Farmer Experience with Precision Agriculture in Denmark and the US Eastern Corn Belt

Abstract

Two mail surveys were carried out in Denmark and the Eastern Corn Belt, USA in 2002. Questionnaires were sent to 580 farmers who had used precision agriculture (PA) and 198 responses were received. The surveys focused on the current status of use of PA in both countries, including: PA practices, equipment and software, Internet and e-mail use, information sources for PA, satisfaction level from service providers, data handling, interpretation, storage and ownership, value of data for decision making, changes in management practices, desired information and services, and the next planned step in the practice of PA. The survey results showed more similarities in practicing PA between the two countries than differences. Time requirement and high cost of data handling were cited as the main problems. Survey respondents found soil maps to be more valuable than yield maps in management decisions. About 80% of the respondents would like to store the PA data themselves. The majority of the respondents indicated that they have changed their management practices due to PA, but not substantially. Some 90% of the respondents used the Internet and e-mail for agricultural purposes, but only a small number for PA websites.

Promoting sustainable intensification in precision agriculture: review of decision support systems development and strategies

“…Many researchers have viewed the development of new AgriDSSs as possibilities for providing scientific knowledge and information to farmers with the aim of increasing sustainability and facilitate innovation (e.g., Fountas et al 2005;McCown et al 2009;Thorburn et al 2011). During the last 30 years, research and development has produced a large number of AgriDSSs, but most of them have not been used appropriately in practice (e.g., Aubert et al 2012;Eastwood et al 2012;Korte et al 2012Korte et al , 2013Mackrell et al 2009;Matthews et al 2008;McCown 2002;Rossi et al 2014;Van Meensel et al 2012).…”

“…During the last 30 years, research and development has produced a large number of AgriDSSs, but most of them have not been used appropriately in practice (e.g., Aubert et al 2012;Eastwood et al 2012;Korte et al 2012Korte et al , 2013Mackrell et al 2009;Matthews et al 2008;McCown 2002;Rossi et al 2014;Van Meensel et al 2012). Aubert et al (2012), for example, claim that factors influencing the adoption of innovations are tightly linked to work practices that are more complex than just the mere perspectives of technology acceptance or diffusion of innovations, while Fountas et al (2005) point out that time requirement, lack of technical knowledge and cost are the most important impediments in the implementation of AgriDSS in PA. One central failure issue is the fact that researchers often focus on one specific area or problem, while the farmers must have a holistic view of the crop production with a wide range of problems (Rossi et al 2014). Van Meensel et al (2012) also point out that some AgriDSSs are too complex, and their terminology and functions are not adapted and are irrelevant to the intended users and their activities and context of use.…”

Determinants of Farmers’ Intention to Adopt Water Saving Measures: Evidence from Italy

“…Such a low response rate (15%) is in line with previous literature (e.g., [57]). Extant research has indeed ascertained that farmers are generally unwilling to spend their time completing surveys [58] and sharing data and/or information on themselves and their activities [59]. Nevertheless, respondent results were homogeneously distributed among the North (n = 57), Central (n = 44), and South (n = 49) of Italy.…”

“…), future studies are recommended to also investigate these factors to shed further light on the link between farmers' WFs and their adoption intentions; Second, we observed a low response rate as is typical of online surveys [81], and thus the results cannot be easily generalized to the whole population of Italian farms. Indeed, farmers who do not feel comfortable with providing data through online surveys [59] or are not familiar with online survey platforms [82], such as the older ones, might have been under-represented in our sample. To deal with these limitations, future research could incentivize potential participants or resort to other data-collection modes, such as paper-and-pencil questionnaires or face-to-face interviews; Third, all the surveyed farms were based in Italy, thus future studies could assess how the intention to adopt water saving measures changes across cultural contexts.…”

Spatial analysis of yield monitor data: case studies of on-farm trials and farm management decision making

“…This case study research builds upon earlier work on the use of yield monitors (Fountas et al 2005;Urcola 2003). Urcola (2003) examined the decision-making process of ten Indiana, USA farmers and suggested that farmers with yield monitors placed more weight on on-farm trials than farmers not using yield monitors, partly because of increased ease of collecting data.…”