This article provides an overview of the U.S. bioeconomy, discussing how its definition has evolved and been formalized over time. The first attempts to conceptualize and define the U.S. bioeconomy began in the early 1990s. This was followed by a series of government and private efforts to develop methods to understand and evaluate it and to develop programs to promote it. These efforts culminated in the 2020 release of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), Safeguarding the Bioeconomy report. The report recommended a formal definition of the U.S. bioeconomy, providing the rationale for that particular definition in the U.S. context. Formally adopting a comprehensive definition of the U.S. bioeconomy would enable the U.S. government to better assess the bioeconomy’s current state, to develop strategies to support its growth, and to promote strategies to safeguard it. Along with this recommendation, the NASEM Safeguarding report also discussed defining the “bioeconomy landscape,” which involves more precise determination and quantification of which economic activities are part of and external to the U.S. economy. Defining this landscape could guide metric development and data collection needed to track the bioeconomy’s growth, conduct economic assessments, and enable policy makers to keep abreast of advances that could potentially pose new national or economic security challenges. The report also includes an analysis of the broad range national bioeconomy strategies, identification of the four drivers of the U.S. bioeconomy, and the first of its kind, comprehensive estimate of the size and scope of the U.S. bioeconomy of USD 959B (valued in 2016 constant USD ).

This study uses data from a special subsample of the National Agricultural, Food, and Public Policy Preference Survey to assess use of weather data for agricultural decision making. Responses from 284 Arizona farmers and ranchers were used to examine (i) the importance producers placed on different types of weather data for production and marketing decisions; (ii) which producer characteristics accounted for differences in the importance they placed on weather data; (iii) producer use of weather data for specific production and marketing decisions; and (iv) which factors distinguish weather data users from nonusers. A model of demand for weather information was developed and used to specify count data and discrete choice multivariate regression models. The intensity of weather data use was greater among producers with diversified agricultural production. Diversified producers were more likely to use data for timing of planting, cultivation, and harvest. Weather data use was lower among producers with greater reliance on off-farm income. Producers who rated government risk-management programs as important also found more weather data types important and used weather data for more decisions. Access to satellite TV increased data use but access to the Internet did not.

Many consider gravity-flow irrigation inefficient and deride its use. Yet, there are cases where gravity-flow irrigation can play an important role in highly productive and profitable agriculture. This perspective article reviews the literature on the profitability and efficiency of gravity systems. It then reviews the history of water management in Yuma, Arizona, which is one of the most productive agricultural areas in the United States. Through extensive changes in irrigation technologies, changes in production practices, and investments in irrigation infrastructure, Yuma agriculture dramatically shifted from perennial and summer-centric crop production to winter-centric, multi-crop systems that are focused on high-value vegetable crops. These innovations have led to improvement in various irrigation efficiency measures and overall water conservation. Return flows from the system, which were once characterized as an indicator of inefficiency, provide valuable environmental services to the Colorado River Delta ecosystem. Yuma’s history illustrates that innovative gravity-flow systems can be productive and water-conserving, and that a system-wide perspective is critical in evaluating irrigation systems.