7/1/2023 0 Comments F4transkript version 6![]() Is big data for big farming or for everyone? Perceptions in the Australian grains industry. ![]() įleming, A., Jakku, E., Lim-Camacho, L., Taylor, B., & Thorburn, P. “Agricultural knowledge and innovation systems towards 2020 - an orientation paper on linking innovation and research,” Brussels. “Agricultural knowledge and innovation systems in transition – a reflection paper,” Brussels. Praxisbuch interview, transkription & analyse (6th ed.). Online: (last accessed ).ĭresing, T., & Pehl, T. Farm practices survey October 2012-current farming issues. Precision Agriculture, 4(2), 163–177.ĭEFRA-Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, UK Government (2012). Farm and operator characteristics affecting the awareness and adoption of precision agriculture technologies in the US. Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.ĭaberkow, S. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Publicising food: Big data, precision agriculture, and co-experimental techniques of addition. Journal of Environmental Management, 135, 19–26.Ĭarolan, M. The influence of farmer demographic characteristics on environmental behaviour: A review. Smart-AKIS Deliverable 2.3, Smart-AKIS Project, Grant Agreement Number 696294.īurton, R. Report on factors affecting innovation,adoption and diffusion processes. Environmental and economic benefits of variable rate nitrogen fertilization in a nitrate vulnerable zone. ![]() Scarborough: Nelson Education.īasso, B., Dumont, B., Cammarano, D., Pezzuolo, A., Marinell, F., & Sartori, L. Dial “A” for agriculture: A review of information and communication technologies for agricultural extension in developing countries. This suggests that differences related to agricultural structures and farming systems across Europe have to be considered if SFT development and dissemination should be improved.Īker, J. ![]() The findings support previous findings on using farmers’ perceptions in innovation processes, and provide insight to the recent trends regarding SFT application to diverse cropping systems across Europe. Experts are generally more convinced of SFT advantages, and are positive regarding the long-term trends of technological development. Both farmers and experts generally consider peer-to-peer communication as important sources of information and deplore a lack of impartial advice. About 60% of all farmers surveyed have a number of suggestions for SFT to become more relevant to a broader range of farms. Interestingly, both adopter and non-adopter groups are hesitant regarding SFT adoption, such that adopters are somewhat disillusioned about the SFT that they have experience with, and non-adopters because they are not convinced that the appropriate technologies are available and accessible. Moreover, farmers’ perceptions of SFT vary according to SFT characteristics and farming context. Of the surveyed farmers, about 50% were SFT adopters and 50% were non-adopters. The number of adopters increased with farm size, and there were more adopters among arable cropping systems than in tree crops. Although all farmers broadly perceive SFT as useful to farming and generally expect SFT to continue to be so, when it comes to specific on-farm challenges, farmers are less convinced of SFT potential. To better understand the relevance of ongoing technological progress for farming systems across Europe, 287 farmers were surveyed in 7 EU countries and in 4 cropping systems, alongside 22 in-depth semi-structured interviews with experts from the agricultural knowledge and innovation system. The most recent wave of innovations referred to as smart farming technologies (SFT), promise to improve farming by responding to economic, ecological, and social challenges and thereby sustainably develop agriculture throughout Europe. Technological innovations are changing mechanisation in agriculture.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |