Farmers’ willingness to adopt precision agricultural technologies to reduce mycotoxin contamination in grain: evidence from grain farmers in Spain and Lithuania
Enoch Owusu-Sekyere, Assem Abu Hatab, Carl-Johan Lagerkvist, Manuel Pérez-Ruiz, Egidijus Šarauskis, Zita Kriaučiūnienė, Muhammad Baraa Almoujahed, Orly Enrique Apolo-Apolo, Abdul Mounem Mouazen
{"title":"Farmers’ willingness to adopt precision agricultural technologies to reduce mycotoxin contamination in grain: evidence from grain farmers in Spain and Lithuania","authors":"Enoch Owusu-Sekyere, Assem Abu Hatab, Carl-Johan Lagerkvist, Manuel Pérez-Ruiz, Egidijus Šarauskis, Zita Kriaučiūnienė, Muhammad Baraa Almoujahed, Orly Enrique Apolo-Apolo, Abdul Mounem Mouazen","doi":"10.1007/s11119-024-10167-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Purpose</h3><p>This study examines the willingness of Spanish and Lithuanian grain farmers to adopt a combined approach of preventive site-specific spraying (PSSS) and selective harvesting (SH), two precision agricultural technologies (below referred to as PSSS-SH) aimed at mitigating the risk of mycotoxin contamination in barley and wheat.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>Data were collected from 190 commercial grain farmers using a choice experimental survey. The empirical analysis relied on the estimation of mixed logit and integrated latent class models.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>The surveyed farmers were heterogeneous in their preference for the PSSS-SH technology, with a majority (81%) reporting that they were willing to adopt and pay for the PSSS-SH technology. Furthermore, the farmers’ willingness to adopt PSSS-SH technology was influenced by the trade-offs between the potential production, economic and environmental changes.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusion</h3><p>Profit maximization is not the only motivation for a farmer’s decision to adopt PSSS-SH, there are also important non-financial benefits that align with the observed choices. Furthermore, the perceived usefulness of the technology, the willingness and readiness to use the technology, and the farmer characteristics (e.g. cooperative membership, employment status, share of household income from grain production and past experience with precision farming technology) were positively associated with uptake of the PSSS-SH technology. Therefore, extension programmes should have a special focus on the perceived usefulness of the technology, the willingness and readiness of farmers to use it, and its unique characteristics.</p>","PeriodicalId":20423,"journal":{"name":"Precision Agriculture","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Precision Agriculture","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-024-10167-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
This study examines the willingness of Spanish and Lithuanian grain farmers to adopt a combined approach of preventive site-specific spraying (PSSS) and selective harvesting (SH), two precision agricultural technologies (below referred to as PSSS-SH) aimed at mitigating the risk of mycotoxin contamination in barley and wheat.
Methods
Data were collected from 190 commercial grain farmers using a choice experimental survey. The empirical analysis relied on the estimation of mixed logit and integrated latent class models.
Results
The surveyed farmers were heterogeneous in their preference for the PSSS-SH technology, with a majority (81%) reporting that they were willing to adopt and pay for the PSSS-SH technology. Furthermore, the farmers’ willingness to adopt PSSS-SH technology was influenced by the trade-offs between the potential production, economic and environmental changes.
Conclusion
Profit maximization is not the only motivation for a farmer’s decision to adopt PSSS-SH, there are also important non-financial benefits that align with the observed choices. Furthermore, the perceived usefulness of the technology, the willingness and readiness to use the technology, and the farmer characteristics (e.g. cooperative membership, employment status, share of household income from grain production and past experience with precision farming technology) were positively associated with uptake of the PSSS-SH technology. Therefore, extension programmes should have a special focus on the perceived usefulness of the technology, the willingness and readiness of farmers to use it, and its unique characteristics.
期刊介绍:
Precision Agriculture promotes the most innovative results coming from the research in the field of precision agriculture. It provides an effective forum for disseminating original and fundamental research and experience in the rapidly advancing area of precision farming.
There are many topics in the field of precision agriculture; therefore, the topics that are addressed include, but are not limited to:
Natural Resources Variability: Soil and landscape variability, digital elevation models, soil mapping, geostatistics, geographic information systems, microclimate, weather forecasting, remote sensing, management units, scale, etc.
Managing Variability: Sampling techniques, site-specific nutrient and crop protection chemical recommendation, crop quality, tillage, seed density, seed variety, yield mapping, remote sensing, record keeping systems, data interpretation and use, crops (corn, wheat, sugar beets, potatoes, peanut, cotton, vegetables, etc.), management scale, etc.
Engineering Technology: Computers, positioning systems, DGPS, machinery, tillage, planting, nutrient and crop protection implements, manure, irrigation, fertigation, yield monitor and mapping, soil physical and chemical characteristic sensors, weed/pest mapping, etc.
Profitability: MEY, net returns, BMPs, optimum recommendations, crop quality, technology cost, sustainability, social impacts, marketing, cooperatives, farm scale, crop type, etc.
Environment: Nutrient, crop protection chemicals, sediments, leaching, runoff, practices, field, watershed, on/off farm, artificial drainage, ground water, surface water, etc.
Technology Transfer: Skill needs, education, training, outreach, methods, surveys, agri-business, producers, distance education, Internet, simulations models, decision support systems, expert systems, on-farm experimentation, partnerships, quality of rural life, etc.