDA NRCS. (2010). Conservation Practice Standard: Cover Crop. Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. Retrieved from 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_025656.pdf

USDA NRCS. (2011). 4Rs Right for Nutrient Management. Retrieved from USDA Natural 

Resources Conservation Service: 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/ia/home/?cid=nrcs142p2_008196

USDA NRCS. (2012). Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation Practice 

Standard: Nutrient Management. Washington, DC: USDA NRCS. Retrieved from 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1046896.pdf

USDA NRCS. (2013). Cover Crop Benefits and Opportunities. Washington, DC: Natural 

Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved from 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1082778.pdf
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Works Cited 83 

USDA NRCS. (2015). Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP). Washington, DC: 

National Agricultural Statistics Service. Retrieved from 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd386209.pdf

USDA NRCS. (2016a). Reduction in Annual Fuel Use from Conservation Tillage. Retrieved 

from https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd1258255.pdf

USDA NRCS. (2016b). Surveys - Conservation Effects Assessment Project. Retrieved 

2017, from CONSERVATION EFFECTS ASSESSMENT PROJECT (CEAP) - 2016: 

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Conservation_Effects_Assessment_Project/201

6/2016CEAPQuestionnareFinal.pdf

USDA NRCS. (2017a). 4R Nutrient Stewardship. Retrieved from 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0ahU

KEwiTJfzweTXAhVGyWMKHa2DCUwQFghPMAc&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.res

earchgate.net%2Ffile.PostFileLoader.html%3Fid%3D575e7f57eeae3958857833b3

%26assetKey%3DAS%253A372451541307395%254014658107

USDA NRCS. (2017c). Conservation Innovation Grants. Retrieved August 31, 2017, from 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/cig/

USDA NRCS. (2017d). Conservation Planning. Retrieved August 31, 2017, from 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/technical/cp/

USDA NRCS. (2017e). Cover Crops. Retrieved August 25, 2017, from 

https://plants.usda.gov/about_cover_crops.html

USDA NRCS. (2017f). Cover Crops and Soil Health. Retrieved August 25, 2017, from 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/climatechange/?cid=stelpr

db1077238

USDA NRCS. (2017g). GHG and Carbon Sequestration Ranking Tool. Retrieved August 

31, 2017, from 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/air/?cid=stelprdb10449

82

USDA NRCS. (2017h). NRCS Practice Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction 

and Carbon Sequestration. Retrieved August 2017, from 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/air/?cid=stelprdb10449

82

USDA NRCS. (2018a). Environmental Quality Incentives Program. Retrieved 06 04, 2018, 

from USDA NRCS Financial Assistance: 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/eqip/

USDA NRCS. (2018b, September). History of NRCS. Retrieved from USDA Natural 

Resources Conservation Service: 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/about/history/

USDA NRCS IA. (2016, August 16). State, Federally Funded Cover Crop Acres Increase 22 

Percent. Retrieved September 11, 2017, from 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/ia/newsroom/releases/?cid=NRCS

EPRD1258613

USDA OCE. (2014a). United States: Corn. Retrieved from United States Department of 

Agriculture Office of the Chief Economist: 
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Works Cited 84 

https://www.usda.gov/oce/weather/pubs/Other/MWCACP/Graphs/USA/US_Corn_20

10_to_2014.pdf

USDA OCE. (2014b). United States: Durum Wheat. Retrieved from United States 

Department of Agriculture Office of the Chief Economist: 

https://www.usda.gov/oce/weather/pubs/Other/MWCACP/Graphs/USA/US_WheatD

urum_2010_to_2014.pdf

USDA OCE. (2014c). United States: Soybeans. Retrieved from United States Department 

of Agriculture Office of the Chief Economist: 

https://www.usda.gov/oce/weather/pubs/Other/MWCACP/Graphs/USA/US_Soybea

ns_2010_to_2014.pdf

USDA OCE. (2014d). United States: Spring Wheat. Retrieved from United States 

Department of Agriculture Office of the Chief Economist: 

https://www.usda.gov/oce/weather/pubs/Other/MWCACP/Graphs/USA/US_WheatS

pring_2010_to_2014.pdf

USDA OCE. (2014e). United States: Winter Wheat. Retrieved from United States 

Department of Agriculture Office of the Chief Economist: 

https://www.usda.gov/oce/weather/pubs/Other/MWCACP/Graphs/USA/US_WheatW

inter_2010_to_2014.pdf

USDA RMA. (2016). 2016 Cover Crops Crop Insurance, Cover Crops and NRCS Cover

Crop Termination Guidelines. Retrieved from Risk Management Agency FAQs: 

https://www.rma.usda.gov/help/faq/covercrops2016.html

USDA, EPA, & DOE, U. (2014). Biogas Opportunities Roadmap: Voluntary Actions to 

Reduce Methane Emissions and Increase Energy Independence. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Energy. 

Retrieved from 

https://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/Biogas_Opportunities_Roadmap_8-1-

14.pdf

Wade, T., Claassen, R., & Wallander, S. (2015). Conservation-Practice Adoption Rates 

Vary Widely by Crop and Region. United States Department of Agriculture. 

Economic Research Service. Retrieved from 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/44027/56332_eib147.pdf?v=42403

Watts, C. (2017, June 9). (P. communication, Interviewer)

Weber, C., & McCann, L. (2014, November 11). Adoption of Nitrogen-Efficient 

Technologies by U.S. Corn Farmers. Journal of Environmental Quality Abstract -

Special Section: Improving Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Crop and Livestock 

Production Systems, 44(2), 391-401. doi:10.2134/jeq2014.02.0089

Wheeler, J. P. (2015). 2014 Reneable Portfolio Standard Summary Report. Public Service 

Commission of Wisconsin. Retrieved from Wisconsin Public Service: 

http://www.wisconsinpublicservice.com/environment/renewable_standards.aspx

Wisconsin Public Service. (2018). Renewable Standards for Wisconsin. Retrieved from 

https://accel.wisconsinpublicservice.com/environment/renewable_standards.aspx
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Works Cited 85 

Zaks, D. P. (2011). Contribution of Anaerobic Digesters to Emissions Mitigation and 

Electricity Generation Under U.S. Climate Policy. Environmental Science & 

Technology, 2.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix A 86 

APPENDIX A: USDA DATA SOURCES ON 

AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PRACTICES

Additional USDA Sources for Agricultural Conservation Data are briefly outlined below. This 

list is not meant to be exhaustive but provides background on a variety of USDA sources 

where readers can find additional agricultural conservation data and information. 

Census of Agriculture26

The Census of Agriculture (Census), administered by USDA’s National Agricultural 

Statistics Service (NASS), is a complete count of U.S. farms and ranches and the people 

who operate them. All plots of land growing fruit, vegetables, or some food animals count if 

$1,000 or more of such products were raised and sold, or normally would have been sold, 

during the Census year.

The Census is taken once every 5 years, and collects data on land use and ownership, 

operator characteristics, production practices, income and expenditures. The Census 

collects some information on agricultural conservation practices, including the following:

 Cover crops: total acres used for cover crops at the national and State level. Data 

available from 2012.

 Manure management: percentage of livestock managed by each manure management 

system by State and livestock type. Data available from 2007.

 Tillage: total acres farmed using mulch tillage and no-till. Data available from 2012.

Conservation Effects Assessment Program (CEAP) 

National Assessments27

CEAP is a multi-USDA agency effort to quantify the environmental effects of conservation 

practices and programs and develop the science base for managing the agricultural 

landscape for environmental quality. Assessments in CEAP are carried out at national, 

regional, and watershed scales on cropland, grazing lands, wetlands, and for wildlife.

The purpose of the National Assessment for Cropland (CEAP-Cropland) is to estimate the 

environmental benefits and effects of conservation practices applied to cultivated cropland 

and cropland enrolled in long-term conserving cover (e.g., the Conservation Reserve 

Program). The first CEAP assessment (CEAP-1) was from farmer survey data collected 

between 2003 and 2006 with data from the National Resources Inventory (NRI), NRCS field 

office records, and the Farm Service Agency. The second CEAP assessment (CEAP-2) 

data was collected in 2015 and 2016.

 

26 USDA 2012 Census of Agriculture Reports are available here: https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/

27 USDA NRCS CEAP Data available in report-form here: 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/technical/nra/ceap/
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix A 87 

As part of CEAP-Cropland, NASS conducts surveys with a randomly selected set of 

farmers nationwide every 10 years. NASS interviews cooperating farmers to obtain current 

information on farming practices (e.g., crops grown, tillage practices, and nutrient and 

pesticide application) at NRI statistical sample points for the sample year and the previous 

2 years. Data are run through APEX, a water quality model, to estimate nutrient and 

sediment savings. The CEAP program also produces regional reports, available on the 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) website.28

CEAP collects a wide variety of data on agricultural conservation practices, including:

 Cover crops: planting date and type of cover crop. 

 Nitrogen inhibitors: whether inhibitors were used. 

 Manure management: date and amount applied, method of application, manure storage 

method. 

 Reduced tillage: number and percentage of acres using continuous and seasonal no till 

and mulch tillage. Uses the Soil Tillage Intensity Rating (STIR) to evaluate tillage, where 

a STIR < 30 indicates no till, a STIR between 30 and 100 indicates mulch till, and a 

STIR > 100 indicates conventional tillage. 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)29

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is a land conservation program administered by 

the Farm Service Agency (FSA). In exchange for a yearly rental payment, farmers enrolled 

in the program agree to remove environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production 

and plant species that will improve environmental health and quality. Contracts for land 

enrolled in CRP are 10-15 years in length. The long-term goal of the program is to reestablish valuable land cover to help improve water quality, prevent soil erosion, and 

enhance wildlife habitat (USDA CRP, 2017a). As part of the program, USDA FSA tracks the 

location, number of acres, and the conservation practice in which the acres are enrolled. 

Monthly and annual statistics on CRP enrollment are available online.30 In addition to the 

CRP program, data on a variety of CRP Initiatives are available online, including:

 Bottomland Hardwoods Initiative

 Duck Habitat Initiative 

 Floodplain Wetland Initiative

 Highly Erodible Land Initiative

 Honeybee Habitat Initiative

 Longleaf Pine Initiative

 Non-Floodplain and Playa Lakes Wetland Initiative

 Pollinator Habitat Initiative

 

28 See https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/technical/nra/ceap/pub/

29 Information on CRP can be found here: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservationprograms/conservation-reserve-program/

30 See https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/reports-andstatistics/conservation-reserve-program-statistics/index
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix A 88 

 State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE) Initiative 

 Upland Bird Habitat Initiative 

National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS)31

USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) initiated the National Animal 

Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) to collect, analyze, and disseminate data on the 

health, management, and productivity of domestic livestock populations across the United 

States. These studies are designed to meet the information needs of the industries 

associated with these commodities. NAHMS collects information on livestock such as dairy, 

swine, beef cow-calf, poultry, equine, sheep, and goats. 

Conservation-related information covered by NAHMS includes data on manure 

management systems, which are split into categories (e.g., lagoon, deep pit, liquid/slurry, 

solid storage, and pasture/paddock). 

National Resources Inventory (NRI)32

The National Resources Inventory (NRI) is a statistical study of land use and natural 

resource conditions and trends on U.S. non-Federal lands. The NRI is conducted by USDA 

NRCS in cooperation with the Iowa State University Statistical Laboratory. 

The 2012 NRI is the latest in a series of natural resource inventories conducted by NRCS. It 

provides updated information on the status, condition, and trends of land, soil, water, and 

related resources on the Nation’s non-Federal lands. Non-Federal lands include privately 

owned lands, Tribal and trust lands, and lands controlled by State and local governments. 

The 2012 NRI report presents national- and State-level estimates for the 48 conterminous 

States, Hawaii, and the Caribbean Territories for basic NRI data themes, including changes 

and trends in land cover/use, irrigation, land capability class and subclass, prime farmland, 

soil erosion, and wetlands.

 

31 Data and information on NAHMS are available at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/nahms

32 More information on the NRI can be found at 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/technical/nra/nri/
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix B 89 

APPENDIX B: CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY 

INNOVATION CENTER (CTIC) COVER CROP DATA

Starting in 2013, the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program and 

CTIC have conducted annual voluntary cover crop user surveys. While the surveys are 

heavily weighted towards farmers who use reduced tillage and cover crops, they provide a 

snapshot of changes in cover crop acreage over time (each survey asks farmers for how 

many acres on which they planted cover crops for the previous 5 years and their projected 

acreage for cover crops for the next year). As each survey includes a different set of 

respondents, the data from each survey year are unique and cannot be compared to other 

survey years. For this report, CTIC provided data on total acreage planted and either total 

acres planted with cover crops, or percent of acres planted with cover crops by State (CTIC 

2013, 2014, 2015, 2016). As the data points were shared using unique ID numbers only, no

confidential business information (CBI) or sensitive information was shared.

It is important to note that unlike USDA ARMS data, data from the CTIC/SARE surveys are

not representative of all U.S. farms. The surveys are conducted voluntarily (unlike USDA 

ARMS surveys, which are randomized to be statistically representative of all U.S. farms), 

resulting in a wide variation in respondents geographically and in each survey year. For 

example, the number of respondents may vary greatly by State and by year, with some 

States/years having large numbers of respondents with others having few to no 

respondents. This variation in respondents means that each survey (which asks how many 

acres of cover crops were planted in each of the previous 5 years and how many acres are 

expected to be planted the following year) must be viewed as a unique data set and cannot 

be compared to other survey years. States with fewer than three respondents in a survey 

year were not included in this report. Additionally, due to the information channels used to 

market the surveys, the surveys more likely reflect farmers who were already inclined to 

use cover crops or were already using them. Therefore, the surveys are likely to overrepresent farmers who use cover crops and under-represent those who do not, making it 

difficult to make broader assertions about general use of cover crops by the U.S. farming 

community from these data (Watts, 2017).

Given the above, data from the 2015- 2016 CTIC/SARE survey are only included in this 

report as an indication of general trends in the number of acres planted to cover crops (i.e.,

to indicate whether the number of acres grown using cover crops increases or decreases 

over the period covered by each survey: the previous 5 years and the upcoming year). 

They should not be looked at in terms of absolute number of acres planted with cover crops 

or the average percent of acres planted with cover crops, as these values are likely not 

representative of U.S. averages or the U.S. farming community in general (Watts, 2017).

Data are presented in two ways, (1) number of acres where cover crops were grown by 

USDA region; (2) number of acres where cover crops were grown by farm size. Given that 

the data are from voluntary (not representative) surveys, there are no statistical analyses on 

standard error or relative standard error in any of the surveys.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix B 90 

CTIC 2015-2016 Survey

This survey had 990 respondents. The survey clearly shows that the number of acres with 

cover crops increased from 2011 to 2015 and was projected to increase further in 2016 

(surveys were conducted in 2015, so 2016 values were projected numbers of acres where

cover crops were planted) (see FIGURE B-1a). Additionally, data from this survey 

indicated that farm size impacted the number of acres where cover crops were grown 

(i.e., the larger the farm, the more acres that were planted with cover crops) (see FIGURE

B-1b). It is not clear from the data whether this is because larger farms have more acres 

on which to plant cover crops or because larger farms plant cover crops on a higher 

percent of total acres than smaller farms. This pattern was consistent for all years 

covered by the survey. Regional differences (either acres with cover crops or acres with 

cover crops by farm size) may or may not represent actual regional differences given the 

voluntary nature of the survey.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix B 91 

FIGURE B-1. Area Planted With Cover Crops, 2015–2016

Source: Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SARE) based on Conservation Technology Information 

Center data for 2015-2016.

A. Graph of acres planted with cover crops by USDA region and year. Acreage from each region is specified by a different 

color. K = thousand.

B. Graph of acres planted with cover crops by farm size, USDA region, and year. Acreage from each region is specified by 

a different color. K = thousand.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix B 92 

TABLE B-1. Area Planted with Cover Crops, 2015–2016 (Acres)

USDA 

Region

# 

Surveyed 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Upcoming 

2016

Delta 5 10 10 141 540 425 951

Pacific 36 2,556 2,679 2,669 3,070 5,213 6,311

Southeast 24 5,713 5,892 6,784 7,488 7,174 8,344

Appalachia 48 4,435 5,311 7,253 8,032 8,760 8,876

Southern 

Plains

18 7,973 8,418 10,619 11,646 12,163 13,784

Mountain 28 10,845 11,197 11,045 12,509 12,775 12,920

Northeast 107 8,487 9,540 10,984 12,866 17,508 18,828

Northern 

Plains

95 9,989 12,480 17,254 20,938 32,119 37,128

Lake States 158 23,864 26,062 29,644 32,683 45,109 49,127

Corn Belt 480 45,152 64,976 87,597 108,286 145,364 169,776

Source: Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SARE) based on Conservation Technology Information 

Center data for 2015-2016.

Works Cited

CTIC. (2013). 2012-13 Cover Crop Survey. Conservation Technology Information Center 

(CTIC), Conservation Technology Information Center. Sustainable Agriculture 

Research & Education. Retrieved from 

http://www.ctic.org/media/pdf/Cover%20Crops/SARECTIC%20Cover%20Crop%20Survey%202013.pdf

CTIC. (2014). 2013-14 Cover Crop Survey. Joint publication of the Conservation 

Technology Information Center and the North Central Region Sustainable 

Agriculture Research and Education Program. Retrieved from 

http://www.ctic.org/media/CoverCrops/CTIC_04_Cover_Crops_report.pdf

CTIC. (2015). 2014-15 Cover Crop Survey. Conservation Technology Information Center. 

Joint publication of the Conservation Technology Information Center and the North 

Central Region Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program. Retrieved 

from http://www.ctic.org/media/pdf/20142015CoverCropReport_Draft6.pdf

CTIC. (2016). 2015-16 Cover Crop Survey. Conservation Technology Information Center. 

Joint publication of the Conservation Technology Information Center and the North 

Central Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. 

Retrieved from 

http://www.ctic.org/media/CoverCrops/2016CoverCropSurvey_Final.pdf

Watts, C. (2017, June 9). (P. communication, Interviewer)
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix C 93 

APPENDIX C: DATA TABLES

This appendix presents the data tables that ICF used to produce the graphics. 

TABLE C-1. Term Definitions for Data Tables.

Term Definition Units

Region Farm Production Region33

Appalachia: KY, NC, TN, VA, WV

Corn Belt: IA, IL, IN, MO, OH

Delta: AR, LA, MS

Lake States: MN, WI, MI

Mountain: AZ, CO, ID, MT, NM, NV, UT, WY

Northeast: CT, DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT

Northern Plains: KS, ND, NE, SD

Southeast: AL, FL, GA, SC

Southern Plains: OK, TX

States

Planted Acres Number of acres planted to the target crop Acre

Percent Applied Percent of acres that nitrogen fertilizers are applied to for the 

target crop

%

Average Pounds 

Per Acre Applied

Total pounds of nitrogen applied divided by total acres applied 

for target crop

Pounds of nitrogen 

per bushel

Average Pounds 

Per Acre (RSE)

Relative standard error of Average Pounds Per Acre Applied %

Total Acres Applied Number of acres that nitrogen fertilizers are applied to for the 

target crop

Acre

Total Acres Applied 

(RSE)

Relative error of Total Acres Applied %

Average Pounds 

Per Bushel

Total pounds of nitrogen applied divided by crop production 

(measured in bushels) in a region for the target crop

Pounds of nitrogen 

per bushel

Average Pounds 

Per Bushel (RSE)

Relative standard error of Average Pounds Per Bushel %

Fall Application (%) Percent of nitrogen applied to the target crop’s field in the fall %

Application Before 

and at Planting (%)

Percent of nitrogen applied to the target crop’s field in the 

spring and/or at planting

%

Application After 

Planting (%)

Percent of nitrogen applied to the target crop’s field after 

planting

%

Fall Application 

(Acres)

Number of acres that nitrogen was applied to the target crop’s 

field in the fall

Acres

 

33 The ARMS survey does not cover the entire continental United States or each full region, depending on the target crop 

and year. See for detail: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/arms-farm-financial-and-crop-productionpractices/documentation/
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix C 94 

Term Definition Units

Application Before 

and at Planting 

(Acres)

Number of acres that nitrogen was applied to the target crop’s 

field in the spring and/or at planting

Acres

Application After 

Planting (Acres)

Number of acres that nitrogen was applied to the target crop’s 

field after planting

Acres

Applied with No 

Incorporation (%)

Percent of nitrogen applied to the target crop’s field without 

incorporation into the soil

%

Applied with 

Incorporation (%)

Percent of nitrogen applied to the target crop’s field with 

incorporation into the soil

%

Applied with 

Incorporation 

(Acres)

Number of acres that nitrogen was applied to the target crop’s 

field with incorporation into the soil

Acres

Applied with No 

Incorporation 

(Acres)

Number of acres that nitrogen was applied to the target crop’s 

field without incorporation into the soil

Acres

Use of X Percent of acres grown using X practice or technology for the 

target crop

%

Acres in X Number of acres treated with X practice or technology for the 

target crop

Acres

Acres in X (RSE) Relative standard error of Total Acres with X %

Total Acres in Field Total acres planted to any crop Acres

Total Acres (RSE) Relative standard error of Total Acres %

Continuous 

Conventional-Till

Land treated with a Soil Tillage Intensity Rating (STIR) > 100 

for all years in rotation.

Mulch-Till Land treated with either continuous mulch tillage (STIR rating 

between 30 and 100 for all years in a multi-year rotation) or 

seasonal mulch tillage (multi-year tillage rotation that has at 

least 1 year of mulch-till [STIR rating between 30 and 100] and 

other years with conventional till [STIR rating >100]).

No tillage Land treated with either continuous no tillage (STIR rating < 30 

for all crops in a multi-year rotation) or seasonal no tillage (at 

least one crop of no tillage [STIR rating< 30] and other crops 

with mulch tillage [STIR rating <100]).

Continuous No 

tillage

Land treated with a STIR < 30 for all years in a multi-year 

rotation.

Seasonal No tillage Land treated with a multi-year tillage rotation that has at least 1

year of no tillage (STIR rating< 30) and other years with mulch 

tillage (STIR rating between 30 and 100).

Continuous Mulch

Tillage

Land treated a STIR between 30 and 100 for all years in a 

multi-year rotation.

Seasonal Mulch

Tillage

Land treated with a multi-year tillage rotation that has at least 1

year of mulch tillage (STIR rating between 30 and 100) and 

other years with conventional tillage (STIR rating >100).
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix C 95 

TABLE C-2. Corn Nitrogen Application Amount (per Acre): Data for FIGURE 9

Nitrogen Applied to Corn Crops in 2005

Region

Planted 

Acres

Percent of 

Planted 

Acres

Average 

Pounds 

per Acre 

Applied

Average 

Pounds 

per Acre 

(RSE)*

Total 

Acres N 

Applied

Total 

Acres N 

Applied 

(RSE)*

Appalachia 2,019,152 98 139 4 1,979,156 1

Corn Belt 37,673,272 97 141 2 36,400,000 2

Lake States 13,496,579 96 99 5 12,900,000 2

Mountain 1,100,000 90 134 17 994,036 6

Northeast 2,340,000 92 76 10 2,161,761 2

Northern 

Plains

18,191,926 98 118 3 17,800,000 1

Southeast 270,000 98 138 5 264,055 1

Southern 

Plains

2,070,569 97 150 8 2,006,718 2

National 77,161,498 121 2

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2005.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.

Nitrogen Applied to Corn Crops in 2010

Region

Planted 

Acres

Percent of 

Planted 

Acres

Average 

Pounds Per 

Acre 

Applied

Average 

Pounds 

Per Acre 

(RSE)*

Total Acres 

N Applied

Total Acres 

N Applied 

(RSE)*

Appalachia 2,261,382 95 145 5 2,155,095 3

Corn Belt 38,733,490 97 150 2 37,600,000 1

Lake States 13,961,466 91 103 4 12,700,000 5

Mountain 1,328,611 98 123 14 1,299,590 2

Northeast 2,381,848 91 73 11 2,156,462 3

Northern 

Plains

20,633,831 99 127 3 20,500,000 0

Southeast 295,944 90 145 6 266,400 7

Southern 

Plains

2,297,080 99 123 6 2,278,447 1

National 81,893,629 125 2

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2010.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix C 96 

Nitrogen Applied to Corn Crops in 2016

Region

Planted 

Acres

Percent of 

Planted 

Acres

Average 

Pounds Per 

Acre 

Applied

Average 

Pounds 

Per Acre 

(RSE)*

Total Acres 

N Applied

Total Acres 

N Applied 

(RSE)*

Appalachia 2,500,037 94 135 5 2,353,332 3

Corn Belt 38,306,292 98 153 1 37,397,510 1

Lake States 14,899,926 96 112 2 14,251,640 1

Mountain 1,340,061 96 141 8 1,292,951 3

Northeast 2,500,002 94 78 3 2,350,935 2

Northern 

Plains

23,999,979 99 132 1 23,810,400 0

Southeast 409,896 97 165 2 396,065 4

Southern 

Plains

2,900,052 87 124 4 2,531,102 13

National 86,856,245 128 1

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2016.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.

TABLE C-3. Corn Nitrogen Application (per Bushel): Data for FIGURE 10

Nitrogen Applied Per Yield of Corn in 2005

Region

Planted 

Acres

Percent of 

Planted Acres

Average Pounds 

Per Bushel

Average Pounds 

Per Bushel 

(RSE)*

Appalachia 2,019,152 98 1.06 4

Corn Belt 37,673,272 97 0.87 2

Lake States 13,496,579 96 0.72 6

Mountain 1,100,000 90 0.88 17

Northeast 2,340,000 92 0.66 11

Northern Plains 18,191,926 98 0.86 3

Southeast 270,000 98 1.1 7

Southern Plains 2,070,569 97 1.17 5

National 77,161,498 0.84 2

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2005.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix C 97 

Nitrogen Applied to Yield of Corn in 2010

Region Planted Acres

Percent of 

Planted Acres

Average 

Pounds Per 

Bushel

Average 

Pounds Per 

Bushel 

(RSE)*

Appalachia 2,261,382 95 1.09 8

Corn Belt 38,733,490 97 0.87 2

Lake States 13,961,466 91 0.68 4

Mountain 1,328,611 98 0.81 10

Northeast 2,381,848 91 0.65 14

Northern Plains 20,633,831 99 0.85 3

Southeast 295,944 90 1.16 5

Southern Plains 2,297,080 99 1.07 5

National 81,893,629 0.82 2

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2010.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.

Nitrogen Applied to Yield of Corn in 2016

Region Planted Acres

Percent of 

Planted Acres

Average 

Pounds Per 

Bushel

Average 

Pounds Per 

Bushel (RSE)*

Appalachia 2,500,037 94 0.85 6

Corn Belt 38,306,292 98 0.83 2

Lake States 14,899,926 96 0.68 7

Mountain 1,340,061 96 0.83 12

Northeast 2,500,002 94 0.57 7

Northern Plains 23,999,979 99 0.81 3

Southeast 409,896 97 1.20 8

Southern Plains 2,900,052 87 0.92 4

National 86,856,245 0.77 2

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2016.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix C 98 

TABLE C-4. Soybean Nitrogen Application (per Acre): Data for FIGURE 11

Soybean 2006

Region

Planted 

Acres

Percent of 

Planted 

Acres

Average 

Pounds Per 

Acre Applied

Average 

Pounds Per 

Acre (RSE)*

Total 

Acres N 

Applied

Total Acres 

N Applied 

(RSE)*

Appalachia 4,442,186 35 23 14 1,567,622 10

Corn Belt 35,935,999 12 17 5 4,267,083 11

Delta 5,667,189 4 11 10 212,287 34

Lake States 11,100,230 21 14 9 2,289,992 11

Northern 

Plains

16,132,251 32 14 8 5,203,870 10

National 73,277,855 17 6

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2006.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.

Soybeans 2012

Region

Planted 

Acres

Percent of 

Planted 

Acres

Average 

Pounds Per 

Acre Applied

Average 

Pounds Per 

Acre (RSE)*

Total 

Acres N 

Applied

Total Acres 

N Applied 

(RSE)*

Appalachia 4,919,916 42 19 8 2,080,205 9

Corn Belt 33,639,849 19 19 4 6,299,005 2

Delta 6,307,927 9 19 12 575,032 13

Lake States 10,828,795 33 14 5 3,565,424 7

Northern 

Plains

18,550,469 42 12 5 7,763,195 4

National 74,246,950 17 4

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2012.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix C 99 

TABLEC-5. Soybean Nitrogen Application (per Bushel): Data for FIGURE 12

Soybeans 2006

Region Planted Acres

Percent of 

Planted Acres

Average Pounds 

Per Bushel

Average 

Pounds Per 

Bushel 

(RSE)*

Appalachia 4,442,186 35 0.589 16

Corn Belt 35,935,999 12 0.352 5

Delta 5,667,189 4 0.253 13

Lake States 11,100,230 21 0.308 8

Northern Plains 16,132,251 32 0.318 9

National 73,277,855 0.39 6

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2006.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.

Soybeans 2012

Region Planted Acres

Percent of 

Planted Acres

Average 

Pounds Per 

Bushel

Average 

Pounds Per 

Bushel (RSE)*

Appalachia 4,919,916 42 0.464 10

Corn Belt 33,639,849 19 0.39 5

Delta 6,307,927 9 0.45 13

Lake States 10,828,795 33 0.32 5

Northern Plains 18,550,469 42 0.296 7

National 74,246,950 0.37 4

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2012.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix C 100 

TABLE C-6. Wheat Nitrogen Application (per Acre): Data for FIGURE 13.

Wheat 2004

Region

Planted 

Acres

Percent of 

Planted 

Acres

Average 

Pounds Per 

Acre Applied

Average 

Pounds Per 

Acre (RSE)*

Total Acres 

N Applied

Total Acres 

N Applied 

(RSE)*

Corn Belt 2,900,992 100 92 6 2,888,212 0

Lake States 2,367,103 98 92 2 2,319,880 1

Mountain 9,038,580 80 55 6 7,212,409 5

Northern 

Plains

23,359,997 90 63 4 21,000,000 2

Pacific 3,330,000 98 84 5 3,255,811 2

Southern 

Plains

12,601,375 79 70 14 9,972,342 6

National 53,598,047 70 3

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2004.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.

Wheat 2009

Region

Planted 

Acres

Percent of 

Planted 

Acres

Average 

Pounds Per 

Acre Applied

Average 

Pounds Per 

Acre (RSE)*

Total Acres 

N Applied

Total Acres 

N Applied 

(RSE)*

Corn Belt 2,629,893 97 94 4 2,539,031 1

Lake States 2,242,639 95 83 5 2,136,806 2

Mountain 9,209,899 83 62 5 7,629,040 3

Northern 

Plains

22,892,341 94 65 3 21,500,000 1

Pacific 3,178,660 99 86 6 3,146,941 1

Southern 

Plains

12,052,102 70 55 8 8,419,799 5

National 52,205,526 69 2

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2009.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix C 101 

TABLE C-7. Wheat Nitrogen Application (per Bushel): Data for FIGURE 14

Wheat 2004

Region Planted Acres

Percent of 

Planted Acres

Average Pounds 

Per Bushel

Average Pounds 

Per Bushel 

(RSE)*

Corn Belt 2,900,992 100 1.5 4

Lake States 2,367,103 98 1.45 3

Mountain 9,038,580 80 1.08 7

Northern Plains 23,359,997 90 1.42 5

Pacific 3,330,000 98 1.21 7

Southern Plains 12,601,375 79 1.58 6

National 53,598,047 1.40 2

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2004.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.

Wheat 2009

Region Planted Acres

Percent of 

Planted Acres

Average Pounds 

Per Bushel

Average Pounds 

Per Bushel 

(RSE)*

Corn Belt 2,629,893 97 1.46 3

Lake States 2,242,639 95 1.29 6

Mountain 9,209,899 83 1.24 5

Northern Plains 22,892,341 94 1.33 3

Pacific 3,178,660 99 1.22 5

Southern Plains 12,052,102 70 1.46 7

National 52,205,526 1.34 2

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2009.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix C 102 

TABLE C-8. Corn Nitrogen Application by Application Timing: Data for FIGURE

15*

Region Year

Fall 

Application 

(% of Planted 

Acres)

Application 

Before and at 

Planting (%

of Planted 

Acres)

Application 

After Planting 

(% of Planted 

Acres)

Fall 

Application 

(Acres)

Application 

Before and at 

Planting 

(Acres)

Application 

After Planting 

(Acres)

Corn Belt 2005 24 55 21 8,660,739 20,093,364 7,645,896

2010 24 55 21 8,943,536 20,858,656 7,797,811

2016 23 50 26 8,629,790 18,870,211 9,884,656

Northern 

Plains

2005 11 66 23 1,987,943 11,748,774 4,063,283

2010 13 61 26 2,719,901 12,452,768 5,301,448

2016 17 59 23 4,040,982 14,015,635 5,587,963

Lake States 2005 24 57 19 3,076,992 7,355,526 2,467,484

2010 19 63 18 2,413,215 8,056,635 2,230,150

2016 19 57 24 2,745,252 8,077,443 3,411,952

Northeast 2005 78 21 1,687,648 461,611

2010 69 31 1,485,333 669,305

2016 59 39 1,380,992 922,505

Southern 

Plains

2005 20 47 33 393,523 943,159 670,036

2010 21 47 31 488,845 1,082,250 707,352

2016 18 60 22 454,624 1,524,537 551,940

Appalachia 2005 4 62 34 84,159 1,217,545 677,453

2010 59 40 1,261,054 871,702

2016 5 59 36 108,584 1,387,570 857,178

Mountain 2005 55 29 543,630 287,361

2010 56 39 723,197 505,872

2016 14 53 32 186,177 687,409 419,365

Southeast 2005 8 25 66 21,740 66,149 175,393

2010 19 79 51,786 210,183

2016 36 64 142,560 253,505

National 2005 20 58 22 19,600,000 61,000,000 22,00,000

2010 19 58 23 20,600,000 61,300,000 24,700,000

2016 20 54 26 23,200,000 64,400,000 32,000,000

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2005, 2010, and 2016.

*All data presented in this table have a Relative Standard Error of less than 50 percent.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix C 103 

TABLE C-9. Corn Nitrogen Application by Application Method: Data for FIGURE

16*

Region Year

Applied With No 

Incorporation 

(%)

Applied With No 

Incorporation 

(Acres)

Applied With 

Incorporation 

(%)

Applied With 

Incorporation 

(Acres)

Corn Belt 2005 14 5,031,452 86 31,367,620

2010 15 5,654,453 84 31,716,935

2016 16 5,821,420 84 31,396,261

Northern Plains 2005 30 5,259,154 70 12,540,846

2010 29 5,892,290 71 14,561,861

2016 26 6,277,774 73 17,317,904

Lake States 2005 14 1,779,441 85 10,911,644

2010 22 2,829,098 78 9,870,902

2016 29 4,151,920 69 9,787,029

Northeast 2005 32 684,608 68 1,477,153

2010 52 1,112,435 48 1,038,364

2016 54 1,260,269 46 1,090,585

Southern Plains 2005 13 259,266 87 1,747,452

2010 23 519,540 76 1,739,592

2016 16 399,680 84 2,131,422

Appalachia 2005 42 824,164 56 1,112,426

2010 31 669,160 69 1,479,101

2016 54 1,275,925 44 1,038,968

Mountain 2005 25 251,937 74 737,578

2010 93 1,205,203

2016

Southeast 2005 28 72,952 72 189,838

2010 36 95,868 64 170,532

2016 57 224,445 43 171,620

National 2005 19 26,100,000 81 66,100,000

2010 21 29,100,000 79 67,400,000

2016 23 32,400,000 77 71,200,000

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2005, 2010, and 2016.

*All data presented in this table have a Relative Standard Error of less than 50 percent.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix C 104 

TABLE C-10. Corn Acres Grown With Variable Rate Technology (VRT): Data 

for FIGURE 17.

Corn 2005

Region Planted Acres

Use of VRT (% of 

Planted Acres)

Acres in VRT 

(Acres)

Acres in VRT 

(RSE)*

Corn Belt 37,673,272 6 2,119,040 22

Lake States 13,496,579 2 325,182 36

Northern Plains 18,191,926 5 938,336 16

National 77,161,498 5 3,590,540 16

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2005.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.

Corn 2010

Region Planted Acres

Use of VRT (% of 

Planted Acres)

Acres in VRT 

(Acres)

Acres in VRT 

(RSE)*

Corn Belt 38,733,490 8 3,236,975 23

Lake States 13,961,466 11 1,540,610 29

Mountain 1,328,611 16 216,330 40

Northeast 2,381,848 6 137,685 45

Northern Plains 20,633,831 13 2,694,530 18

National 81,893,629 10 8,232,990 14

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2010.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.

Corn 2016

Region Planted Acres

Use of VRT (% of 

Planted Acres)

Acres in VRT 

(Acres)

Acres in 

VRT (RSE)*

Appalachia 2,500,037 25 608,293 14

Corn Belt 38,306,292 35 13,400,000 4

Lake States 14,899,926 21 3,069,021 7

Mountain 1,340,061 20 214,791 6

Northeast 2,500,002 10 241,465 28

Northern Plains 23,999,979 28 6,369,748 7

Southeast 409,896 8 33,451 18

Southern Plains 2,900,052 6 173,663 29

National 86,856,245 28 24,100,000 3

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2016.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix C 105 

TABLE C-11. Wheat Acres Grown With Variable Rate Technology (VRT): Data 

for FIGURE 18

Wheat 2004

Region Planted Acres

Use of VRT (% of 

Planted Acres)

Acres in VRT 

(Acres)

Acres in VRT 

(RSE)*

Corn Belt 2,900,992 3 90,286 37

Lake States 2,367,103 7 157,067 50

Mountain 9,038,580 5 435,199 41

Northern Plains 23,359,997 5 1,218,099 36

Pacific 3,330,000 29 951,904 28

National 53,598,047 7 3,732,297 18

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2004.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.

Wheat 2009

Region Planted Acres

Use of VRT (% of 

Planted Acres)

Acres in VRT 

(Acres)

Acres in VRT 

(RSE)*

Corn Belt 2,629,893 7 174,116 27

Lake States 2,242,639 9 201,870 30

Mountain 9,209,899 10 953,548 20

Northern Plains 22,892,341 8 1,822,239 18

Pacific 3,178,660 35 1,106,293 12

Southern Plains 12,052,102 10 1,239,060 23

National 52,205,526 11 5,497,126 9

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2009.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix C 106 

TABLE C-12. Corn Acres Grown With Auto Steer: Data for FIGURE 19

Corn 2005

Region Planted Acres

Use of Auto Steer 

(% of Planted 

Acres)

Acres in Auto 

Steer ( Acres)

Acres in Auto 

Steer (RSE)*

Appalachia 2,019,152 10 208,649 31

Corn Belt 37,673,272 13 4,936,033 17

Lake States 13,496,579 9 1,257,778 20

Mountain 1,100,000 24 265,632 23

Northeast 2,340,000 5 113,986 49

Northern Plains 18,191,926 23 4,251,947 17

Southern Plains 2,070,569 27 548,794 25

National 77,161,498 15 11,589,620 10

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2005.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.

Corn 2010

Region Planted Acres

Use of Auto Steer 

(% of Planted 

Acres)

Acres in Auto 

Steer ( Acres)

Acres in 

Auto Steer 

(RSE)*

Appalachia 2,261,382 46 1,043,076 17

Corn Belt 38,733,490 47 18,300,000 5

Lake States 13,961,466 35 4,861,937 13

Mountain 1,328,611 77 1,021,685 11

Northeast 2,381,848 7 177,319 31

Northern Plains 20,633,831 51 10,600,000 7

Southeast 295,944 34 99,819 28

Southern Plains 2,297,080 42 962,564 18

National 81,893,629 45 36,988,190 4

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2009.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix C 107 

Corn 2016

Region Planted Acres

Use of Auto 

Steer (% of 

Planted Acres)

Acres in Auto 

Steer (Acres)

Acres in Auto 

Steer (RSE)*

Appalachia 2,500,037 49 1,211,381 8

Corn Belt 38,306,292 56 20,900,000 1

Lake States 14,899,926 46 6,681,290 3

Mountain 1,340,061 56 609,584 9

Northeast 2,500,002 23 563,290 14

Northern Plains 23,999,979 67 15,400,000 2

Southeast 409,896 28 114,856 15

Southern Plains 2,900,052 52 1,514,370 9

National 86,856,245 54 47,100,000 1

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2016.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.

TABLE C-13. Soybean Acres Grown With Auto Steer: Data for FIGURE 20

Soybeans 2006

Region Planted Acres

Use of Auto Steer 

(% of Planted 

Acres)

Acres in Auto 

Steer ( Acres)

Acres in Auto 

Steer (RSE)*

Appalachia 4,442,186 12 550,903 21

Corn Belt 35,935,999 18 6,589,840 9

Delta 5,667,189 12 668,745 15

Lake States 11,100,230 17 1,830,463 18

Northern Plains 16,132,251 30 4,864,620 7

National 73,277,855 20 14,504,570 5

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2006.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix C 108 

Soybeans 2012

Region Planted Acres

Use of Auto 

Steer (% of 

Planted Acres)

Acres in Auto 

Steer ( Acres)

Acres in Auto 

Steer (RSE)*

Appalachia 4,919,916 36 1,754,146 14

Corn Belt 33,639,849 47 15,700,000 4

Delta 6,307,927 33 2,100,428 11

Lake States 10,828,795 44 4,786,238 9

Northern Plains 18,550,469 49 9,166,447 5

National 74,246,950 45 33,464,280 3

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2012.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.

TABLE C-14. Wheat Acres Grown With Auto Steer: Data for FIGURE 21

Wheat 2004

Region Planted Acres

Use of Auto 

Steer (% of 

Planted Acres)

Acres in Auto 

Steer ( Acres)

Acres in Auto 

Steer (RSE)*

Corn Belt 2,900,992 6 166,573 20

Lake States 2,367,103 28 668,334 18

Mountain 9,038,580 17 1,534,919 14

Northern Plains 23,359,997 20 4,689,486 14

Pacific 3,330,000 12 401,801 24

Southern Plains 12,601,375 10 1,250,980 30

National 53,598,047 16 8,712,092 7

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2004.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix C 109 

Wheat 2009

Region Planted Acres

Use of Auto Steer 

(% of Planted 

Acres)

Acres in Auto 

Steer ( Acres)

Acres in Auto 

Steer (RSE)*

Corn Belt 2,629,893 19 503,215 16

Lake States 2,242,639 50 1,129,048 9

Mountain 9,209,899 53 4,879,972 5

Northern Plains 22,892,341 47 10,700,000 8

Pacific 3,178,660 50 1,601,103 7

Southern Plains 12,052,102 27 3,203,579 13

National 52,205,526 42 22,042,540 5

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2009.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.

TABLE C-15. Cover Crops on Farmland for Crops and Livestock: Data for 

FIGURE 22

Region Year

Use of Cover 

Crops (% of 

Total Acres)

Acres in 

Cover Crops 

(Acres)

Acres in Cover 

Crops (RSE)

Total Acres 

in Field

Total 

Acres 

(RSE)*

Northern 

Plains

2010 89,000,000 19

2011 1 614,918 49 92,900,000 4

2012 1 1,210,886 17 95,800,000 3

2015 2 1,965,824 27 99,300,000 7

Corn Belt 2010 1 518,432 35 91,400,000 1

2011 1 1,070,281 25 89,700,000 2

2012 2 2,032,267 10 89,000,000 1

2015 4 3,783,111 11 87,800,000 2

Mountain 2010 3 1,184,419 29 40,600,000 5

2011 0 189,518 39 43,800,000 7

2012 3 1,182,790 37 41,677,174 6

2015 2 860,103 41 39,500,000 5

Southern 

Plains

2010 42,500,000 18

2011 2 758,248 26 40,700,000 6

2012 4 1,348,013 17 37,800,000 5

2015 6 2,321,637 38 39,400,000 20

Lake States 2010 36,800,000 9

2011 1 377,052 34 39,900,000 3

2012 4 1,637,576 9 39,175,289 2

2015 4 1,652,234 26 39,700,000 7
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix C 110 

Region Year

Use of Cover 

Crops (% of 

Total Acres)

Acres in 

Cover Crops 

(Acres)

Acres in Cover 

Crops (RSE)

Total Acres 

in Field

Total 

Acres 

(RSE)*

Pacific 2010 1 265,295 40 22,714,474 7

2011 1 306,681 25 20,995,532 9

2012 5 1,038,398 27 22,887,398 15

2015 3 668,833 17 20,383,565 6

Appalachia 2010 5 1,140,326 17 23,850,558 4

2011 5 1,087,339 25 23,105,340 5

2012 7 1,327,719 13 17,948,988 4

2015 8 1,608,894 13 19,684,067 4

Delta 2010 17,865,932 4

2011 3 538,235 44 17,670,815 6

2012 2 229,534 30 14,842,188 5

2015 18,503,383 12

Northeast 2010 8 928,197 23 12,048,422 7

2011 6 701,962 14 12,435,724 7

2012 12 1,856,444 16 15,186,506 6

2015 14 1,879,022 15 13,442,617 8

Southeast 2010 3 320,128 34 12,081,051 5

2011 4 452,658 36 12,483,195 7

2012 8 906,400 20 11,687,536 5

2015 10 1,079,686 16 11,359,097 5

National 2010 2 7,701267 9 388,802,400 3

2011 2 6,096,892 9 393,623,700 2

2012 3 12,770,030 5 385,904,900 1

2015 4 16,266,880 10 389,195,300 2

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2010, 2011, 2012, and 

2015.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix C 111 

TABLE C-16. Corn Acres Grown With No Tillage: Data for FIGURE 23

Corn 2005

Region Planted Acres

Use of No Tillage 

(% of Planted 

Acres)

Acres in No 

Tillage (Acres)

Acres in No 

Tillage 

(RSE)*

Appalachia 2,019,152 65 1,307,807 10

Corn Belt 37,673,272 27 10,315,890 10

Lake States 13,496,579 10 1,287,285 17

Mountain 1,100,000 35 390,243 35

Northeast 2,340,000 26 611,893 24

Northern Plains 18,191,926 46 8,300,654 8

Southeast 270,000 39 105,704 23

Southern Plains 2,070,569 16 324,493 20

Total 77,161,498 29 22,643,970 4

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2005.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.

Corn 2010

Region Planted Acres

Use of No Tillage 

(% of Planted 

Acres)

Acres in No 

Tillage (Acres)

Acres in No 

Tillage 

(RSE)*

Appalachia 2,261,382 67 1,510,943 15

Corn Belt 38,733,490 27 10,277,940 12

Lake States 13,961,466 19 2,599,669 32

Mountain 1,328,611 55 725,536 25

Northeast 2,381,848 48 1,131,891 9

Northern Plains 20,633,831 51 10,435,760 7

Southeast 295,944 41 121,691 32

Southern Plains 2,297,080 11 242,088 39

Total 81,893,629 33 27,045,520 5

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2010.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix C 112 

Corn 2016

Region Planted Acres

Use of No Tillage 

(% of Planted 

Acres)

Acres in No 

Tillage (Acres)

Acres in No 

Tillage (RSE)*

Appalachia 2,500,037 68 1,691,430 3

Corn Belt 38,306,292 25 9,545,621 5

Lake States 14,899,926 12 1,799,146 5

Mountain 1,340,061 47 518,646 9

Northeast 2,500,002 46 1,116,119 6

Northern Plains 23,999,979 57 13,100,000 3

Southeast 409,896 35 145,020 7

Southern Plains 2,900,052 11 314,303 33

Total 86,856,245 33 28,300,000 2

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2016.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.

TALBE C-17. Corn Acres Grown With Mulch Tillage: Data for FIGURE 24

Corn 2005

Region Planted Acres

Use of Mulch 

Tillage (% of 

Planted Acres)

Acres in Mulch 

Tillage (Acres)

Acres in 

Mulch Tillage 

(RSE)*

Appalachia 2,019,152 22 447,213 16

Corn Belt 37,673,272 57 21,650,400 6

Lake States 13,496,579 40 5,416,958 7

Mountain 1,100,000 29 320,949 35

Northeast 2,340,000 24 569,584 17

Northern Plains 18,191,926 42 7,550,368 9

Southeast 270,000 40 106,978 17

Southern Plains 2,070,569 26 544,273 23

Total 77,161,498 47 36,606,720 3

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2005.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix C 113 

Corn 2010

Region Planted Acres

Use of Mulch 

Tillage (% of 

Planted Acres)

Acres in Mulch 

Tillage (Acres)

Acres in Mulch 

Tillage (RSE)*

Appalachia 2,261,382 29 655,394 33

Corn Belt 38,733,490 57 21,890,600 7

Lake States 13,961,466 50 7,031,920 10

Northeast 2,381,848 21 496,953 18

Northern Plains 20,633,831 38 7,906,111 8

Southeast 295,944 44 130,693 31

Southern Plains 2,297,080 40 924,067 18

Total 81,893,629 48 39,324,160 4

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2010.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.

Corn 2016

Region Planted Acres

Use of Mulch 

Tillage (% of 

Planted Acres)

Acres in Mulch 

Tillage (Acres)

Acres in Mulch 

Tillage (RSE)*

Appalachia 2,500,037 27 676,564 7

Corn Belt 38,306,292 61 23,000,000 2

Lake States 14,899,926 51 7,437,043 4

Mountain 1,340,061 40 435,530 13

Northeast 2,500,002 31 764,709 9

Northern Plains 23,999,979 30 6,988,953 4

Southeast 409,896 50 206,225 7

Southern Plains 2,900,052 44 1,267,950 15

Total 86,856,245 47 40,800,000 2

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2016.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix C 114 

TABLE C-18. Soybean Acres Grown With No Tillage: Data for FIGURE 25

Soybean 2006

Region Planted Acres

Use of No Tillage 

(% of Planted 

Acres)

Acres in No 

Tillage (Acres)

Acres in No 

Tillage (RSE)*

Appalachia 4,442,186 79 3,481,155 4

Corn Belt 35,935,999 56 20,072,330 3

Delta 5,667,189 24 1,365,353 10

Lake States 11,100,230 23 2,549,535 14

Northern Plains 16,132,251 45 7,182,696 6

Total 73,277,855 47 34,651,070 2

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2006.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.

Soybean 2012

Region Planted Acres

Use of No 

Tillage (% of 

Planted Acres)

Acres in No 

Tillage (Acres)

Acres in No 

Tillage (RSE)*

Appalachia 4,919,916 83 4,072,341 4

Corn Belt 33,639,849 50 16,685,840 3

Delta 6,307,927 19 1,195,346 15

Lake States 10,828,795 18 1,895,983 10

Northern Plains 18,550,469 47 8,757,386 5

Total 74,246,950 44 32,606,900 3

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2012.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.

TABLE C-19. Soybean Acres Grown With Mulch Tillage: Data for FIGURE 26

Soybean 2006

Region Planted Acres

Use of Mulch 

Tillage (% of 

Planted Acres)

Acres in Mulch 

Tillage (Acres)

Acres in Mulch 

Tillage (RSE)*

Appalachia 4,442,186 18 804,651 18

Corn Belt 35,935,999 32 11,252,950 7

Delta 5,667,189 45 2,563,603 14

Lake States 11,100,230 45 4,904,043 7

Northern Plains 16,132,251 38 6,045,020 7

Total 73,277,855 35 25,570,270 4

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2006.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix C 115 

Soybean 2012

Region Planted Acres

Use of Mulch 

Tillage (% of 

Planted Acres)

Acres in Mulch 

Tillage (Acres)

Acres in Mulch 

Tillage (RSE)*

Appalachia 4,919,916 16 767,895 19

Corn Belt 33,639,849 38 12,632,090 5

Delta 6,307,927 44 2,800,135 6

Lake States 10,828,795 47 5,078,380 10

Northern Plains 18,550,469 36 6,673,010 7

Total 74,246,950 38 27,951,510 4

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2012.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.

TABLE C-20. Wheat Acres Grown With No Tillage: Data for FIGURE 27

Wheat 2004

Region Planted Acres

Use of No 

Tillage (% of 

Planted Acres)

Acres in No 

Tillage (Acres)

Acres in No 

Tillage (RSE)*

Corn Belt 2,900,992 59 1,705,045 7

Lake States 2,367,103 18 418,694 8

Mountain 9,038,580 37 3,378,401 25

Northern Plains 23,359,997 23 5,405,820 10

Pacific 3,330,000 13 430,394 23

Total 53,598,047 22 11,963,650 6

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2004.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.

Wheat 2009

Region Planted Acres

Use of No 

Tillage (% of 

Planted Acres)

Acres in No 

Tillage (Acres)

Acres in No 

Tillage (RSE)*

Corn Belt 2,629,893 64 1,686,731 5

Lake States 2,242,639 25 564,273 20

Mountain 9,209,899 53 4,887,961 5

Northern Plains 22,892,341 48 10,903,420 5

Pacific 3,178,660 26 812,954 15

Southern Plains 12,052,102 23 2,769,134 17

Total 52,205,526 41 21,624,470 3

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2009.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix C 116 

TABLE C-21. Wheat Acres Grown With Mulch Tillage: Data for FIGURE 28

Wheat 2004

Region Planted Acres

Use of Mulch 

Tillage (% of 

Planted Acres)

Acres in Mulch 

Tillage (Acres)

Acres in Mulch 

Tillage (RSE)*

Corn Belt 2,900,992 37 1,059,705 10

Lake States 2,367,103 26 621,127 18

Mountain 9,038,580 25 2,302,299 17

Northern Plains 23,359,997 22 5,195,916 11

Pacific 3,330,000 23 758,832 29

Southern Plains 12,601,375 24 2,992,698 21

Total 53,598,047 24 12,930,580 6

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2004.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.

Wheat 2009

Region Planted Acres

Use of Mulch 

Tillage (% of 

Planted Acres)

Acres in Mulch 

Tillage (Acres)

Acres in Mulch 

Tillage (RSE)*

Corn Belt 2,629,893 29 753,413 10

Lake States 2,242,639 44 996,353 12

Mountain 9,209,899 26 2,398,329 14

Northern Plains 22,892,341 19 4,319,208 13

Pacific 3,178,660 23 736,248 21

Southern Plains 12,052,102 33 3,932,184 14

Total 52,205,526 25 13,135,730 6

Source: USDA Economic Research Service based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data for 2009.

*RSE = Relative Standard Error.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix C 117 

TABLE C-22. Crop Rotations Split Into Three Tillage Categories: Data for

FIGURE 29

Region

Continuous 

Conventional Tillage 

(% of Planted Acres)

Mulch Tillage (% of 

Planted Acres)

No Tillage (% of 

Planted Acres)

Corn Belt 2.9 43.4 53.7

Northern Plains 8.9 45.8 45.4

Lake States 11.0 66.3 22.7

Southern Plains 51.6 36.9 11.5

Mountain 5.9 44.4 49.6

Appalachia 7.5 30.5 62.0

Delta 15.4 56.4 28.2

Pacific 7.4 51.3 41.3

Northeast 14.1 47.6 38.3

Southeast 12.6 45.5 41.9

Source: USDA Economic Research Service analysis based on Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) data for 2003, 2004, 2005, 

and 2006.

TABLE C-23. Crop Rotations Split Into Five Tillage Categories: Data for 

FIGURE 30

Region

Continuous 

No Tillage (% 

of Planted 

Acres)

Seasonal No 

Tillage (% of 

Planted 

Acres)

Continuous 

Mulch Tillage

(% of Planted 

Acres)

Seasonal 

Mulch Tillage

(% of Planted 

Acres)

Continuous 

Conventiona

l Tillage (% 

of Planted 

Acres)

Northern 

Plains

28.2 17.2 22.0 23.8 8.9

Corn Belt 25.3 28.4 31.8 11.6 2.9

Lake States 10.2 12.5 37.9 28.4 11.0

Southern 

Plains

5.7 5.7 17.5 19.4 51.6

Mountain 29.6 20.0 12.1 32.4 5.9

Delta 16.1 12.1 37.3 19.1 15.4

Appalachia 48.5 13.5 16.5 14.0 7.5

Southeast 27.0 14.9 21.3 24.2 12.6

Pacific 19.2 22.1 11.0 40.3 7.4

Northeast 23.4 14.9 19.5 28.1 14.1

Source: USDA Economic Research Service analysis based on Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) data for 2003, 2004, 2005, 

and 2006.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix D 118 

APPENDIX D: SURVEY QUESTIONS

TABLE D-1. Corn Nitrogen Application Amount (per acre)

Survey Question (s) Section/question #

ARMS 

CORN 

PPCR 

20051

“How many acres of corn did this operation plant for the 2005 crop 

year?”

Section A/Question 1

“What quantity was applied per acre?” Section C/Question 4, N, 3

“How many acres were treated in this application?” Section C/Question 4, N, 7

ARMS 

CORN 

PPCR 

20102

“How many acres of corn did this operation plant for the 2010 crop 

year?”

Section A/Question 1

“What quantity was applied per acre?” Section C/Question 4, N, 3

“How many acres were treated in this application?” Section C/Question 4, N, 7

ARMS 

CORN 

PPCR 

20163

“How many acres of corn did this operation plant for the 2016 crop 

year?”

Section A/Question 1

“What quantity was applied per acre?” Section C/Question 3, N, 3

“How many acres were treated in this application?” Section C/Question 3, N, 7

1

(USDA ERS, 2005); 2(USDA ERS, 2010b); 3(USDA ERS, 2016a). ARMS PPCR = Agricultural Resource Management Survey Production 

Practices and Costs Report.

TABLE D-2. Corn Nitrogen Application (per bushel)

Survey Question (s) Section/question #

ARMS 

CORN 

PPCR 

20051

“What quantity was applied per acre?” Section C/Question 4, N, 3

“What was your yield goal at planting for this field?” Section C/Question 8

ARMS 

CORN 

PPCR 

20102

“What quantity was applied per acre?” Section C/Question 4, N, 3

“What was your yield goal at planting for this field?” Section C/Question 8

ARMS 

CORN 

PPCR 

20163

“What quantity was applied per acre?” Section C/Question 3, N, 3

“What was your yield goal at planting for this field?” Section B/Question 8a

1

(USDA ERS, 2005); 2(USDA ERS, 2010b); 3(USDA ERS, 2016a). ARMS PPCR = Agricultural Resource Management Survey Production 

Practices and Costs Report.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix D 119 

TABLE D-3. Soybean Nitrogen Application (per acre)

Survey Question (s) Section/question #

ARMS 

SOYBEAN 

PPCR 

20061

“How many acres of soybeans did this operation plant for the 

2006 crop year?”

Section A/Question 1

“What quantity was applied per acre?” Section C/Question 4, N, 3

“How many acres were treated in this application?” Section C/Question 4, N, 7

ARMS 

SOYBEAN 

PPCR 

20122

“How many acres of soybeans did this operation plant for the 

2012 crop year?”

Section A/Question 1

“What quantity was applied per acre?” Section C/Question 3, N, 3

“How many acres were treated in this application?” Section C/Question 3, N, 7

1

(USDA ERS, 2006); 2(USDA ERS, 2012b). ARMS PPCR = Agricultural Resource Management Survey Production Practices and Costs 

Report.

TABLE D-4. Soybean Nitrogen Application (per bushel)

Survey Question (s) Section/question #

ARMS 

SOYBEAN 

PPCR 

20061

“What quantity was applied per acre?” Section C/Question 4, N, 3

“What was your yield goal at planting for this field?” Section C/Question 8

ARMS 

SOYBEAN 

PPCR 

20122

“What quantity was applied per acre?” Section C/Question 3, N, 3

“What was your yield goal at planting for this field?” Section B/Question 8b

1

(USDA ERS, 2006); 2(USDA ERS, 2012b). ARMS PPCR = Agricultural Resource Management Survey Production Practices and Costs 

Report.

TABLE D-5. Wheat Nitrogen Application (per acre)

Survey Question (s) Section/question #

ARMS 

WHEAT 

PPCR 

20041

“How many acres of wheat (winter, durum and other spring) did 

this operation plant for the 2004 crop year?”

Section A/Question 1

“What quantity was applied per acre?” Section C/Question 4, N, 3

“How many acres were treated in this application?” Section C/Question 4, N, 7

ARMS 

WHEAT 

PPCR 

20092

“How many acres of wheat (winter, durum and other spring) did 

this operation plant for the 2009 crop year?”

Section A/Question 1

“What quantity was applied per acre?” Section C/Question 4, N, 3

“How many acres were treated in this application?” Section C/Question 4, N, 7

1

(USDA ERS, 2004a; USDA ERS, 2004b; USDA ERS, 2004c); 2(USDA ERS, 2009a; USDA ERS, 2009b; USDA ERS, 2009c). ARMS 

PPCR = Agricultural Resource Management Survey Production Practices and Costs Report.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix D 120 

TABLE D-6. Wheat Nitrogen Application (per bushel)

Survey Question (s) Section/question #

ARMS 

WHEAT 

PPCR 

20041

“What quantity was applied per acre?” Section C/Question 4, N, 3

“What was your yield goal at planting for this field?” Section C/Question 9

ARMS 

WHEAT 

PPCR 

20092

“What quantity was applied per acre?” Section C/Question 4, N, 3

“What was your yield goal at planting for this field?” Section C/Question 8

1

(USDA ERS, 2004a; USDA ERS, 2004b; USDA ERS, 2004c); 2(USDA ERS, 2009a; USDA ERS, 2009b; USDA ERS, 2009c). ARMS 

PPCR = Agricultural Resource Management Survey Production Practices and Costs Report.

TABLE D-7. Corn Nitrogen Application by Application Timing

Survey Question (s) Section/question #

ARMS 

CORN 

PPCR 

20051

“How many acres of corn did this operation plant for the 2005 

crop year?”

Section A/Question 1

“When was this applied?” Section C/Question 4, N, 5

“How many acres were treated in this application?” Section C/Question 4, N, 7

ARMS 

CORN 

PPCR 

20102

“How many acres of corn did this operation plant for the 2010 

crop year?”

Section A/Question 1

“When was this applied?” Section C/Question 4, N, 5

“How many acres were treated in this application?” Section C/Question 4, N, 7

ARMS 

CORN 

PPCR 

20163

“How many acres of corn did this operation plant for the 2016 

crop year?”

Section A/Question 1

“When was this applied?” Section C/Question 3, N, 5

“How many acres were treated in this application?” Section C/Question 3, N, 7

1

(USDA ERS, 2005); 2(USDA ERS, 2010b); 3(USDA ERS, 2016a). ARMS PPCR = Agricultural Resource Management Survey Production 

Practices and Costs Report.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix D 121 

TABLE D-8. Corn Nitrogen Application by Application Method

Survey Question (s) Section/question #

ARMS 

CORN 

PPCR 

20051

“How many acres of corn did this operation plant for the 2005 

crop year?”

Section A/Question 1

“How was this applied?” Section C/Question 4, N, 6

“How many acres were treated in this application?” Section C/Question 4, N, 7

ARMS 

CORN 

PPCR 

20102

“How many acres of corn did this operation plant for the 2010 

crop year?”

Section A/Question 1

“How was this applied?” Section C/Question 4, N, 6

“How many acres were treated in this application?” Section C/Question 4, N, 7

ARMS 

CORN 

PPCR 

20163

“How many acres of corn did this operation plant for the 2016 

crop year?”

Section A/Question 1

“How was this applied?” Section C/Question 3, N, 6

“How many acres were treated in this application?” Section C/Question 3, N, 7

1

(USDA ERS, 2005); 2(USDA ERS, 2010b); 3(USDA ERS, 2016a). ARMS PPCR = Agricultural Resource Management Survey Production 

Practices and Costs Report.

TABLE D-9. Nitrogen Inhibitor Use in Corn (% of planted acres)

Survey Question (s) Section/question #

ARMS 

CORN 

PPCR 

20051

“Did you use any product to slow the breakdown of nitrogen on 

this field? (For example, a nitrification inhibitor such as N-Serve 

or a urease inhibitor such as Agrotain)”

Section C/Question 16,

ARMS 

CORN 

PPCR 

20102

“Which of the following products did you use to slow the 

breakdown of nitrogen on this field

a. How much nitrogen inhibitor did you mix with the nitrogen 

applied to this field?” 

Section C/Question 17, a

1

(USDA ERS, 2005); 2(USDA ERS, 2010b). ARMS PPCR = Agricultural Resource Management Survey Production Practices and Costs 

Report.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix D 122 

TABLE D-10. Corn Acres Grown With Variable Rate Technology

Survey Question (s) Section/question #

ARMS 

CORN 

PPCR 

20051

“How many acres of corn did this operation plant for the 2005 

crop year?”

Section A/Question 1

“Was a variable rate applicator (i.e., variable rate technology or 

VRT; include on-the-go systems such as GreenSeeker) used on 

this field for---

a. fertilization or liming?

(1) nitrogen applications? ”

Section F/Question 14, a, 1

“How many acres of corn did this operation plant in this field for

the 2005 crop?”

Section B/Question 1

ARMS 

CORN 

PPCR 

20102

“How many acres of corn did this operation plant for the 2010 

crop year?”

Section A/Question 1

“Was a variable rate applicator used on this field for---

a. fertilization or liming?

(1) nitrogen applications? ”

Section F/Question 15, a, 1

“How many acres of corn did this operation plant in this field for 

the 2010 crop?”

Section B/Question 1

ARMS 

CORN 

PPCR 

20163

“How many acres of corn did this operation plant for the 2016 

crop year?”

Section A/Question 1

“14. Was any of the following GPS-enabled (Global Positioning 

System) equipment used to produce crops on this field?”

d. Variable rate application for fertilizer/lime?

Section F/Question 14, d

“How many acres of corn did this operation plant in this field for 

the 2016 crop?”

Section B/Question 1

1

(USDA ERS, 2005); 2(USDA ERS, 2010b); 3(USDA ERS, 2016a). ARMS PPCR = Agricultural Resource Management Survey Production 

Practices and Costs Report.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix D 123 

TABLE D-11. Wheat Acres Grown With Variable Rate Technology

Survey Question (s) Section/question #

ARMS 

WHEAT 

PPCR 

20041

“How many acres of wheat (winter, durum and other spring) did 

this operation plant for the 2004 crop year?”

Section A/Question 1

“Was a variable rate applicator (i.e., variable rate technology or 

VRT) used on this field for---

a. fertilization or liming?

a. nitrogen applications? ”

Section F/Question 15, a, a

“How many acres of [X]a wheat did this operation plant in this 

field for the 2004 crop?”

Section B/Question 1

ARMS 

WHEAT 

PPCR 

20092

“How many acres of wheat (winter, durum and other spring) did 

this operation plant for the 2009 crop year?”

Section A/Question 1

“Was a variable rate applicator used on this field for---

fertilization or lime application?

nitrogen applications? ”

Section F/Question 15, a, 1

“How many acres of [X]a wheat did this operation plant in this field 

for the 2009 crop?”

Section B/Question 1

1

(USDA ERS, 2004a; USDA ERS, 2004b; USDA ERS, 2004c); 2(USDA ERS, 2009a; USDA ERS, 2009b; USDA ERS, 2009c). ARMS 

PPCR = Agricultural Resource Management Survey Production Practices and Costs Report.

TABLE D-12. Corn Acres Grown With Auto Steer

Survey Question (s) Section/question #

ARMS 

CORN 

PPCR 

20051

“How many acres of corn did this operation plant for the 2005 

crop year?”

Section A/Question 1

“Was a guidance or auto steer system (connected to GPS) used 

with any machine operation on this field (e.g. light bar, assisted 

steering, automatic steering, etc. – exclude custom operations)?”

Section 5/Question 15

“How many acres of corn did this operation plant in this field for 

the 2005 crop?”

Section B/Question 1

ARMS 

CORN 

PPCR 

20102

“How many acres of corn did this operation plant for the 2010 

crop year?”

Section A/Question 1

“Was a guidance or auto steer system (connected to GPS) used 

with any machine operation on this field (e.g., light bar)?”

Section F/Question 16

“How many acres of corn did this operation plant in this field for 

the 2010 crop?”

Section B/Question 1

ARMS 

CORN 

PPCR 

20163

“How many acres of corn did this operation plant for the 2016 

crop year?”

Section A/Question 1

“Was any of the following GPS-enabled (Global Positioning 

System) equipment used to produce crops on this field?

Guidance auto steer (excluding Light Bar)?

Light Bar?”

Section F/Question 14, a 

and b

“How many acres of corn did this operation plant in this field for 

the 2016 crop?”

Section B/Question 1

1

(USDA ERS, 2005); 2(USDA ERS, 2010b); 3(USDA ERS, 2016a). 

 

a Depending on survey, [x] = winter, spring or durum wheat
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix D 124 

TABLE D-13. Soybean Acres Grown With Auto Steer

Survey Question (s) Section/question #

ARMS 

SOYBEAN 

PPCR 

20061

“How many acres of soybeans did this operation plant for the 

2006 crop year?”

Section A/Question 1

“Was a guidance or auto steer system (connected to GPS) used 

with any machine operation on this field (e.g., light bar, assisted 

steering, automatic steering, etc. – excluding custom 

operations)?”

Section F/Question 14

“How many acres of soybeans did this operation plant in this 

field for the 2006 crop?”

Section B/Question 1

ARMS 

SOYBEAN 

PPCR 

20122

“How many acres of soybeans did this operation plant for the 

2012 crop year?”

Section A/Question 1

“Was a guidance or parallel swathing system (connected to GPS) 

used with any machine operation on this field (e.g., light bar)?”

Section F/Question 14

“How many acres of soybeans did this operation plant in this 

field for the 2012 crop?”

Section B/Question 1

1

(USDA ERS, 2006); 2(USDA ERS, 2012b). ARMS PPCR = Agricultural Resource Management Survey Production Practices and Costs 

Report.

TABLE D-14. Wheat Acres Grown With Auto Steer

Survey Question (s) Section/question #

ARMS 

WHEAT 

PPCR 

20041

“How many acres of wheat (winter, durum and other spring) did 

this operation plant for the 2004 crop year?”

Section A/Question 1

“Was a guidance or parallel swathing system (connected to GPS) 

used with any machine operation on this field (e.g., light bar)?”

Section F/Question 16

“How many acres of [X]a wheat did this operation plant in this 

field for the 2004 crop?”

Section B/Question 1

ARMS 

WHEAT 

PPCR 

20092

“How many acres of wheat (winter, durum and other spring) did 

this operation plant for the 2009 crop year?”

Section A/Question 1

“Was a guidance or parallel swathing system (connected to GPS) 

used with any machine operation on this field (e.g., light bar)?”

Section F/Question 16

“How many acres of [X]a wheat did this operation plant in this field 

for the 2009 crop?”

Section B/Question 1

1

(USDA ERS, 2004a; USDA ERS, 2004b; USDA ERS, 2004c); 2(USDA ERS, 2009a; USDA ERS, 2009b; USDA ERS, 2009c). ARMS 

PPCR = Agricultural Resource Management Survey Production Practices and Costs Report.

 

a Depending on survey, [x] = winter, spring or durum wheat
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix D 125 

TABLE D-15. Cover Crops on Farmland for Crops and Livestock

Survey Question (s) Section/question #

ARMS 

CRR 

20101

“How many acres of cropland were 

(1) planted to a cover crop after the 2009 crop was harvested 

and 

(2) Subsequently planted to an annual crop (e.g., corn, wheat) 

for 2010?”

Section B/Question 5, 1 and 2

ARMS 

CRR 

20112

“How many acres of cropland were 

(1) planted to a cover crop after the 2010 crop was harvested 

and 

(2) Subsequently planted to an annual crop (e.g., corn, wheat) 

for 2011?”

Section B/Question 5, 1 and 2

ARMS 

CRR 

20123

“During 2012, considering the total acres on this operation,

(g) how many cropland acres were planted to a cover crop?”

Section 34/Question 1, g

ARMS 

CRR 

20154

“On how many cropland acres in 2015 did you:

Plant a cover crop?”

Section A/Question 14, b

1

(USDA ERS, 2010a); 2(USDA ERS, 2011); 3(USDA ERS, 2012a); 4(USDA ERS, 2015). ARMS CRR = Agricultural Resource 

Management Survey Costs and Returns Report.

TABLE D-16. Corn Acres Grown With No tillage and Corn Acres Grown With 

Mulch Tillage

Survey Question (s) Section/question #

ARMS 

CORN 

PPCR 

20102

“How many acres of corn did this operation plant for the 2005 

crop year?”

Section A/Question 1

“What operation or equipment was used?” Section F/Question 1, 3

“How many acres were covered?” Section F/Question 1, 8

ARMS 

CORN 

PPCR 

20102

“How many acres of corn did this operation plant for the 2010 

crop year?”

Section A/Question 1

“What operation or equipment was used?” Section F/Question 3, 3

“How many acres were covered?” Section F/Question 3, 9

ARMS 

CORN 

PPCR 

20163

“How many acres of corn did this operation plant for the 2005 

crop year?”

Section A/Question 1

“What operation or equipment was used?” Section F/Question 1, 3

“How many acres were covered?” Section F/Question 1, 8

1

(USDA ERS, 2005); 2(USDA ERS, 2010b); 3(USDA ERS, 2016a). ARMS PPCR = Agricultural Resource Management Survey Production 

Practices and Costs Report.
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix D 126 

TABLE D-17. Soybean Acres Grown With No Tillage and Soybean Acres Grown 

With Mulch Tillage

Survey Question (s) Section/question #

ARMS 

SOYBEAN 

PPCR 

20061

“How many acres of soybeans did this operation plant for the 

2006 crop year?”

Section A/Question 1

“What operation or equipment was used?” Section F/Question 1, 3

“How many acres were covered?” Section F/Question 1, 8

ARMS 

SOYBEAN 

PPCR 

20122

“How many acres of soybeans did this operation plant for the 

2012 crop year?”

Section A/Question 1

“What operation or equipment was used?” Section F/Question 1, 3

“How many acres were covered?” Section F/Question 1, 8

1

(USDA ERS, 2006); 2(USDA ERS, 2012b). ARMS PPCR = Agricultural Resource Management Survey Production Practices and Costs 

Report.

TABLE D-18. Wheat Acres Grown With No Tillage and Wheat Acres Grown 

With Mulch Tillage

Survey Question (s) Section/question #

ARMS 

WHEAT 

PPCR 

20041

“How many acres of [X]a wheat did this operation plant in this 

field for the 2004 crop?”

Section B/Question 1

“What operation or equipment was used?” Section F/Question 3, 3

“How many acres were covered?” Section F/Question 3, 9

ARMS 

WHEAT 

PPCR 

20092

“How many acres of [X]a wheat did this operation plant in this 

field for the 2009 crop?”

Section B/Question 1

“What operation or equipment was used?” Section F/Question 3, 3

“How many acres were covered?” Section F/Question 3, 9

1

(USDA ERS, 2004a; USDA ERS, 2004b; USDA ERS, 2004c); 2(USDA ERS, 2009a; USDA ERS, 2009b; USDA ERS, 2009c). ARMS 

PPCR = Agricultural Resource Management Survey Production Practices and Costs Report.

 

a Depending on survey, [x] = winter, spring or durum wheat
Agricultural Conservation on Working Lands: Trends From 2004 to Present

Appendix D 127 

TABLE D-19. Crop Rotations Split Into Three Tillage Categories

Survey Question (s) Section/question #

CEAP 

20031

“In 2003, how many acres in the field were

Cropped?

Idle cropland or summer fallow”

Question 7, a or c

“What operation or equipment was used on this field in 2003, 

2002 and 2001?”

Section H/Question 1, 3

CEAP 

20042

“In 2004, how many acres in the conservation tract containing 

the sample point were

planted or cropped (including hay acres harvested)?

c. idle cropland, summer fallow, or rotational pasture?”

Section A/Question 1, a or c

“What operation or equipment was used on this field in 2004, 

2003, 2002?”

Section I/Question 3, 4

CEAP 

20053

“In 2005, how many acres in the conservation area containing 

the sample point were

planted or cropped (including hay acres harvested) (selected 

field)?

c. idle cropland, summer fallow, or rotational pasture? (selected 

field)?

Section A/Question 1, a or c

“What operation or equipment was used on this field in 2005, 

2004, 2003?”

Section I/Question 1, a, 4

CEAP 

20064

“In 2006, how many acres in the conservation area containing 

the sample point were

planted or cropped (including hay acres harvested) (selected 

field)?

c. idle cropland, summer fallow, or pasture in rotation with 

crops? (selected field)?

Section A/Question 1, a or c

“What operation or equipment was used on this field in 2006, 

2005, 2004?”

Section I/Question 1, a, 4

1

(USDA NRCS, 2003);

2

(USDA NRCS, 2004); 3(USDA NRCS, 2005); 4(USDA NRCS, 2006). CEAP = Conservation Effects Assessment 

Project.
Appendix D 128