Search

Monoculture and simplified two-crop rotation systems compromise the ecosystem services essential to crop production, diminish agricultural productivity, and cause detrimental effects on the environment. In contrast to the simplified two-crop rotation, diversified crop rotation (DCR) refers to rotation systems that contain three or more crops. Despite multiple benefits generated by DCR, its usage has dwindled over the past several decades. This paper examined determinants of farmers' adoption decisions and perceived benefits of DCR in the west margins of the U.S. Corn Belt where crop diversity has declined. We analyzed 708 farmer responses from a farmer survey conducted in the eastern South Dakota in 2018, accounting for county-level climate variables, as well as cropland data, soil and topographic variables in close proximity of the farm. Our findings indicated that farmers were more likely to utilize DCR as an adaptive strategy to cope with water deficit and reduce soil erosion on marginal land. Additionally, livestock integration and organic farming helped necessitate DCR adoption and magnify its benefits. Producer concerns towards lack of equipment and new crop profitability diluted producers' interests in DCR practice and compromised its benefits. Enhanced technical and policy support, along with infrastructure and market development, could help producers fully utilize DCR benefits and expand DCR usage to more regions., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Precision Agriculture (PA) manages field heterogeneities and enables informed site-specific management. While PA helps improve farming efficiency and profitability, challenges prior to and following PA adoption can prevent many farmers from widely using it. This paper aims to understand producers' challenge perceptions using 1119 survey responses from U.S. Midwest farmers. The majority (59%) of respondents have adopted at least one PA technology, while the minority (14%) had not adopted any PA technologies. Cost (equipment and service fee), brand compatibility, and data privacy concerns topped other concerns from the average producer's point of view. Among all producers, 60% regarded PA equipment and service fee as too high, followed by 50% who viewed brand compatibility and data privacy as their major concerns. Producers at more advanced adoption stage indicated reduced concerns in most categories. Yet, there were similar concerns towards data privacy issue regardless of the adoption status. Furthermore, brand compatibility issue is more of a concern for adopters than for non-adopters. Estimation results from partial proportional odds (PPO) models show that factors that frequently affect producers' perceived challenges include adoption status, cropland acres, age, education, information sources, farming goals, soil characteristics, and region variables. Findings from this study can aid PA stakeholders in identifying target groups, tailoring future development, research, and outreach efforts, and ultimately promoting efficient PA usage on a broader scale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Precision Agriculture (PA) technologies are well known to be useful in addressing field heterogeneities and enabling informed site-specific management decisions. While profitability is the foremost factor considered by farmers when making PA adoption decisions, information in this regard is lacking from the farmers' perspective. This paper analyzed 1119 farmer responses from a 2021 survey conducted in four states along the western margins of the U.S. Midwest. Our findings show that while most (around 60%) non-adopters indicate that they are unaware of PA profit change, adopters are likely to rate a major profit increase. About two thirds of adopters rated at least a 5% increase in profitability towards variable rate (VR) fertilizer application (72%), VR seed application (68%), and automatic section control (66%). We modeled farmers' profit change subsequent to PA adoptions. Our regression results demonstrate that the profits from PA usage increase over time and that use of conservation practices likely influences PA profitability in a positive way. As soil quality and weather factors also affect profit ratings, it would be beneficial to compare and demonstrate profitability potential of various PA technologies on a regional basis and tailor the promotion efforts to farmers most likely to benefit from them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]