IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ifma07/345449.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

AP - Non-adoption Of Conservation Tillage Because Of Knowledge Gaps? A Case Study From North-east Bulgaria

Author

Listed:
  • Jungklaus, Sven-Oliver
  • Happe, Kathrin

Abstract

If applied properly conservation tillage is a technology which can increase farms economic situation through reducing energy input and saving time for operations and on the other hand is beneficial for the environment and plant growing through reducing the risk of erosion and preserving soil moisture. Adoption of a conservation tillage systems not only means having the appropriate machinery (e.g. disc harrows or harrows), but also the respective abilities and knowledge of how to use the machinery to serve the farmer's objectives. Several studies have investigated the impact of human capital on technology adoption in agriculture, for example, by considering variables such as schooling, age, and contact to extension agents. However, in the decision making process a farmer's perception of characteristics of a new technology such as its relative advantage, compatibility and complexity forms the persuasion of an individual to adopt or to reject an innovation. For the most, studies on technology adoption have been carried out for developing countries and the American continent. However, up to now there has been hardly any research on the adoption of agricultural technology in transition countries. This is surprising as one could have expected changes in farmers' adoption behaviour since the start of transition. In this paper we investigate farmers' perceptions and attitudes towards the adoption and use of conservation tillage systems in North-East Bulgaria. In particular, we study whether information deficits and knowledge gaps about the use of conservation tillage systems determine the farmers' perceptions and attitudes. We base our analysis on a case study involving interviews with 35 farm managers in the region. Results suggest that knowledge gaps and information deficits determine the adequate use of conservation tillage practices. Although farms have some machinery which can be used for conservation tillage practices (e.g. harrows), results suggest that farms do so very selectively. Farms perceive the technology as being appropriate only for a limited range of crops (e.g. cereals). For all other crops (including maize) it is not considered as a proper tillage system. Farmers' attitudes towards conservation tillage appears to contradict reasons accredited to conservation tillage in literature. Approved advantages of conservation tillage, for example the preservation of soil moisture are not connected by farmers with this system and perceived to be better in the conventional tillage system.

Suggested Citation

  • Jungklaus, Sven-Oliver & Happe, Kathrin, 2007. "AP - Non-adoption Of Conservation Tillage Because Of Knowledge Gaps? A Case Study From North-east Bulgaria," 16th Congress, Cork, Ireland, July 15-20, 2007 345449, International Farm Management Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ifma07:345449
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.345449
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/345449/files/07JungklausHappe.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.345449?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. Jussi Lankoski & Markku Ollikainen & Pekka Uusitalo, 2006. "No-till technology: benefits to farmers and the environment? Theoretical analysis and application to Finnish agriculture," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 33(2), pages 193-221, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Gershon Feder & Roger Slade, 1984. "The Acquisition of Information and the Adoption of New Technology," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 312-320.
    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. Alexander, Corinne E. & Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & Goodhue, Rachael E., 2003. "Farmers' Adoption of Genetically Modified Varieties with Input Traits," Research Reports 11928, University of California, Davis, Giannini Foundation.
    2. 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.
    3. Faruque-As-Sunny & Zuhui Huang & Taonarufaro Tinaye Pemberai Karimanzira, 2018. "Investigating Key Factors Influencing Farming Decisions Based on Soil Testing and Fertilizer Recommendation Facilities (STFRF)—A Case Study on Rural Bangladesh," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-24, November.
    4. Alexander, Corinne E., 2002. "Role Of Information In The Decision To Adopt Genetically Modified Seed," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19862, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Burton, Michael P. & Rigby, Dan & Young, Trevor, 2003. "Modelling the adoption of organic horticultural technology in the UK using Duration Analysis," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(1), pages 1-26, March.
    6. Keil, Alwin & Saint-Macary, Camille & Zeller, Manfred, 2013. "Intensive Commercial Agriculture in Fragile Uplands of Vietnam: How to Harness its Poverty Reduction Potential while Ensuring Environmental Sustainability?," Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, Humboldt-Universitaat zu Berlin, vol. 52(1), pages 1-25, February.
    7. Steiner, Bodo E. & Lan, Kevin & Unterschultz, James R. & Boxall, Peter C. & Laate, Emmanuel & Yang, Danyi, 2012. "Producer preferences towards vertical coordination: The case of Canadian beef alliances," 123rd Seminar, February 23-24, 2012, Dublin, Ireland 122441, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Staal, S. J. & Baltenweck, I. & Waithaka, M. M. & deWolff, T. & Njoroge, L., 2002. "Location and uptake: integrated household and GIS analysis of technology adoption and land use, with application to smallholder dairy farms in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 295-315, November.
    9. Faruque As Sunny & Linlin Fu & Md Sadique Rahman & Zuhui Huang, 2022. "Determinants and Impact of Solar Irrigation Facility (SIF) Adoption: A Case Study in Northern Bangladesh," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-17, March.
    10. Kasenge, Valentine & Taylor, Daniel B. & Bonabana-Wabbi, Jackline, 2006. "A Limited Dependent Variable Analysis of Integrated Pest Management Adoption in Uganda," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21040, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. Liu, Jean & Chen, Kevin & Shi, Minjun, 2004. "Access to Information and the Adoption of Hybrid Maize: Evidence from China's Poor Areas," Japanese Journal of Agricultural Economics (formerly Japanese Journal of Rural Economics), Agricultural Economics Society of Japan (AESJ), vol. 6, pages 1-7.
    12. Mariapia Mendola, 2003. "Agricultural Technology and Povertry Reduction: A Micro-Level Analysis of Causal Effects," Development Working Papers 179, Centro Studi Luca d'Agliano, University of Milano.
    13. Kenneth, Akankwasa & Gerald, Ortmann & Edilegnaw, Wale & Wilberforce, Tushemereirwe, 2012. "Ex-Ante Adoption of New Cooking Banana (Matooke) Hybrids in Uganda Based on Farmers' Perceptions," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 123302, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Seymour, Greg & Doss, Cheryl & Marenya, Paswel & Meinzen-Dick, Ruth & Passarelli, Simone, "undated". "Women’s Empowerment and the Adoption of Improved Maize Varieties: Evidence from Ethiopia, Kenya, and Tanzania," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236164, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Daberkow, Stan G. & McBride, William D., 2001. "Information And The Adoption Of Precision Farming," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20556, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Hussain, S. Sajidin & Byerlee, Derek R., 1995. "Education and Farm Productivity in Post- 'green revolution' Agriculture in Asia," 1994 Conference, August 22-29, 1994, Harare, Zimbabwe 183412, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Gregory Amacher & Jeffrey Alwang, 2004. "Productivity and Land Enhancing Technologies in Northern Ethiopia: Health, Public Investments, and Sequential Adoption," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 321-331.
    18. Kelly J. Wendland & Erin O. Sills, 2008. "Dissemination of food crops with nutritional benefits: Adoption and disadoption of soybeans in Togo and Benin," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 32(1), pages 39-52, February.
    19. Nazli, Hina & Smale, Melinda, 2016. "Dynamics of variety change on wheat farms in Pakistan: A duration analysis," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 24-33.
    20. Aritri Chakravarty, 2022. "Impact of Information on Technical Efficiency of Agricultural Production in India," BASE University Working Papers 14/2022, BASE University, Bengaluru, India.

    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:ifma07:345449. 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/ifmaaea.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.