Illinois Soil Health

This report shows how changing management practices of a field may influence outcomes in terms of both average yield and yield stability. It does this by looking at predictions for similar fields in the state and county. So, at a high level, this report predicts how the yield and risk profile would change by changing the number of crops in rotation.

We show a simple scoring on a 5 star scale of how much fields like this one are likely to benefit from subsidy. This is provided both in normal and dry conditions.

Yield is the most straightforward way to understand a potential future under different management and this tool reports how yield would change with different numbers of crops in rotation. Specifically, it shows yield as a percent difference from what would be expected under current mangaement practices. In each chart, the circle represents the expected average and the line shows the range for most of the fields.

We show how yield is expected to change under different scenarios for similar fields across the entire state. These results tend to be more accurate but are less specific.

We explore how yield is expected to change under different scenarios for similar fields within the same county.

Consider the percent chance that a field see substantially lower yield under different practices. This section reports on how this "loss" probability changes in terms of percentage points by changing number of crops.

We show how loss probability is expected to change under different scenarios for similar fields across the entire state. These results tend to be more accurate but are less specific. Remember that lower or reduced loss probabilities are better.

We continue by showing how loss probability is expected to change under different scenarios for similar fields across the county. These results tend to be less accurate but are more specific. Remember that lower or reduced loss probabilities are better.

Changes in practices may help achieve higher than usual yields and not just protect against bad years. Therefore, consider the percent chance that a field will substantially higher yield than its historic average. This section reports on how this gain probability changes in terms of percentage points by adopting a number of crops in rotation compared to historic management practices.

We show how gain probability is expected to change under different scenarios for similar fields across the entire state. These results tend to be more accurate but are less specific. Remember that higher or increased gain probabilities are better.

We continue by showing how gain probability is expected to change under different scenarios for similar fields across the county. These results tend to be less accurate but are more specific. Remember that higher or increased gain probabilities are better.

Starting to evaluate risk to financial institutions, this section considers the risk that this and similar fields will file an insurance claim. Specifically, this report looks not just at probability of claim but the relative change in that risk. In other words, how much more or less likely is a field to file a claim in some new management practice versus historic practices.

We show how probability of claim is expected to change under different scenarios for similar fields across the entire state. These results tend to be more accurate but are less specific.

We explore how probability of claim is expected to change under different scenarios for similar fields within the same county.

Some claims are for small losses while others are more substantial. Therefore, this report next turns to the relative change in the probability that each field will file a catastrophic claim.

We show how probability of catastrophic claim is expected to change under different scenarios for similar fields across the entire state. These results tend to be more accurate but are less specific.

We explore how probability of catastrophic claim is expected to change under different scenarios for similar fields within the same county.