Bill Overview
Title: PRECISE Act
Description: This bill incorporates support for precision agriculture into various programs of the Department of Agriculture (USDA). Precision agriculture refers to an information- and technology-based management system used to identify, analyze, and manage variability in agricultural production for optimum profitability, sustainability, and environmental protection. Specifically, the bill makes changes to eligibility criteria, administrative procedures, and other aspects of the Conservation Loan Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and the Conservation Stewardship Program. These changes include allowing the programs to support the adoption of precision agriculture practices and acquisition of precision agriculture technologies. In addition, the bill expands a program through which USDA makes and insures loans to for-profit and nonprofit organizations that invest in rural areas by allowing the loans to be used for precision agriculture practices. The bill also requires USDA to emphasize the use of third-party providers with respect to technical assistance on matters related to soil health for participants in certain USDA conservation programs.
Sponsors: Rep. Hinson, Ashley [R-IA-1]
Target Audience
Population: Farmers and agricultural stakeholders worldwide
Estimated Size: 2000000
- Precision agriculture is a global approach to farming that implements technology to enhance understanding and management of agricultural production.
- Agriculture is a worldwide activity, and many countries are implementing precision agriculture to improve productivity and environmental sustainability.
- USDA programs and policies frequently serve as models or influence agricultural policies in other countries.
Reasoning
- The policy affects farmers who are involved in or interested in precision agriculture, which may not include all types of farms or all regions equally.
- The financial support is limited, which means the policy will have a differential impact across the country, favoring regions or farm types that are more inclined to adopt technological advancements.
- Farmers with larger operations might benefit more from precision agriculture technologies, but smaller farms might experience greater relative improvements in efficiency.
- Not all farmers have equal access to technology or technical assistance, so those in regions with better infrastructure may experience more benefits.
- Diverse agricultural systems exist in the U.S. like row crops, orchards, and livestock, and precision agriculture may not be as impactful across all these systems.
Simulated Interviews
corn farmer (Iowa)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Precision agriculture sounds like a positive step for increasing crop yield and reducing waste.
- Cost of technology is high, but loans could make it accessible.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
organic vegetable farmer (California)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Precision agriculture could really help reduce my water usage.
- I am concerned about the upfront costs and technical barriers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
cattle rancher (Texas)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Precision agriculture seems more suited to crop farming than livestock.
- I'm open to any technology that can sustainably increase productivity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
blueberry farmer (Maine)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe precision agriculture could help reduce fertilizer waste.
- Support for adopting technology would be crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
agronomist (Nebraska)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm excited about the emphasis on soil health and third-party technical assistance.
- The policy can bring widespread benefits if implemented well.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
retired farmer (Kansas)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have seen how technology can change farming practices.
- I wish I had these opportunities when I was farming full-time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
peanut farmer (Georgia)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Precision agriculture could help our cooperative reduce losses.
- Concerned about potential disruptions during the adaptation period.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
dairy farmer (Minnesota)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm interested in how precision agriculture can optimize feed use and improve herd health.
- Initial cost is a concern, but I see long-term benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
fruit grower (Michigan)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The technology could help us track and address pest issues more effectively.
- Grants for technology adoption would be very helpful.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
urban hydroponic farmer (New York)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems focused more on traditional farming, less on urban agriculture.
- Access to precision tools could enhance crop diversity and yield.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $550000000 (Low: $440000000, High: $660000000)
Year 3: $600000000 (Low: $480000000, High: $720000000)
Year 5: $700000000 (Low: $560000000, High: $840000000)
Year 10: $750000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $900000000)
Year 100: $800000000 (Low: $640000000, High: $960000000)
Key Considerations
- The kickstart of precision agriculture demands substantial investment, but offers potential long-term gains.
- Program changes may require significant administrative adaptation at the USDA.
- Participation rates and eligibility within USDA programs could markedly alter the financial implications.
- The rate and scope of adoption across different regions and types of farms can significantly influence outcomes.