Peggy Kirk Hall1, Ellen Essman1

 1The Ohio State University



Agricultural nutrients in the wrong places pose threats to water quality in the United States,  but  the  federal  government  has  little  control  over  the  issue.    States  do  have authority over nonpoint sources such as agricultural nutrient runoff, but what are they doing to address water quality threats?  This paper presents an overview of different approaches  states  are  utilizing  to  reduce  agricultural  nutrient  impacts  on  water.  Approaches fall into seven categories that range from statewide reduction strategies to nutrient  application  restrictions  and  external  partnerships.    Voluntary  incentives remain  a  priority,  but  a  slight  trend  toward  mandatory  requirements  exists.    The current  landscape  is  well-populated  with  a  diversity  of  state  actions,  but  funding, impact monitoring and coordination may prove critical to program and policy success.


PEGGY KIRK HALL is an Associate Professor and Field Specialist in Agricultural and Resource Law at The Ohio State University. She directs OSU Extension’s Agricultural & Resource Law Program and teaches Agribusiness Law in the College of Food, Agricultural & Environmental Sciences. Hall is a partner in the National Agricultural & Food Law Consortium, a multi-institutional agricultural law research initiative directed by the National Agricultural Law Center. She has served as President of the American Agricultural Law Association and Chair of the Ohio State Bar Association Agricultural Law Committee. Hall holds B.S. and M.S. degrees from The Ohio State University and earned her Juris Doctorate from the University of Wyoming College of Law, where she served on the Land and Water Law Review. Hall and her family own and operate a grain farm in central Ohio.


Greg Lundstrom

Program Coordinator, Tamar NRM Inc, Mowbray, TASMANIA 7250



A belief that the current natural resource management (NRM) delivery model in Australia is failing to provide tangible on ground outcomes within the farming sector is proving to be a catalyst for the examination of alternative delivery models. However, there exist workable examples contributing to on-farm NRM and production outcomes that provide value for money investment, with the flexibility to cater to local needs at a sub-regional level. These community-based models owe their success by being truly community driven and more closely linked to producers and local government than the regional NRMs are. The Tamar Valley has such a community driven model, which demonstrates another way for NRM program and project delivery into the farming sector.


Greg Lundstrom has been working in the field of conservation, land management or natural resource management for over 20 years. He is currently employed with Tamar NRM, in the Tamar Valley of Tasmania. Prior to moving to Tasmania, Greg worked for nine and a half years for the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board working on projects in a variety of landscapes such as coastal, wetland, riverine and rangelands. Over this time, he worked in the in monitoring and evaluation, capacity building and program managed the board’s atmosphere program delivering a climate change regional adaptation plan and multi-sector risk assessment for the River Murray’s lower reaches and the troubled lower lakes.Greg holds post graduate qualifications in environmental management, and qualifications in conservation and land management, natural resources management and climate change law and policy.Three years ago, Greg was appointed program coordinator with Tamar NRM, and is currently delivering programs and projects supporting sustainable agriculture in the Tamar Valley including pasture demonstration sites, weed management, revegetation, coastal communities projects, citizen science and capacity building projects.


Jakob Vesterlund Olsen1, Toke Emil Panduro1, Cathrine Ulla Jensen1, Jesper S. Schou1, Jens-Martin Roikjer Bramsen1, Marie Lautrup1, and Michael Friis Pedersen1

1Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen

*Corresponding author,



In this paper we present a novel application of the difference-in-difference method to analyse the effect of regulation on agricultural land prices in the case of implementation of mandatory riparian buffer zones. The buffer zones are adjacent to streams and lakes and are designated as part of the Danish implantation of the EU Water Framework Directive. The buffer zone regulation existed from 2012 to 2015 when the regulation was suspended. Using a hedonic price model we do a difference-and-difference estimation of the development in regional farm land prices for farms with land subject to the buffer zone regulation compared to farms not subject to buffer zones. A number of model specifications are tested but no significant effect on land prices of the buffer zone regulation is identified. This is explained by the fact, that the regulation was based on a subsidy scheme offering flat rate compensation to farmers obliged to establish buffer zones. Thus, results suggest that due to the subsidies, farmers’ expectations for the future economic rent are unchanged and, thus, no significant effects on the land prices are identified.


The primary research fields for Jakob Vesterlund Olsen are productivity analyses and policy evaluation of initiatives targeted farm level. Recent research activities has evolved around the financial effect of land fragmentation and land prices. Jakob has previously been employed by Danish Knowledge Centre for Agriculture which is now known as SEGES. His educational background covers education and practice as farmer with focus on pig and crop production followed by an education in agricultural economics and finally a PhD in agricultural economics.


Jesper S. Schou1 and Jakob Vesterlund Olsen1

1Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen

Coresponding author:,



The paper presents preliminary results form a real-life project in which five economic services are pursued through multifunctional land consolidation processes: Farm economics; Biodiversity; Clean water; Recreational opportunities; and Development of rural communities. The analysis is based on the first results from three Danish case studies where land consolidation is used to facilitate multifunctional land consolidation. We find that the multifunctional goals are generally aligned with agricultural economics goals and the optimal consolidation of land plots are not fundamentally differing between economic services with different goals. The fundamental benefit from this approach is local ownership to process and results due to the collective policy formulation. One more specific lesson learned is though, that access to recreational activities such as hunting and horseback riding, which is tied to the ownership of land, may indeed represent significant value to the landowner and this can highly influence the scale and scope of the consolidation.


The primary research fields for Jakob Vesterlund Olsen are productivity analyses and policy evaluation of initiatives targeted farm level. Recent research activities has evolved around the financial effect of land fragmentation and land prices. Jakob has previously been employed by Danish Knowledge Centre for Agriculture which is now known as SEGES. His educational background covers education and practice as farmer with focus on pig and crop production followed by an education in agricultural economics and finally a PhD in agricultural economics.


Harold Watters1, Amanda Douridas1, Chris Bruynis1

1Ohio State University Extension, Ohio, United States



Ohio residents have been calling for changes in agricultural practices since harmful algal blooms have disrupted recreational use of lakes and drinking water supplies in the Western Lake Erie Basin. These blooms are a result of phosphorus (P) loading into waterways from a number of sources, including agriculture fertilizer and manure use on fields. P loss only accounts for about 0.49 lb/A but equates to roughly 2 million pounds of P each year being dumped into the Basin. Regulations have been put in place to educate farmers on nutrient management and reduce nutrient losses. Three tools have been updated and developed to help farmers reduce P losses: 1.) Updated Tri-State Fertilizer Recommendations, 2.) Updated Ohio Phosphorus Risk Index tool, 3.) Field Application Resource Monitor. These tools address the source, rate and timing of nutrient applications. The cost of implementing these practices varies from farm to farm. Some farms may see no change to their budgets where other farms may see an increase in expenses.


Chris Bruynis works for Ohio State University Extension and is the Agriculture and Natural Resources Educator in Ross County, Ohio.Amanda Douridas works for Ohio State University Extension and is the Agriculture and Natural Resources Educator in Champaign County, Ohio.


Hafiz Muhammad Abrar Ilyas1, Majeed Safa1, Alison Bailey1, Sara Rauf1, Mat Cullen2

1Department of Land Management and Systems, Lincoln University, New Zealand

2Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited, New Zealand

Corresponding author:



Energy consumption is an important component in determining the sustainability of farming practices. Identification of dairy farming systems with efficient energy consumption at the same time as minimising greenhouse gas emissions is vital. In this context, it is relevant to assess the energy footprint of different dairy farming systems in order to identify a sustainable dairy system for the future of NZ dairy industry.

This research is based on comparative analysis of Pastoral (PDFs) and Barn (BDFs) dairy farming systems in Canterbury, New Zealand. A total of 50 dairy farms were investigated, using direct (fuel, electricity, labour) and indirect (fertilizer, feed supplements, machinery and equipment) energy inputs.

The results indicate that PDFs system have 9.5 percent lower energy footprint per hectare than BDFs, mainly due to their greater reliance on pasture based grazing feeding and less use of electricity, fuel and feed supplements. Of interest is that the BDFs use 39% less fertiliser energy but 80% higher feed supplement energy based on the inputs the farmers used. In terms of per kilogram milk solids produced, the PDFs shows 6 % lesser energy footprints compared to BDFs. This research suggests that energy consumption in PDFs in terms of both hectare and milk output is more efficient. However, when considering individual inputs of each system, the energy usage for fertilizer is much higher in PDFs.


Hafiz Muhammad Abrar Ilyas, an agricultural engineer and PhD research scholar at Lincoln University, New Zealand. My research interests are in dairy farming, especially in farm management systems and practices that lead to sustainability and environmental betterment. My PhD research focuses on evaluation of NZ Pastoral (PDFs) and Barn (BDFs) dairy farming systems in terms of energy footprint and greenhouse gas emissions. This research work has allowed me to dig deeply into different dairy farming systems of New Zealand to understand their energy consumption and efficiencies. The findings of this research will help in making environmental policies regarding NZ dairy farming systems and will also guide farmers to move towards sustainable farm practices. I am looking forward to working alongside farmers to help them optimize their farming systems and meeting environmental targets, while continuing to broaden my knowledge within the primary industries. I enjoy being part of the agricultural groups and has always loved the outdoors and spending time on farms.


Yonas T. Bahta1, Walter van Niekerk1

1Department of Agricultural Economics, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa



Given the significance of maize within the overall food security strategies in Sub- Saharan Africa including South Africa, it is important to analyse the technical efficiency of the maize industry for the overall development of the economy.  This article analyzes the impact of labor productivity, import price of the world, research and development on technical efficiency of maize industry in South Africa using a Computable General Equilibrium model and South Africa Social Accounting Matrix. The result revealed that maize producers used less intermediate inputs, value-added drops, increased export and reduced import due to an increase in production. Despite the rise in maize output, the demand for labour reduced. This was due to the indirect effect than a direct effect of the maize sector technical efficiency improvements. The study recommends that the improvement of technical efficiency directly related to competitiveness and welfare, therefore, in spite of employment reducing effect, the


Hermias Nieuwoudt van Niekerk is a lecturer at the Department of Agricultural Econmics at the University of the Free State, South Africa


Timothy K. Roberts1, John Wibberley2

1Tropical Agriculture Association UK

2University of Reading & RAU Cirencester, UK




There are considerable challenges to be faced to earn a livelihood from the semi-arid land of Laikipia, Kenya. These include periodic droughts, lack of water resources, poor infrastructure, lack of political support and the need for cooperation with neighbours. Since Kenya became independent in 1963, there have been big changes in the management of these properties, the most notable being the introduction of tourism in the 1980s which has prospered owing to the large reservoir of wildlife which exists in the area and the formation of Conservancies to protect the latter. Much of the income of the ranches is now derived from upmarket tourist lodges and safaris. However, they are still major food producers especially of quality livestock and some crops. Particular reference is made to the combined Lewa/Borana Conservancy which consists of two privately owned conservancies which have removed the fences between them to establish the largest Conservancy in the Country with a rich population of wildlife. A large area of land within Lewa was owned by one of the author’s relatives until the 1980s and his personal experience of its development over the past half century is detailed in this presentation. Conclusions for a better future are drawn.


Professor John Wibberley MA, BSc (Hons) MTh, MSc, PhD, DipEd, NSch, FRAgS, FRGS is an agriculturalist & resource management consultant working in UK and internationally, married to Jane since 1969, with two sons and six grandchildren. He is a Professor of Comparative Agriculture & Rural Extension visiting at the University of Reading UK and at the Royal Agricultural University Cirencester UK where he was previously Head of Agriculture until 1989, since when he has run his own business, REALM. He has been an Adjunct Professor in Rural Extension Studies at the University of Guelph, Canada from 1995-98. He works since the 1970s in both temperate and tropical agriculture, especially in sub-Saharan Africa but also in Asia, the Americas, Europe and elsewhere, and has worked practically with farmers’ groups in the UK and internationally for over 40 years. He was Chairman of the UK Farm Crisis Network (FCN) from 1998-2003 and still works with that charity as FCN Chairman in Devon (now Farming Community Network). From 2008-2016, John was a Secretary of State Appointee to Exmoor National Park Authority and is now a Trustee of Exmoor Society, and serves on the National Trust Council. From 1999-2018, he was Hon. Secretary and Coordinator of the UK Council for Awards of Royal Agricultural Societies which seeks to recognise excellence in contributions to practical agricultural and rural progress within the UK. He is Chairman of the SW England Group of the Tropical Agriculture Association (


Ellen Freeman1, Shane Keeler2, Rhys Stickler 1

1Department Of Primary Industries, Parks, Water And Environment, DPIPWE, Prospect, TAS, Australia

2Department Of Primary Industries, Parks, Water And Environment, Currie, King Island, Australia



Since 1995 populations of wallabies, predominantly Bennetts wallaby (Macropus rufogriseus), and to a lesser degree Tasmanian pademelon (Thylogale billardierii), have been abundant in King Island landscapes, impacting natural and agricultural environments. King Island lies between Tasmania and mainland Australia, encompassing 110 000 ha of predominantly flat landscapes, some plateau country, and a large extent of cleared pasture land with remnant bushland. The island boasts quality beef and dairy production, and pristine natural environments. To manage wallabies, and their browsing impacts on natural and agricultural environments in 2013 a Wallaby Management Coordinator was employed by the Tasmanian Government’s Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment. Management encompasses wallaby-proof fencing, shooting, education and neighbour co-operation. Seven properties initially engaged in wallaby management. Today thirty-one properties engage in wallaby management, and eighty have Crop Protection Permits. In six years an average of 71 667 wallabies have been culled per year, and 240 kilometres of wallaby-proof fencing has been installed. Properties engaged in wallaby management are reaping the rewards, with one property reporting a 75% increase in production in three years of wallaby management. The future profitability of agricultural production relies on continual management of these species.


Ellen Freeman has recently joined Game Services Tasmania as a Wildlife Management Officers.Originally from rural Tasmania Ellen developed a passion for wildlife management and research, and an understanding of many aspects behind it encompassing conservation, primary production, quality deer management, recreational hunting, and sustainability. More recently, Ellen has worked inter-state where she completed extensive research on wild deer populations and a Bachelor of Science degree. Ellen’s research includes projects on ‘The regulatory control of deer in Australia’, and ‘The diet of wild deer in South Australia’ –using DNA analysis to identify plants from deer stomach content samples.Working as a Wildlife Officer for Queensland Government Ellen was a part of a team responsible for monitoring saltwater crocodile populations, licensing and compliance of native vegetation clearing, harvesting of native wildlife, and herpetology. Ellen is passionate about the future of wildlife management in Tasmania, and the research needed to support this. Already Ellen has developed many productive relationships with landowners, and hunters. She is looking forward to fostering greater cooperation between hunters and landholders to assist in achieving integrated wildlife management for sustainability and primary production.


Sue Trafford1, Guy Trafford1

1Lincoln University, Lincoln, Canterbury, New Zealand



New Zealand’s economy is dependent on cow dairying’s contribution of approx. $7.8 billion to total GDP. However, it faces ratcheting  pressure for more regulatory controls as the result of intense public scrutiny of its environmental footprint, predominantly relating to water supply and quality. Sheep dairying is being heralded as a potentially profitable export industry with a significantly lighter footprint while capitalising on the longstanding skills and infrastructural base of a historic, national sheep farming industry. Yet, there is limited definitive information available as to whether sheep dairying can/ does deliver its promise with regard to environmental and other benefits. This paper explores a range of literature/data that outlines the benefits of sheep comparative to cow dairying in the New Zealand context and compares findings to those of an ongoing, commercial research project (Charing Cross Sheep Dairy) established in 2011 in the Canterbury region. It also explores benefits to communities, and animal welfare.


Lecturer in Agribusiness and Markets department, Lincoln University. Speciality area- resilient farming systems, food compliance and sheep dairying.


About provides delegate registration, website and app solutions, and financial management for conferences, conventions and scientific meetings.

Terms & Conditions

All registrations and bookings are subject to our standard term and conditions.

Contact Us

Please contact the team at with any questions regarding the conference.
© 2017 - 2020 Conference Design Pty Ltd. is a division of Conference Design Pty Ltd.