Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The role of communication and co-operation in the adoption of precision farming

  • Published:
Precision Agriculture Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research on Precision Farming (PF) relates the adoption of PF primarily to economic incentives as well as farm attributes, whereas social factors are commonly ignored. Therefore, the present study analyses the importance of farmers’ communication and co-operation strategies in the adoption of PF and their relation to farm attributes. Forty-nine qualitative interviews with stakeholders from the agricultural sector were conducted. The survey was based in Germany where most interviews took place and reflected with findings from the Czech Republic, Denmark and Greece. It is revealed that farms differ in their communication strategies depending on farm size. Joint investment in PF was only reported from some regions. It can be assumed that agricultural contractors will be major driving forces behind the adoption of PF over the next 10 years, especially in areas with smaller-sized farms. Agricultural data processing by service providers is seen as a common issue. Concerns regarding potential data misuse, over-regulation and software compatibility were raised.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allaire, G., & Boiffin, J. (2004). Innovation and development: Intensification/disintensification paradigms—Reflections from French experience. In A. Cristóvão (Ed.), Proceedings of the sixth European IFSA symposium (2) (pp. 517–525). Vila Real, Portugal.

  • Atteslander, P. (2008). Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung [Methods of empirical social research]. Berlin, Germany: Erich Schmidt Verlag GmbH & Co.

  • Auernhammer, H. (2001). Precision farming—The environmental challenge. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 30(1–3), 31–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batte, M. T. (2005). Changing computer use in agriculture: Evidence from Ohio. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 47(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bundesverband für Lohnunternemnen (BLU) e.V. (2009). Wichtige Strukturdaten der Lohnunternehmer 2006 [Important data on agricultural contractors 2006]. http://www.lohnunternehmen.de/wirtschaftsfaktorluleistungsdaten. Accessed 25 August 2009.

  • Daberkow, S., & McBride, W. (2003). Farm and operator characteristics affecting the awareness and adoption of precision agriculture technologies in the US. Precision Agriculture, 4(2), 163–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daskalopoulou, I., & Petrou, A. (2002). Utilising a farm typology to identify potential adopters of alternative farming activities in Greek agriculture. Journal of Rural Studies, 18(1), 95–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards-Jones, G. (2006). Modelling farmer decision-making: Concepts, progress and challenges. Animal Science, 82, 783–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fountas, S., Blackmore, S., Ess, D., Hawkins, S., Blumhoff, G., Lowenberg-DeBoer, J., et al. (2005). Farmer experience with precision agriculture in Denmark and the US Eastern Corn Belt. Precision Agriculture, 6(2), 121–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, C., Kasten, J., & Bauer, U. (2006). Perspektiven für Managementgesellschaften im Marktfruchtbau am Beispiel Nordostdeutschlands. [Perspectives for management bodies/companies in crop farming at the example of North East Germany]. In Landwirtschaftliche Rentenbank (Ed.) Organisatorische und technologische Innovationen in der Landwirtschaft [Organizational and technological innovations in agriculture], Schriftenreihe 21 (pp. 57–96). Frankfurt am Main: Landwirtschaftliche Rentenbank, Germany. http://www.rentenbank.de/cms/dokumente/10011465_262637/f118faa2/Rentenbank_Schriftenreihe_Band21_.pdf. Accessed 25 August 2009.

  • Griffin, T. W., Lowenberg-DeBoer, J., Lambert, D. M., Peone, J., Payne, T., & Daberkow, S. G. (2004). Adoption, profitability, and making better use of precision farming data. Staff Paper #04-06. USA: Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.

  • Hansen, J. P., Hansen, N. F., Hørning, A., & Schultz, E. (2005). landmand.dk—A personal portal for farmers. In J. Boaventura Cunha & R. Morais (Eds.), Proceedings of the EFITA/WCCA 2005 joint conference, 5th conference of the European Federation for Information Technology in Agriculture, Food and Environment and the 3rd World Congress on Computers in Agriculture and Natural Resources, 25–28 July 2005, Vila Real, Portugal. http://www.lr.dk/landbrugsinfo/diverse/landmanddk_-_a_personal_portal_for_farmers_med_toptekst.pdf. Accessed 25 August 2009.

  • Knight, B., & Malcolm, B. (2007). A whole-farm investment analysis of some precision agriculture technologies. Paper presented at the 51st Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Queenstown, NZ. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/handle/10406. Accessed 25 August 2009.

  • Lamb, D. W., Frazier, P., & Adams, P. (2008). Improving pathways to adoption: Putting the right P’s in precision agriculture. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 61(1), 4–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leeuwis, C. (2004). Changing views of innovation and the role of science. The ‘socio-technical roots stem’ as a tool for identifying relevant cross-disciplinar research questions. In A. Cristóvão (Ed.), Proceedings of the sixth European IFSA symposium (2) (pp. 773–782). Vila Real, Portugal.

  • Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken [Qualitative content analysis. Basics and Techniques]. Weinheim, Germany: Deutscher Studien Verlag.

  • Meuser, M., & Nagel, U. (1991). ExpertInneninterviews—vielfach erprobt, wenig bedacht. Ein Beitrag zur qualitativen Methodendiskussion.[Interviews with experts: Often used, seldom discussed. A contribution to debates on qualitative methods]. In D. Garz & K. Kraimer (Eds.), Qualitativ-empirische, Sozialforschung. Konzepte, Methoden, Analysen [Qualitative-empirical social research. Concepts, methods, analysis] (pp. 441–471). Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.

  • Pannell, D. J., Marshall, G. R., Barr, N., Curtis, A., Vanclay, F., & Wilkinson, R. (2006). Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 46, 1407–1424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, S. M., Fountas, S., Blackmore, B. S., Gylling, M., & Pedersen, J. L. (2004). Adoption and perspectives of precision farming in Denmark. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B-Soil and Plant Science, 54(1), 2–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichardt, M., & Jürgens, C. (2008). Adoption and future perspective of precision farming in Germany: Results of several surveys among different agricultural target groups. Precision Agriculture, 10(1), 73–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robert, P. C. (2002). Precision agriculture: A challenge for crop nutrition management. Plant and Soil, 247(1), 143–149.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwaiberger, R. (2004). Software Lohnunternehmer [Software contractors]. In A. Werner & A. Jarfe (Eds.), Precision agriculture: Herausforderung an integrative Forschung, Entwicklung und Anwendung in der Praxis [Precision agriculture: Challenges for integrative research, development and practical application] (pp. 321–338). Bonn, Germany: KTBL-Sonderveröffentlichung 038. http://www.preagro.de/Veroeff/preagro_Endbericht_SoftwareLohnunternehmer.pdf. Accessed 25 August 2009.

  • Silva, C. B., Do Vale, S. M. L. R., Pinto, F. A. C., Muller, C. A. S., & Moura, A. D. (2007). The economic feasibility of precision agriculture in Mato Grosso do Sul State, Brazil: A case study. Precision Agriculture, 8(6), 255–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soerensen, C. G., Fountas, S., Blackmore, S., & Pedersen, H. H. (2002). Information sources and decision making on precision farming. In P. C. Robert, R. H. Rust, & W. E. Larson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th international conference on precision agriculture (pp. 1763–1775). Madison, USA: ASA, CSSA, SSSA & ASAE. CD-Rom.

  • Spilke, J., & Zürnstein, K. (2005). Webservices—Beschreibung eines Ansatzes zur Anwendungskopplung und von Nutzensmöglichkeiten im Agrarbereich [Web services—Description of an approach for joint application and its exploitability in the agricultural sector]. Zeitschrift für Agrarinformatik, 2, 33–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sylvester-Bradley, R., Lord, E., Sparkes, D. L., Scott, R. K., Wiltshire, J. J. J., & Orson, J. (1999). An analysis of the potential of precision farming in Northern Europe. Soil Use and Management, 15(1), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takacs-Gyorgy, K. (2008). Economic aspects of chemical reduction on farming: Role of precision farming—Will the production structure change? Cereal Research Communications, 36, 19–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, K., Spilke, J., Thiede, J., & Piotraschke, H. (2004). Outsourcing von IV-Aufgaben landwirtschaftlicher Unternehmen—Einordnung und Nutzungsperspektiven [Outsourcing information processing tasks of agricultural enterprises—Classification and potential use perspectives]. Zeitschrift für Agrarinformatik, 2, 34–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, N., Wang, M., & Wang, N. (2002). Precision agriculture—A worldwide overview. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 36(2–3), 113–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was part of the collaborative research project FutureFarm. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement no 212117. This publication does not necessarily reflect the European Commission’s views and does not anticipate the Commission’s future policy in this area. Its content is the sole responsibility of the authors. The authors would like to thank all participants of the survey. Special thanks are given to Jörg Pilz for the technical assistance as well as to Armin Werner, Frank Dreger and Edward Nash for providing contacts to potential interviewees and overall project management and to Markus Kienscherf and Ingo Zasada for proof reading and comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Institute of Socioeconomics, Eberswalder Str. 84, 15374, Müncheberg, Germany

    T. Kutter, S. Tiemann & R. Siebert

  2. Farm Mechanization Lab, Crop Sciences and Rural Environment, University of Thessaly, Fytoko Street, 38446, Nea Ionia, Greece

    S. Fountas

Authors
  1. T. Kutter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Tiemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. Siebert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Fountas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Kutter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kutter, T., Tiemann, S., Siebert, R. et al. The role of communication and co-operation in the adoption of precision farming. Precision Agric 12, 2–17 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-009-9150-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-009-9150-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation