IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v6y2014i12p8452-8465d42688.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Farmers’ Perception of Precision Farming Technology among Hungarian Farmers

Author

Listed:
  • Enikő Lencsés

    (Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, Szent István University, H-2100 Gödöllő, Páter Károly u. 1, Hungary)

  • István Takács

    (College, H-3200 Gyöngyös, Mátrai u. 36, Hungary)

  • Katalin Takács-György

    (College, H-3200 Gyöngyös, Mátrai u. 36, Hungary)

Abstract

Many technologies have appeared in agriculture to reduce the harmful effects of chemical use. One of these technologies is precision farming technology. Precision farming technology should not be considered as only the latest plant production technology or only a new agro-management tool. It is achieved only when the results of electronics and IT equipment are realized in the variable rate treatments zone-by-zone. The advantages and disadvantages of this technology highly depend on the heterogeneity of soil, the knowledge and attitude of the manager and the staff. This is the reason why opinions about the technology effects are so wide. This paper shows the results of the investigation based on interviews about the adoption and knowledge of precision farming technology among Hungarian crop producers. This technology is mostly used by farms over 300 hectares with young farmers. The most characteristic elements were precision fertilization and tractor guidance. The survey examined three groups of farmers with respect to whether they apply precision farming elements or not. We refer to them as “users”, “planners” and “non-users”. According to the survey, the opinions of the “user” and the “non-user” groups of farmers are not significantly different regarding the impacts of precision farming technology (the main advantages were the change in yield quantity, chemical usage and income). Furthermore, the opinions of the farmers regarding the changes in variable costs resulting from the adoption of precision farming technology were also examined (measured in percent). Box-plot analysis was used for this examination. According to the opinion of the “user” group of farmers, the highest cost savings occurred in fertilizer and herbicide costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Enikő Lencsés & István Takács & Katalin Takács-György, 2014. "Farmers’ Perception of Precision Farming Technology among Hungarian Farmers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-14, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:6:y:2014:i:12:p:8452-8465:d:42688
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/12/8452/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/12/8452/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fenyvesi, Laszlo & Erdeine Kesmarki-Gally, Szilvia, 2012. "Boosting the competitiveness of agricultural production in Hungary through an innovation system," Studies in Agricultural Economics, Research Institute for Agricultural Economics, vol. 114(2), pages 1-5, October.
    2. Wilson, Clevo & Tisdell, Clem, 2001. "Why farmers continue to use pesticides despite environmental, health and sustainability costs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 449-462, December.
    3. Lambert, Dayton M. & Lowenberg-DeBoer, James & Griffin, Terry W. & Peone, J. & Payne, Tim & Daberkow, Stan G., 2004. "Adoption, Profitability, And Making Better Use Of Precision Farming Data," Staff Papers 28615, Purdue University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    4. Katalin Takács-György & István Takács, 2011. "Risk Assessment and Examination of Economic Aspects of Precision Weed Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(8), pages 1-22, July.
    5. Bakucs, Lajos Zoltan & Ferto, Imre & Szabo, Gabor G., 2007. "The Impact Of Trust On Cooperative Membership Performance And Satisfaction In The Hungarian Horticulture," 104th Seminar, September 5-8, 2007, Budapest, Hungary 7820, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Takacs-Gyorgy, Katalin & Lencses, Eniko & Takacs, Istvan, 2013. "Economic benefits of precision weed control and why its uptake is so slow," Studies in Agricultural Economics, Research Institute for Agricultural Economics, vol. 115(1), pages 1-7, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Asmaa Mourhir & Elpiniki I. Papageorgiou & Konstantinos Kokkinos & Tajjeeddine Rachidi, 2017. "Exploring Precision Farming Scenarios Using Fuzzy Cognitive Maps," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-23, July.
    2. Monteiro Moretti, Débora & Baum, Chad M. & Ehlers, Melf-Hinrich & Finger, Robert & Bröring, Stefanie, 2023. "Exploring actors' perceptions of the precision agriculture innovation system – A Group Concept Mapping approach in Germany and Switzerland," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    3. Takács-György, Katalin, 2015. "Chemical Use in Crop Production – Can it be Reduced by New Technologies?," Roczniki (Annals), Polish Association of Agricultural Economists and Agribusiness - Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistow Rolnictwa e Agrobiznesu (SERiA), vol. 2015(3), June.
    4. J Blasch & B van der Kroon & P van Beukering & R Munster & S Fabiani & P Nino & S Vanino, 2022. "Farmer preferences for adopting precision farming technologies: a case study from Italy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(1), pages 33-81.
    5. Vasilii Erokhin & Kamel Mouloudj & Ahmed Chemseddine Bouarar & Smail Mouloudj & Tianming Gao, 2024. "Investigating Farmers’ Intentions to Reduce Water Waste through Water-Smart Farming Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-19, May.
    6. Mary Sanyaolu & Arkadiusz Sadowski, 2024. "The Role of Precision Agriculture Technologies in Enhancing Sustainable Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-17, August.
    7. Alessandro Scuderi & Giovanni La Via & Giuseppe Timpanaro & Luisa Sturiale, 2022. "The Digital Applications of “Agriculture 4.0”: Strategic Opportunity for the Development of the Italian Citrus Chain," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-13, March.
    8. Barnes, A.P. & Soto, I. & Eory, V. & Beck, B. & Balafoutis, A. & Sánchez, B. & Vangeyte, J. & Fountas, S. & van der Wal, T. & Gómez-Barbero, M., 2019. "Exploring the adoption of precision agricultural technologies: A cross regional study of EU farmers," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 163-174.

    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. Antoci, Angelo & Galdi, Giulio & Russu, Paolo, 2022. "Environmental degradation and comparative advantage reversal," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 82(PA).
    2. Fetene, G.M. & Getehun, T.D., 2018. "Agricultural Technology Adoption for Food and Nutrition Security: Evidence from Ethiopia," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277332, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Ghimire, Narishwar & Woodward, Richard T., 2013. "Under- and over-use of pesticides: An international analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 73-81.
    4. Timothy J. Lowe & Paul V. Preckel, 2004. "Decision Technologies for Agribusiness Problems: A Brief Review of Selected Literature and a Call for Research," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 201-208.
    5. Takács-György, Katalin, 2015. "Chemical Use in Crop Production – Can it be Reduced by New Technologies?," Roczniki (Annals), Polish Association of Agricultural Economists and Agribusiness - Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistow Rolnictwa e Agrobiznesu (SERiA), vol. 2015(3), June.
    6. Jelena Birovljev & Biljana Ćetković & Goran Vukmirović, 2013. "Prospects Of Improving The Competitiveness Of Serbian Agriculture In (Re)Industrialization Process," Serbian Association of Economists Journal, SAE - Serbian Association of Economists, issue 5-6, pages 364-372, September.
    7. Thomas Vendryes, 2014. "Peasants Against Private Property Rights: A Review Of The Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 971-995, December.
    8. Jacquet, Florence & Butault, Jean-Pierre & Guichard, Laurence, 2011. "An economic analysis of the possibility of reducing pesticides in French field crops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1638-1648, July.
    9. Clement A. Tisdell, 2014. "Sustainable agriculture," Chapters, in: Giles Atkinson & Simon Dietz & Eric Neumayer & Matthew Agarwala (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development, chapter 32, pages 517-531, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Yuichiro Amekawa & Surat Hongsibsong & Nootchakarn Sawarng & Sumeth Yadoung & Girma Gezimu Gebre, 2021. "Producers’ Perceptions of Public Good Agricultural Practices Standard and Their Pesticide Use: The Case of Q-GAP for Cabbage Farming in Chiang Mai Province, Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-25, June.
    11. Larson, James A. & Roberts, Roland K. & English, Burton C. & Larkin, Sherry L. & Marra, Michele C. & Martin, Steven W. & Paxton, Kenneth W. & Reeves, Jeanne M., 2007. "Factors Influencing Adoption of Remotely Sensed Imagery for Site-Specific Management in Cotton Production," 2007 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2007, Mobile, Alabama 34971, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    12. Esther Devilliers & A. Carpentier, 2019. "Recovering cropping management practices specific production functions: clustering and latent approaches," Post-Print hal-04157853, HAL.
    13. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    14. Magrini, Marie-Benoit & Anton, Marc & Cholez, Célia & Corre-Hellou, Guenaelle & Duc, Gérard & Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène & Meynard, Jean-Marc & Pelzer, Elise & Voisin, Anne-Sophie & Walrand, Stéphane, 2016. "Why are grain-legumes rarely present in cropping systems despite their environmental and nutritional benefits? Analyzing lock-in in the French agrifood system," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 152-162.
    15. Asfaw, Solomon & Mithofer, Dagmar & Waibel, Hermann, 2008. "EU private agrifood standards in African high-value crops: pesticide use and farm-level productivity," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44145, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Aparna Rao & Risa Morimoto, 2020. "An Analysis of the use of Chemical Pesticides and their Impact on Yields, Farmer Income and Agricultural Sustainability: The Case for Smallholder Farmers in Ethiopia," Working Papers 234, Department of Economics, SOAS University of London, UK.
    17. Jacquet, Florence & Butault, Jean-Pierre & Guichard, Laurence, 2011. "An economic analysis of the possibility of reducing pesticides in French field crops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1638-1648, July.
    18. Margaux Lapierre & Alexandre Sauquet & Julie Subervie, 2019. "Providing technical assistance to peer networks to reduce pesticide use in Europe: Evidence from the French Ecophyto plan," Working Papers hal-02190979, HAL.
    19. Shuo Lei & Lu Zhang & Chunfei Hou & Yongwei Han, 2023. "Internet Use, Subjective Well-Being, and Environmentally Friendly Practices in Rural China: An Empirical Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-13, July.
    20. Robinson, A. & Campo, K.R. & Isaac, W.A. & Ganpat, W., 2013. "Virtual Outreach: Use Of Mobile Technologies For Knowledge Management And Extension Services In Rural Communities," 49th Annual Meeting, June 30-July 6, 2013, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 253574, Caribbean Food Crops Society.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:6:y:2014:i:12:p:8452-8465:d:42688. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.