IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaa120/109321.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Livestock farmers’ attitude towards manure separation technology as future strategy

Author

Listed:
  • Gebrezgabher, Solomie A.
  • Lanker, Dora
  • Meuwissen, Miranda P.M.
  • Oude Lansink, Alfons G.J.M.

Abstract

In this paper, an ordered probit model is used to assess the factors that affect the probability of livestock farmers having plans to adopt manure separation technology in the future. A survey, based on a postal and computerized questionnaire of representative dairy and pig farms in the Netherlands was carried out in 2009. The results show that age of farmer and a variable which accounts for the interaction between size and location of the farm are important variables explaining the probability of farmers having plans to adopt manure separation technology. Furthermore, farmers who agreed that future application norms are the driving force for considering adoption of manure separation technology were more likely to consider manure separation as the right strategy for their farm. This outcome implies that farmers are considering manure separation as a strategy to survive the more stringent future application norms. Policy implications are that young farmers with bigger Dutch size unit located in manure regions where there is oversupply of manure are more likely to adopt manure separation technology in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Gebrezgabher, Solomie A. & Lanker, Dora & Meuwissen, Miranda P.M. & Oude Lansink, Alfons G.J.M., 2010. "Livestock farmers’ attitude towards manure separation technology as future strategy," 120th Seminar, September 2-4, 2010, Chania, Crete 109321, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaa120:109321
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.109321
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/109321/files/Gebrezgabher_Lakner_Meuwissen_OudeLansink.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.109321?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oude Lansink, Alfons & van den Berg, Mirella & Huirne, Ruud, 2003. "Analysis of strategic planning of Dutch pig farmers using a multivariate probit model," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 73-84, October.
    2. Anderson, Jock R. & Feder, Gershon, 2007. "Agricultural Extension," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: Robert Evenson & Prabhu Pingali (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 44, pages 2343-2378, Elsevier.
    3. Feder, Gershon & Just, Richard E & Zilberman, David, 1985. "Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(2), pages 255-298, January.
    4. Alocilja, Evangelyn C., 1998. "An optimization model for zero-excess phosphorus management," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 585-597, August.
    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. Davis, K. & Nkonya, E. & Kato, E. & Mekonnen, D.A. & Odendo, M. & Miiro, R. & Nkuba, J., 2012. "Impact of Farmer Field Schools on Agricultural Productivity and Poverty in East Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 402-413.
    2. Kondylis, Florence & Mueller, Valerie & Zhu, Jessica, 2017. "Seeing is believing? Evidence from an extension network experiment," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 1-20.
    3. Makate, Clifton & Mango, Nelson & Makate, Marshall, 2019. "Socioeconomic status connected imbalances in arable land size holding and utilization in smallholder farming in Zimbabwe: Implications for a sustainable rural development," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    4. Marsh, Sally P. & Pannell, David J., 2000. "Agricultural extension policy in Australia: the good, the bad, and the misguided," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 44(4), pages 1-23.
    5. Egziabher, Kidanemariam G. & Mathijs, Erik & Deckers, Jozef A. & Gebrehiwot, Kindeya & Bauer, Hans & Maertens, Miet, 2013. "The Economic Impact of a New Rural Extension Approach in Northern Ethiopia," Working Papers 146558, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    6. Shapiro, B.I. & Brorsen, B.Wade & Doster, D. Howard, 1992. "Adoption of Double-Cropping Soybeans and Wheat," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 33-40, December.
    7. Sara Savastano & Pasquale Lucio Scandizzo, 2010. "The Adoption and Diffusion of GM Crops in USA: A Real Option Approach," CEIS Research Paper 169, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 20 Jul 2010.
    8. Gregg, Daniel, 2009. "Non adoption of improved maize varieties in East Timor," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 48159, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    9. Nakano, Yuko & Tsusaka, Takuji W. & Aida, Takeshi & Pede, Valerien O., 2018. "Is farmer-to-farmer extension effective? The impact of training on technology adoption and rice farming productivity in Tanzania," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 336-351.
    10. Shamdasani, Yogita, 2021. "Rural road infrastructure & agricultural production: Evidence from India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    11. Makate, Clifton & Mutenje, Munyaradzi, 2021. "Discriminatory effects of gender disparities in improved seed and fertilizer use at the plot-level in Malawi and Tanzania," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 23(C).
    12. Varshney, Deepak & Mishra, Ashok K. & Joshi, Pramod K. & Roy, Devesh, 2022. "Social networks, heterogeneity, and adoption of technologies: Evidence from India," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    13. Ouma, James Okuro & De Groote, Hugo & Owuor, George, 2006. "Determinants of Improved Maize Seed and Fertilizer Use in Kenya: Policy Implications," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25433, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Alexander, Corinne E., 2002. "The Role Of Seed Company Supplied Information In Farmers' Decisions," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19617, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Mekonnen, Daniel Ayalew & Gerber, Nicolas & Matz, Julia Anna, 2018. "Gendered Social Networks, Agricultural Innovations, and Farm Productivity in Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 321-335.
    16. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & Wechsler, Seth James, 2012. "Fifteen Years Later: Examining the Adoption of Bt Corn Varieties by U.S. Farmers," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124257, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Anderson, Kim B. & Mapp, Harry P., Jr., 1996. "Risk Management Programs In Extension," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 21(1), pages 1-8, July.
    18. Christopher B. Barrett & Christine M. Moser & Oloro V. McHugh & Joeli Barison, 2004. "Better Technology, Better Plots, or Better Farmers? Identifying Changes in Productivity and Risk among Malagasy Rice Farmers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(4), pages 869-888.
    19. Langyintuo, Augustine S. & Mungoma, Catherine, 2008. "The effect of household wealth on the adoption of improved maize varieties in Zambia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 550-559, December.
    20. Cuong Le Van & Nguyen To The, 2019. "Farmers’ adoption of organic production," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 33-59, February.

    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:ags:eaa120:109321. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    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.