Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:29:37.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Farmers' commitment to continued use of the late spring soil nitrogen test

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Cheryl K. Contant  and
Peter F. Korsching
Cheryl K. Contant
Affiliation:
Associate Professor in the Graduate Program in Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242-1316;
Peter F. Korsching
Affiliation:
Professor of Sociology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.
Get access

Abstract

Within the past decade, low cost and convenient soil tests have been developed and marketed to permit better matching of soil nitrogen levels with crop needs. We explore the factors related to farmers' initial adoption and their commitment to continued use of one such kit, marketed in Iowa as N-Trak. Early adopters of the N-Trak had many of the same personal and farm operation characteristics as farmers who have been early adopters of other farming innovations. Further, the principal factors in differentiating between various levels of commitment to continued use of the kit were perceptions of technological attributes of the kit and, to a much lesser extent, farmer attitudinal factors and personal characteristics. These results suggest that perceived attributes of the technology, especially its returns to time, effort, and financial investment, were critical in the decision to adopt and continue to use the N-Trak kit. Early adopters' decisions to continue using it focused primarily on cost, profitability, and technological issues, to the exclusion of water quality concerns measured by attitudinal items. These findings suggest that providing information that shows the kit's ease, compatibility, and advantages, would be more persuasive than marketing it as a tool to enhance water quality.

Keywords

technologysoil testadoption-diffusionsustainability
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , March 1997 , pp. 20 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

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

1.Babbie, E. 1995. The Practice of Social Research. Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, California.Google Scholar
2.Blackmer, A.M., and Morris, T.. 1992. Selecting nitrogen fertilizer rates for corn: New options. In Building Bridges: Cooperative Research and Education for Iowa Agriculture. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State Univ., Ames. pp. 19–24.Google Scholar
3.Blackmer, A.M., Pottker, D., Cerrato, M.E., and Webb, J.. 1989. Correlations between soil nitrate concentrations in late spring and corn yields in Iowa. J. Production Agric. 2:103–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Bohlen, J.M. 1964. The adoption and diffusion of ideas in agriculture. In Copp, J.H. (ed). Our Changing Rural Society: Perspectives and Trends. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames. pp. 265–287.Google Scholar
5.Bultena, G.L., and Hoiberg, E.O.. 1983. Factors affecting farmers' adoption of conservation tillage. J. Soil and Water Conservation 38:281–284.Google Scholar
6.Bultena, G.L., and Hoiberg, E.O., 1986. Sources of information and technical assistance for farmers in controlling soil erosion. In Lovejoy, S.B. and Napier, T.L. (eds). Conserving Soil: Insights from Sociological Research. Soil Conservation Soc. Amer., Ankeny, Iowa. pp. 71–82.Google Scholar
7.Carlson, J.E., and Dillman, D.A.. 1986. Early adopters and nonusers of no-till in the Pacific Northwest: A comparison. In Lovejoy, S.B. and Napier, T.L. (eds). Conserving Soil: Insights from Sociological Research. Soil Conservation Soc. Amer., Ankeny, Iowa. pp. 83–92.Google Scholar
8.Carlson, J.E., and Dillman, D.A.. 1988. The influence of farmers' mechanical skill on the development and adoption of a new agricultural practice. Rural Sociology 53:235–245.Google Scholar
9.Contant, C.K., Young, C.L., Hefner, W., Pape, K., and Vorhes, J.. 1995. Evaluating field demonstration programs in Iowa: A progress report from crop years 1990 and 1991. Report IFM-15. Iowa State Univ. Extension, Ames.Google Scholar
10.Coughenour, C.M., and Chamala, S.. 1989. Voluntary and mandated institutional controls on soil conservation behavior of U.S. and Australian farmers. Society and Natural Resources 2:37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Hallberg, G.R., Contant, C.K., Chase, C.A., Miller, G.A., Duffy, M.D., Kulom, R.J., Voss, R.D., Blackmer, A.M., Padgitt, S.C., DeWitt, J.R., Gulliford, J.B., Lindquist, D.A., Asell, L.W., Keeney, D.R., Libra, R.D., and Rex, K.D.. 1991. A progress review of Iowa's agricultural-energy-environmental initiatives: Nitrogen management in Iowa. Technical Information Series 22. Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources, Des Moines.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Hoover, H., and Wiitala, M.. 1980. Operator and landlord participation in soil erosion control in the Maple Creek watershed in northeast Nebraska. Staff Report NRED 80–4. Economics, Statistics and Cooperatives Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
13.Korsching, P.F., and Nowak, P.J.. 1983. Soil erosion awareness and use of conservation tillage for water quality control. Water Resources Bulletin 19: 454–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Korsching, P.F., Stofferahn, C.W., Nowak, P.J., and Wagener, D.J.. 1983. Adopter characteristics and adoption patterns of minimum tillage: Implications for soil conservation programs. J. Soil and Water Conservation 38:428–431.Google Scholar
15.Moon, N.N. 1982. Perceived characteristics of the innovation and characteristics of the audience in influencing the adoption of soil conservation practices: A test of the traditional model. M.S. thesis, Dept. of Sociology, Iowa State Univ., Ames.Google Scholar
16.National Research Council. 1989. Alternative Agriculture. Board on Agriculture. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
17.National Research Council. 1993. Soil and Water Quality: An Agenda for Agriculture. Board on Agriculture. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
18.Norusis, M.J. 1990. SPSS/PC+ Advanced Statistics 4.0. SPSS, Inc., Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
19.Nowak, P.J. 1983. Obstacles to adoption of conservation tillage. J. Soil and Water Conservation 38:162–165.Google Scholar
20.Nowak, P.J., and Korsching, P.K.. 1979. Preventive innovations: Problems in the adoption of agricultural conservation practices. Dept. of Sociology, Iowa State Univ., Ames.Google Scholar
21.Nowak, P.J., and Korsching, P.K.. 1983. Social and institutional factors affecting the adoption and maintenance of agricultural BMPs. In Schaller, F. and Bailey, G. (eds). Agricultural Management and Water Quality. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, pp. 349–373.Google Scholar
22.Nowak, P.J., and Korsching, P.K.. 1985. Conservation tillage: Revolution or evolution? J. Soil and Water Conservation 40:199–201.Google Scholar
23.Petrzelka, P. 1991. Agricultural sustainability: an examination of farmers' attitudes and behavior. M.S. thesis, Dept. of Sociology, Iowa State Univ, Ames.Google Scholar
24.Rogers, E.M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press, New York, N.Y.Google ScholarPubMed
25.Skow, D.M., and Holden, H.R.. 1990. Iowa Agricultural Statistics. Iowa Department of Agricultural and Land Stewardship and USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Des Moines.Google Scholar
26.U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 1987. Agricultural Resources - Inputs - Situation and Outlook Report, AR-5. Economic Research Service, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar