IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v220y2024ics0308521x24002403.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Driving factors behind precision livestock farming tools adoption: The case of the pedometer on dairy farms

Author

Listed:
  • Selvaggi, R.
  • Pappalardo, G.
  • Zarbà, C.
  • Lusk, J.L.

Abstract

The development of new advanced technologies has led to rapid changes livestock production systems. Precision livestock farming (PLF) uses digital devices that gather, process and examine specific physiological, behavioral and production indicators to improve control of individual animals. Regarding dairy farming, despite the wide scientific debate, the digital devices (i.e., pedometers) are not widely used among farmers, and as such, market data are unavailable to study farmer demand for the technology. In literature, the exact causes that favor or discourage the adoption of digital devices have not yet been identified.

Suggested Citation

  • Selvaggi, R. & Pappalardo, G. & Zarbà, C. & Lusk, J.L., 2024. "Driving factors behind precision livestock farming tools adoption: The case of the pedometer on dairy farms," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:220:y:2024:i:c:s0308521x24002403
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104090
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X24002403
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104090?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Collins, Andrew T., 2016. "On determining priors for the generation of efficient stated choice experimental designs," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 10-14.
    2. Elise Shepley & Marianne Berthelot & Elsa Vasseur, 2017. "Validation of the Ability of a 3D Pedometer to Accurately Determine the Number of Steps Taken by Dairy Cows When Housed in Tie-Stalls," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-4, June.
    3. Simona Naspetti & Serena Mandolesi & Jeroen Buysse & Terhi Latvala & Philippa Nicholas & Susanne Padel & Ellen J. Van Loo & Raffaele Zanoli, 2017. "Determinants of the Acceptance of Sustainable Production Strategies among Dairy Farmers: Development and Testing of a Modified Technology Acceptance Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-16, October.
    4. Rida Akzar & Wendy Umberger & Alexandra Peralta, 2023. "Understanding heterogeneity in technology adoption among Indonesian smallholder dairy farmers," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(2), pages 347-370, March.
    5. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
    6. Yari Vecchio & Giulio Paolo Agnusdei & Pier Paolo Miglietta & Fabian Capitanio, 2020. "Adoption of Precision Farming Tools: The Case of Italian Farmers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-16, January.
    7. Kathleen Brooks & Jayson L. Lusk, 2010. "Stated and Revealed Preferences for Organic and Cloned Milk: Combining Choice Experiment and Scanner Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1229-1241.
    8. Johannes Munz & Heinrich Schuele, 2022. "Influencing the Success of Precision Farming Technology Adoption—A Model-Based Investigation of Economic Success Factors in Small-Scale Agriculture," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-21, October.
    9. Joan L. Walker & Yanqiao Wang & Mikkel Thorhauge & Moshe Ben-Akiva, 2018. "D-efficient or deficient? A robustness analysis of stated choice experimental designs," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(2), pages 215-238, March.
    10. Eastwood, C.R. & Chapman, D.F. & Paine, M.S., 2012. "Networks of practice for co-construction of agricultural decision support systems: Case studies of precision dairy farms in Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 10-18.
    11. Hensher, David & Louviere, Jordan & Swait, Joffre, 1998. "Combining sources of preference data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 197-221, November.
    12. Ruzzante, Sacha & Labarta, Ricardo & Bilton, Amy, 2021. "Adoption of agricultural technology in the developing world: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Trey Malone & Jayson L. Lusk, 2019. "Releasing The Trap: A Method To Reduce Inattention Bias In Survey Data With Application To U.S. Beer Taxes," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 57(1), pages 584-599, January.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    3. Trey Malone & Antonios M. Koumpias & Per L. Bylund, 2019. "Entrepreneurial response to interstate regulatory competition: evidence from a behavioral discrete choice experiment," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 55(2), pages 172-192, April.
    4. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    5. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    6. Lauren Chenarides & Carola Grebitus & Jayson L Lusk & Iryna Printezis, 2022. "A calibrated choice experiment method," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(5), pages 971-1004.
    7. Sunjin Ahn & Jayson L. Lusk, 2021. "Non‐Pecuniary Effects of Sugar‐Sweetened Beverage Policies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(1), pages 53-69, January.
    8. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    9. Haghani, Milad & Sarvi, Majid, 2018. "Hypothetical bias and decision-rule effect in modelling discrete directional choices," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 361-388.
    10. Simon Gwara & Edilegnaw Wale & Alfred Odindo & Chris Buckley, 2020. "Why do We Know So Much and Yet So Little? A Scoping Review of Willingness to Pay for Human Excreta Derived Material in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-25, August.
    11. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    12. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Collins, Andrew T., 2019. "New software tools for creating stated choice experimental designs efficient for regret minimisation and utility maximisation decision rules," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 104-123.
    13. Lai, Yufeng & Yue, Chengyan, 2020. "Consumer Willingness to pay for Organic and Animal Welfare Product Attributes: Do Experimental Results Align with Market Data?," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304328, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Noriko Irie & Naoko Kawahara, 2023. "Social Impact Scoping Using Statistical Methods: The Case of a Novel Design of Abandoned Farmland Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-18, February.
    15. Wolf, Christopher A. & Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Understanding U.S. Consumer Demand for Milk Production Attributes," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-17.
    16. Shyamal Chowdhury & J. V. Meenakshi & Keith I. Tomlins & Constance Owori, 2010. "Are Consumers in Developing Countries Willing to Pay More for Micronutrient-Dense Biofortified Foods? Evidence from a Field Experiment in Uganda," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(1), pages 83-97.
    17. Ha, Kim & Atallah, Shadi S. & Bazzani, Claudia & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2017. "Consumers’ Valuation for Craft Beer: Does the Localness of Inputs Matter?," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258330, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Sanou, Awa & Liverpool-Tasie, Lenis Saweda O. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Kerr, John, 2021. "Introducing an aflatoxin-safe labeling program in complex food supply chains: Evidence from a choice experiment in Nigeria," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    19. Sergio Colombo & Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk, 2020. "Ex-ante and ex-post measures to mitigate hypothetical bias. Are they alternative or complementary tools to increase the reliability and validity of DCE estimates?," Working Papers 2020-20, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    20. Yue, Chengyan & Hugie, Kari & Watkins, Eric, 2012. "Are consumers willing to pay more for low-input turfgrasses on residential lawns? Evidence from choice experiments," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 44(4), pages 1-12, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:220:y:2024:i:c:s0308521x24002403. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.