Farmers' Decision Processes And Adoption Of Conservation Tillage
In a transect survey of crop residue levels in 1995 and 1996, two Minnesota counties had very different percentages of cropland with desired residue cover even though the soil types were similar. To gain a better understanding of the reasons behind this difference, the farmers in these two counties were surveyed about their use or lack of use of conservation tillage practices. A statistical logit analysis of survey responses showed farmers are more apt to adopt conservation tillage if they are larger; are more concerned about erosion on their land; have made a recent major investment in the farm; use other producers for tillage information; have the management skill for conservation tillage; and believe conservation tillage will fit with their production goals and the physical setting of their farm. Two counterintuitive findings are the negative effects of the ease of finding information and the degree of control of the adoption decision. The costs and labor requirements of conservation tillage were important but not as statistically significant as those factors just listed. Some variables, that are often listed as potentially important factors, were not found to be important in this survey. These included the long-term viability of the farm; the age, education, and experience of the farmer; the debt level of the farm; whether a family member wanted to continue farming; the proportion of land rented; the use of other sources for tillage information; the complexity of conservation tillage practices; the producer's planning horizon; the risk of negative returns; the availability of support for conservation tillage systems; and the quality of conservation tillage information.
|Date of creation:||1997|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 231ClaOff Building, 1994 Buford Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108-6040|
Phone: (612) 625-1222
Fax: (612) 625-6245
Web page: http://www.apec.umn.edu
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:umaesp:13380. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.