Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-8r8mm Total loading time: 0.418 Render date: 2021-12-03T12:01:02.356Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Factors Influencing Farmer Adoption of Portable Computers for Site-Specific Management: A Case Study for Cotton Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Jonathan C. Walton
Affiliation:
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN
James A. Larson
Affiliation:
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN
Roland K. Roberts
Affiliation:
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN
Dayton M. Lambert
Affiliation:
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN
Burton C. English
Affiliation:
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN
Sherry L. Larkin
Affiliation:
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Michele C. Marra
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
Steven W. Martin
Affiliation:
Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS
Kenneth W. Paxton
Affiliation:
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
Jeanne M. Reeves
Affiliation:
Cotton Incorporated, Cary, NC
Get access

Abstract

Personal digital assistants (PDA) and handheld global positioning systems (GPS) have become increasingly important in cotton production but little is known about their use. This research analyzed the adoption of PDA/handheld GPS devices in cotton production. A younger farmer who used a computer in farm management and had a positive perception of Extension had a greater likelihood of adopting the devices. In addition, farmers who used complementary remote sensing, plant mapping, and grid soil sampling information were more likely to use PDA/handheld GPS devices. Finally, the COTMAN in-field decision support program from Extension also positively impacted adoption.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amponsah, W.A.Computer Adoption and Use of Information Services by North Carolina Commercial Farmers.Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 27(1995):565–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C.Cotton Market Outlook Under Export-Driven Conditions.” Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences, 2004, pp. 462–67. Proceedings of the 2004 Cotton Economics and Marketing Conference, Beltwide Cotton Conferences, San Antonio, Texas, January 5-9, 2004.Google Scholar
Bange, M.P., Deutscher, S.A., Larsen, D., Linsley, D., and Whiteside, S.A Handheld Decision Support System to Facilitate Improved Insect Pest Management in Australian Cotton Systems.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 43(2004):131–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barham, B.L., Foltz, J., Jackson-Smith, D., and Moon, S.The Dynamics of Agricultural Biotechnology Adoption: Lessons from rBST Use in Wisconsin, 1994-2001.American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86(2004):6172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batte, M.T., and Johnson, R.Technology and Its Impact on American Agriculture.” Size, Structure, and the Changing Face of American Agriculture. Hallam, Arne, ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993.Google Scholar
Batte, M.T., Jones, E., and Schnitkey, G.D.Computer Use by Ohio Commercial Farmers.American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(1990):935–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourland, F.M., Oosterhuis, D.M., and Tugwell, N.P.Concept for Monitoring Growth and Development of Cotton Plants Using Main-Stem Node Counts.Journal of Production Agriculture 5(1992):532–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Z., Corke, P., Peterson, R., and Rus, D.From Robots to Animals: Virtual Fences for Controlling Cows.The International Journal of Robotics Research 25(2006):485508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterjee, S., and Price, P.Regression Analysis by Example. New York: Wiley-Interscience Publication, 1991.Google Scholar
Cochran, M.J., Danforth, D.M., Bourland, F.M., Tugwell, N.P., and Oosterhuis, D.M.Overview of the COTMAN Expert System of Cotton Plant Management.” COTMAN Expert System, Version 5.0. Danforth, D.M. and O'Leary, P.F., eds. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas, Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, 1998, pp. 16.Google Scholar
Cochran, R.L., Roberts, R.K., English, B.C., Larson, J.A., Goodman, W.R., Larkin, S.R., Marra, M.C., Martin, S.W., Paxton, K.W., Shurley, WD., and Reeves, J.M.Precision Farming by Cotton Producers in Eleven States: Results from the 2005 Southern Precision Farming Survey. Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Agricultural Economics, Research Series 01-06, 2006.Google Scholar
Cody, R.P., and Smith, J.K.Applied Statistics and the SAS Programming Language, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2005.Google Scholar
Daberkow, S.G., and McBride, W.D.Socioeconomic Profiles of Early Adopters of Precision Agricultural Technologies.Journal of Agribusiness 16(1998):151–68.Google Scholar
Darr, M.J., Stombaugh, T.S., Ward, J.K., and Montross, M.D.Handheld Device for Identity Preservation during Harvest.” ASAE Paper No. 031103. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 2003.Google Scholar
Dillman, D.A.Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1999.Google Scholar
Fernanadez-Cornejo, J., Beach, E.D., and Huang, W.The Adoption of IPM Techniques By Vegetable Growers in Florida, Michigan, and Texas.Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 26(1994):158–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, M.Twin Rows Yield Tonnage.Farm Journal 131(2007):1618.Google Scholar
Flores, A.Speeding Up the Data Delivery in Precision Agriculture.Agricultural Research Magazine 51,6(2003):17.Google Scholar
Griffin, T.W., Evans, S.R, and Oswald, D.R.Utilizing Precision Farming Technologies to Implement and Monitor Management Intensive Grazing Systems.” Unpaginated CD-ROM. 2003. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Precision Agriculture and Other Precision Resources Management, Minneapolis, MN, July 14-17, 2002.Google Scholar
Griffin, T.W., Lowenberg-Deboer, J., Lambert, D.M., Peone, J., Payne, T., and Daberkow, S.G.Adoption, Profitability and Making Better Use of Precision Farming Data.” Staff paper #04-06. West Lafayette, IN: Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, 2004.Google Scholar
Hearn, A.B., and Bange, M.P.SIRATAC and CottonLOGIC: Persevering with DSSs in the Australian Cotton Industry.Agricultural Systems 74(2002):2756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, P.A Guide to Econometrics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Khanna, M.Sequential Adoption of Site-Specific Technologies and Its Implications for Nitrogen Productivity: A Double Selectivity Model.American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(2001):3551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, J.A., and Roberts, R.K.Farmers' Perceptions of Spatial Yield Variability as Influenced by Precision Farming Information Technologies.” Paper presented at the Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Tulsa, Oklahoma, February 14-18, 2004.Google Scholar
Larson, J.A., Roberts, R.K., English, B.C., Larkin, S.L., Marra, M.C., Martin, S.W., Paxton, K.W., and Reeves, J.M.Farmer Adoption of Remotely Sensed Imagery for Precision Management in Cotton Production.Precision Agriculture 9(2008):195208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lentner, M., and Bishop, T.Experimental Design and Analysis. Blacksburg, VA: Valley Book Co., 1993.Google Scholar
Maddala, G.S.Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
McKinion, J.M., Jenkins, J.N., Willers, J.L., and Read, J.J.Developing a Wireless LAN for High-Speed Transfer of Precision Agriculture Information.” pp. 399404. Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Precision Agriculture, Berlin, Germany, June 15-18, 2003.Google Scholar
McKinion, J.M., Turner, S.B., Willers, J.L., Read, J.J., Jenkins, J.N., and McDade, J.Wireless Technology and Satellite Internet Access for High-Speed Whole Farm Connectivity.” Agricultural Systems 81(2004a):201-12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinion, J.M., Willers, J.L., and Jenkins, J.N.Wireless Local Area Networking for Farm Management.” ASAE Paper:04-3012. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agriculture Engineers, 2004b.Google Scholar
Muzzi, D.Mid-South Farmer/Consultant: Site-Specific Management Profitable.” Delta Farm Press (April 23, 2004). Internet site: http://deltafarmpress.com/mag/farming_midsouth_farmerconsultant_sitespecific/ (Accessed October 12, 2009).Google Scholar
Putler, D.S., and Zilberman, D.Computer Use in Agriculture: Evidence from Tulare County, California.American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70(1988):790802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivers, D., and Vuong, Q.H.Limited Information Estimators and Exogeneity Tests for Simultaneous Probit Models.Journal of Econometrics 39(1988):347–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, R.K., English, B.C., Larson, J.A., Cochran, R.L., Goodman, W.R., Larkin, S.L., Marra, M.C., Martin, S.W., Shurley, W.D., and Reeves, J.M.Adoption of Site-Specific Information and Variable-Rate Technologies in Cotton Precision Farming.Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 36(2004):143–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, R.K., Larson, J.A., English, B.C., Cochran, R.L., Goodman, W.R., Paxton, K.W., Larkin, S.L., Marra, M.C., Martin, S.W., Shurley, W.D., and Reeves, J.M.Adoption of COTMAN for Precision Farming.” Presentation at the Cotton Incorporated COTMAN Working Group Meeting, Austin, TX, November 16-17, 2005.Google Scholar
Robinson, E.Aerial Imagery Works Best with Footprints in the Field.” Delta Farm Press (February 3, 2006). Internet site: http://deltafarmpress.com/mag/farming_crop_aerial_imagery/ (Accessed October 12, 2009).Google Scholar
Rogers, E.M.Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Skorupa, B.Personal Communication. Cotton Board, 871 Ridgeway Loop, Suite 100, Memphis, TN 38120-4019, 2004.Google Scholar
Smith, A., Goe, W.R., Kenney, M., and Paul, C.J. MorrisonComputer and Internet Use by Great Plains Farmers.Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 29(2004):481500.Google Scholar
Stombaugh, T.S., Koostra, B.K., and Shearer, S.A.Using Low Cost GPS Receivers for Boundary Mapping.” ASAE Paper No. 031010. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 2003.Google Scholar
Sudbrink, D.L. Jr., Harris, F.A., Hanks, J.A., English, P.J., Willers, J.L., and Robbins, J.T.Applications of Site Specific Pest Management in Mississippi Delta Cotton.” Unpaginated CD-ROM. 2003. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Precision Agriculture and Other Precision Resources Management, July 14-17, 2002, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
Texas A&M System, Texas AgriLife Extension. COTMAN. Internet site: http://cotman.tamu.edu/index.htm (Accessed October 12, 2009).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Farm Resource Regions. Internet site: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib760/aib-760.pdf (Accessed October 12, 2009).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service. 2002 Census of Agriculture. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2004.Google Scholar
Velia, F.Simple Tests for Sample Selection Bias in Censored and Discrete Choice Models.Journal of Applied Econometrics 7(1992):413–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vellidis, G., Garrick, V., Pocknee, S., Perry, C., Kvien, C., and Tucker, M.How Wireless Will Change Agriculture.” pp. 5767. Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Precision Agriculture, Skiathos, Greece, June 3-6, 2007.Google Scholar
Vivoni, E.R., and Camilli, R.Real-Time Streaming of Environmental Field Data.Computers & Geosciences 29(2003):457–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, N., Zhang, N., and Wang, M.Review: Wireless Sensors in Agriculture and Food Industry-Recent Development and Future Perspective.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 50(2006):114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, H.A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Co-variance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity.Econometrica 48(1980):817–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wooldridge, J.Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. London: MIT Press, 2002.Google Scholar
Yang, C, Greenberg, S.M., Everitt, J.H., Sappington, T.W., and Norman, J.W.Evaluation of Cotton Defoliation Strategies using Airborne Multispectral Imagery.Transactions of the ASAE. American Society of Agricultural Engineers 46(2003):869–76.Google Scholar
Yule, I.J., Lawrence, H.G., and Murray, R.I.Yield Mapping to Improve Dairy Farm Production.” Paper presented at ASAE International Meeting, Tampa, FL, July 17-20, 2005.Google Scholar
10
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Factors Influencing Farmer Adoption of Portable Computers for Site-Specific Management: A Case Study for Cotton Production
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Factors Influencing Farmer Adoption of Portable Computers for Site-Specific Management: A Case Study for Cotton Production
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Factors Influencing Farmer Adoption of Portable Computers for Site-Specific Management: A Case Study for Cotton Production
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *