Next Article in Journal
Revealing the Supply Chain 4.0 Potential within the European Automotive Industry
Previous Article in Journal
A Systematic Review of Passive Cooling Methods in Hot and Humid Climates Using a Text Mining-Based Bibliometric Approach
Previous Article in Special Issue
Interactive Approach for Innovation: The Experience of the Italian EIP AGRI Operational Groups
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Knowledge Exchange and Innovation Adoption Preferences of Arable Growers in Ireland’s Atlantic-Influenced Climate

by
Jack Jameson
1,2,*,
Kevin McDonnell
2,
Vijaya Bhaskar Alwarnaidu Vijayarajan
1 and
Patrick D. Forristal
2
1
Crop Research Centre Oak Park, Teagasc, R93 XE12 Carlow, Ireland
2
School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, D04 V1W8 Dublin, Ireland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(4), 1419; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16041419
Submission received: 2 January 2024 / Revised: 1 February 2024 / Accepted: 2 February 2024 / Published: 7 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems)

Abstract

:
The adoption of innovations, such as alternative crop establishment systems, can have significant impacts on farming systems and sustainability. The recent increased adoption of non-inversion establishment systems in Ireland allowed for an evaluation of technology adoption practices and information source use and access. Of the 154 arable growers surveyed, 50% practiced plough-based establishment and 50% used non-inversion establishment (min-till, strip-till, and direct drill systems). Differences in socio-demographics, farm characteristics, innovation adoption preferences, information sources, and information access methods used by growers who operated different systems were recorded. Direct drill growers had higher formal education levels and more off-farm employment than other growers and were prepared to take more risk than min-till growers, who were prepared to take more risk than plough-based growers in technology adoption scenarios. For both major change and agronomic decisions, non-inversion growers (especially direct drill) had substantially more non-Irish information sources in their top three information sources, suggesting the need for more national research on these systems in Ireland. Access to information through in-person interactions and print media was preferred by most. This study highlights the risk, where appropriate research is not available, of early adopters overly relying on non-validated information, potentially leading to the adoption of less sustainable practices.

1. Introduction

Change within farming, such as the adoption of different crop establishment systems, can impact crop, economic, and environmental performance and overall sustainability and can require investment and training to implement. Adoption can be influenced by farmers’ perceptions of the relative performance of new or innovative practices [1,2,3,4,5]; their innovation adoption/risk aversion preferences [1,6,7,8,9,10,11,12]; farmer and farm socio-demographic characteristics, such as age, farm size, educational level, farm structure, off-farm employment, location, etc. [13,14,15,16,17,18]; and in particular by information sources and information access methods utilized [3,19,20,21,22]. The influence of these factors can vary depending on the agricultural context, such as farm size, region, etc., and the specific innovation being adopted [23]. Therefore, context- and location-specific studies are of great utility and importance [23]. Walton et al. [5] found that farmers’ perceptions about the future profitability of precision agriculture were positively correlated with the adoption of precision soil sampling. The effect of risk-aversion status on the adoption of crop establishment systems is mixed. Belknap et Saupe [12] found that risk averse farmers were less likely to adopt alternative crop establishment systems, but in contrast, Canales et al. [9] found that risk averse individuals were more likely to adopt. The impact of socio-demographic factors on the adoption of crop establishment systems varies; Vijayarajan et al. [14] found non-inversion growers were younger, more educated, and had larger farms, whereas Alskaf et al. [13] also found that non-inversion growers were more educated and had larger farms but were no different in age from plough-based growers. Bavorová et al. [20] and Yirdoe et al. [21] found that other farmers were the most used information source for innovation adoption, and Kibue et al. [19] found that information sources, and by extension, information access methods, significantly influenced the adoption of practices that improved resilience to climate variability.
It is widely recognized that farmers differ in their rate of innovation adoption [3], and recent research has begun to investigate the factors that are significant drivers at the different stages of the adoption process [23,24,25,26]. Wood et al. [24] and Doran et al. [26] found that farmers’ awareness and perceptions/attitudes were significant drivers at the early “conceptual learning” stage of the adoption process. However, behavioral change was strongly influenced by information sources and information access methods at the later “applied learning” stage [24]. For appropriate adoption, farmers need as much certainty as possible, particularly where system change and investment in machinery are required [23,27,28,29]. Information sources and access methods allow promising and unpromising innovations to be distinguished [3,30]. Ideally, the provision of independently validated, regionally appropriate information would lead to good technology adoption decisions.
In Ireland, spring barley (116,400 ha), winter wheat (56,200 ha), and winter barley (67,500 ha) are the most important cereal crops [31]. The climate is Atlantic-influenced, temperate, without a dry season, with warm summers (Cfb classification) [32]. Within the Koppen Cfb climate classification of north-western Europe [32], Ireland has cooler summers and milder winters. This, in combination with a soil quality legacy from historical mixed grassland/spring cropping systems, gives Ireland a very high yield potential for cereals [33], with 2021 average yields ranging from 7.7 (spring oats) to 10.8 t ha−1 (winter wheat) [31]. However, these grain yields are accompanied by relatively high crop establishment, nitrogen fertilizer, and pesticide costs [34,35], resulting in increasing interest in non-inversion crop establishment systems to reduce production costs [36]. The dominant system remains plough-based (Inversion tillage) [34], working to a depth of 200 to 250 mm, followed by secondary tillage either prior to or in combination with sowing [37]. However, there is a continuum of crop establishment systems varying in tillage type, depth, and intensity [37,38], with a few categories of non-inversion systems identified. Minimum tillage involves soil cultivation, but the depth and type of tillage can vary. A further sub-division of minimum tillage, strip-tillage, seeds within a cultivated strip, leaving less-disturbed soil between the rows [39]. Direct drilling systems (also referred to as No-tillage or Zero-till) place seed directly into the soil with very little disturbance [40]. Non-inversion crop establishment systems are associated with potential environmental and sustainability benefits, and their adoption is promoted by some farmer-led groups and incentivized by limited government support via the Agri-Climate Rural Environment Scheme (ACRES) [41] and Targeted Agricultural Modernization Scheme 3 (TAMS 3) [42] in Ireland. These potential environmental and sustainability benefits include possible reduced carbon loss and greenhouse gas emissions from soils, increased biodiversity, and reduced machinery-related emissions due to reduced horsepower requirements and increased work rates. Minimum tillage and direct drill systems have higher or increased work rates than plough-based systems, as they work the soil less deeply and less intensively and consequently have a lower power requirement and a greater working capacity (ha/h) for a given size tractor and labor unit.
Many studies on crop establishment systems in drier climates indicate positive impacts on overall sustainability, crop yields, soil quality, resource-use efficiency, farm economics, and environmental protection (e.g., Triplett and Dick, 2008 [43]; Derpsch et al., 2010 [44]; Derpsch and Friedrich, 2009 [45]; Kassam et al., 2009 [46]; Zarea, 2011 [47]; Soane et al., 2012 [48]). In wetter climates, research studies are less numerous. However, researchers have found: frequently similar but also inconsistent crop yields [34,49,50,51,52,53]; high work rates and reduced crop establishment costs [36,43,54,55]; increases in critical grass weeds and herbicide-resistance risk [14,56,57,58]; increases in earthworm abundance [59,60]; neutral soil carbon sink effects or increases in topsoil carbon levels [61,62]; increased nitrous oxide emissions [63,64]; and a small reduction in greenhouse gas emissions [65,66]. Adoption of non-inversion tillage in Ireland’s climate has been slow [48] compared to the UK, which has a climate broadly similar to Ireland and currently has 50% of its arable farms using some form of a non-inversion crop establishment system [13,67]. Crop establishment system adoption decisions are considered complex, with numerous factors influencing farmers’ decision-making [13], leading to slower adoption than less complex innovations [68].
The relative scarcity of research dealing with crop establishment systems in wetter Atlantic-influenced climates, coupled with the desire of growers to adopt what they perceive as more sustainable systems, has resulted in a risk that growers may rely on research conducted in drier climates to inform their decisions, and they may be accessing this information from inadequately moderated sources. Currently, there is little knowledge on the information sources growers use for different decision types; how growers access this information; and whether grower innovation adoption preferences are associated with both crop establishment system adoption and information use and access. The aims of this study were to:
  • Characterize growers who deploy different crop establishment systems in terms of their socio-demographics and innovation adoption preferences (i.e., their need for local adoption, research, and support to consider innovation adoption/system change).
  • Determine the information sources used by growers to help make decisions, ranging from system change to agronomic decisions, and if this was associated with the crop establishment system used.
  • Determine how information was accessed by growers for different categories of decisions and if this was associated with the crop establishment systems used.
  • Assess the level of management growers perceive as necessary to adopt non-inversion establishment systems and whether they believe sufficient research and adoption support is available.
This research will allow a better understanding of the role these factors play in system adoption decisions, with particular reference to crop establishment systems.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Questionnaire Survey

To address the aims of this research, a detailed questionnaire-type survey was developed to ascertain the information sources and access methods used, innovation adoption preferences, and the perceived research needs of growers using different crop establishment systems. The survey was carried out through phone interviews, supported by prior emailing/mailing of the questions, over a 5-month period starting in quarter 4, 2021.

2.2. Grower Selection

Growers were selected from the networks of Teagasc (an Irish state-funded research and farm advisory organization) advisors and commercial crop advisors/consultants. To align with CSO classifications, growers must have managed a minimum of 50 ha of arable crops. A purposeful stratified sampling technique was used to get an equal participation rate of growers using inversion (plough) and non-inversion (min-till and direct drill) systems. As the number of direct drill users in Ireland is very small, snowball sampling was used to capture as many as possible in this category. Overall, 154 growers participated, with 77 using plough-based and 77 using non-inversion crop establishment, of which 59 used min-till (including 9 strip-till) and 18 used direct drilling. Rather than having a larger non-inversion group, direct drill growers were distinguished from min-till growers. This was favorable as direct drill growers and min-till growers differed in the level of soil disturbance caused by their systems, the level of inputs used, and the type of management they were practicing. The 18 direct drill growers surveyed were a large proportion of the total direct drill population fitting the inclusion criteria, which was estimated to be less than 30 growers at the time of the survey. This low number of growers relative to the other groups was reflective of the scarcity of growers practicing the direct drill system at the time of the survey.

2.3. Survey Questions

In Section 1, questions relating to socio-demographics, farm enterprises, satisfaction levels with growers’ current crop establishment system, and preferences for innovation adoption/risk were asked. For innovation adoption/risk questions, Likert-type scales were used. Section 2 explored participants’ views on research and extension needs to improve non-inversion tillage adoption in Ireland’s climate. This used Likert-type scales; for some questions, scales of 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) were used for the statements presented. Section 3 examined the sources of information used and how this information was accessed, both for making major system change decisions and for crop agronomy decisions. Growers were asked what their top 3 sources/access methods were for the given decision types. To avoid bias, interval or multiple-choice questions with a set of discreet answer options were used where possible [69]. An option for those who did not want to answer or did not know the answer was provided for all questions. The full list of questions and possible responses is in Appendix A. Prior to the survey, a pilot study with 21 growers was conducted to refine the questions.

2.4. Data Analysis

Data analysis was carried out using R, version 4.1.0 (R Core Team, Vienna, Austria, 2022). For categorical data, chi-square ( x 2 ) analysis [chisq.test] was used to test for associations between the crop establishment system used and growers’ responses. Multiple Fischer exact tests with “holm” p-value corrections for multiple comparisons were performed (function: fisher.multcomp, package: RVAideMemoire) to identify the differences between groups. For ordinal (Likert type scales) or continuous data, the Kruskal–Wallis test was used to test for a relationship between dependent variables (plough, min-till, and direct drill growers) and independent variables (i.e., the factors addressed in the questions), followed by pairwise comparisons using a Dunn test (function: dunnTest, package: FSA). Likert-type scale analysis was based on the means of the numerical scale values. The “don’t know/don’t want to answer” responses were excluded from the analysis. For questions where these responses occurred, the n number is less than 154 and is displayed for individual questions in each table.

2.5. Limitations

The small number of direct drill growers (n = 18) limited the statistical power of the tests. To be detected, differences would need to be larger in the direct drill group than in the other groups. Our analysis detected differences in the direct drill group, strengthening our analysis and allowing us to analyze them as a separate group along with minimum tillage rather than just as a larger non-inversion group. Analysis as a larger non-inversion group was less favorable and may have been misleading due to differences in levels of soil disturbance, input use, and management between direct drill and min-till users.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Study Area

The majority of growers in this study were located in the south-east of Ireland, accounting for the main cereal-growing regions, as shown on a county basis in Figure 1. The surveyed growers managed 18,700 ha in total, which is approximately 7% of Ireland’s cropping area [70].

3.2. Socio-Demographics

The differences between the ages of growers using different crop establishment systems were not statistically significant (Table 1). There was a trend that growers aged 40 years or younger were more likely to adopt non-inversion systems, aligning with Vijayarajan et al. [14], where age was found to be a significant factor in crop establishment system adoption in Ireland, and with Alskaf et al. [13], where a non-significant trend that younger growers were more likely to adopt non-inversion systems was reported from the UK.
Education level differences were observed (Table 1). While 85% of growers had some post-secondary education, only 25% had a level 7 degree or higher. 56% of direct drill growers had a Level 7 degree or above, compared with 24% of min-till growers and 18% of plough users. Alskaf [13], Vijayarajan et al. [14], and Hydbom [16] also found similar associations. This may be influenced by the trend that direct drill growers are younger, as a higher proportion of young people now attain a third-level degree than in the past [71].
Min-till growers farmed larger areas than plough-based growers, aligning with other studies [13,14,15,16]. This is likely due to the higher work rates typically achieved with less intensive tillage, allowing greater labor efficiency and better timeliness in restricted crop establishment windows on larger farms [36,43,55].
There was a significantly lower proportion of direct drill growers (33%) who said farming was their sole occupation compared with plough-based (62%) and min-till (68%) growers. This may be related to the additional time made available by direct drilling being a mechanically simpler, faster, and lower energy establishment system. This contrasts with other research, which suggests that the rate of technology adoption is reduced with off-farm or other employment [72] and also contrasts with the view that when adopting, extra time is needed to learn new practices [73].
Plough-based growers were more likely to have other farm enterprises contributing to their farm income. This may be as a result of non-inversion tillage growers being further along the farm specialization route compared to plough-based growers. Work reported in the UK also suggested that there is a significant association between farm type and tillage practice [13].
There was no significant association between the system used and growers’ or their successors’ intention to still be arable farming in 10 years (Table 1). Overall, 98% of all growers indicated they or their successor planned to be still arable farming in 10 years, similar to results from Scania, Sweden [16]. As plough-based crop establishment was the system practiced by virtually 100% of growers up to 2000 [36], it is useful to note whether those continuing to use the plough intend to change or not. In this survey, 43% of plough-based growers said they were satisfied with their system and unlikely to change to a non-inversion system in the near future; 22% said they were feeling pressured to consider the adoption of a non-inversion system; and 35% said that they were currently considering the adoption of a non-inversion system. It is interesting that 57% of these growers were either considering or feeling pressurized to consider the adoption of a non-inversion system, given that there is no clear evidence of the benefits of these systems in Irish conditions. However, there is limited government aid supporting the purchase of non-inversion machinery [42] and supplementary payments for participation in programs in which the use of non-inversion systems is an option [41].

3.3. Innovation Adoption and Crop Establishment System Adoption Preferences

There were significant differences between the groups of growers in the level of research, or adoption by others, required before they would consider adoption (Table 2). Plough-based growers were more inclined to require proven local research and widespread adoption before they adopted (higher score in range 1 to 4), whereas min-till growers were less risk-averse, and direct drill users, typical of early adopters, were prepared to adopt with limited relevant information. These results add to previous, less specific studies, where risk-averse individuals were more likely to choose traditional agriculture and less likely to adopt new innovations [74,75,76]. It is interesting to note that all growers preferred less risk for crop establishment system adoption compared to general innovation adoption. It may reflect the importance that growers and agronomists attribute to crop establishment and the need for significant investment in machinery to make this change. In many situations, the utility of a technology is sufficiently researched before user adoption, and early adopters influence its practical adoption on farms and the subsequent rate of adoption [3]. With crop establishment systems in a wetter Atlantic-influenced climate, this utility is not clearly proven, with the limited research indicating some difficulties [14,34,56], in which case early adopters may be taking more risk and influencing others in the absence of validating research.

3.4. Perceived System Management Requirements and Growers Research and Extension Feedback/Preferences

It was hypothesized that growers would consider that non-inversion systems required a higher degree of agronomic management compared with plough-based systems. Growers were asked to express their level of agreement with a statement on this (Table 3). The majority agreed that min-till systems require a higher degree of management compared with ploughing with no difference in how growers using the different systems responded. Most growers agreed that direct drilling requires a higher degree of management compared with ploughing with small differences between the respondent groups. A previous study of Californian growers also indicated that growers thought non-inversion systems required a higher degree of management [15].
When research needs were considered, 97% of growers agreed (i.e., selected a reply of 4 or more) that non-inversion systems need more research to develop optimum management practices, and 67% of growers agreed that advisory/extension organizations are not currently equipped with the information they need to properly advise growers using non-inversion systems. A significantly higher proportion of direct drill growers believed this compared to both plough-based and min-till growers (Table 3). Specifically relating to the adoption of non-inversion systems, 66% of growers agreed there was insufficient research and extension support, with direct drill growers being stronger in this belief. It was surprising, given that plough-based growers were more risk averse (Table 2), that adoption was being considered (Section 3.2), even though they considered more research was needed (Table 3). It may suggest that ‘others’ adopting technology may have a stronger influence on how they answer questions about whether they might change systems or feel under pressure to change than the cautious approach previously indicated.
Of the growers who agreed that some level of research would be needed for Irish conditions, 72% of them believed that a comprehensive research program would be required (Table 4), and all groups answered similarly.
The adoption of non-inversion systems is complex and is frequently accompanied by the adoption of practices such as cover cropping, crop rotation/diversification, residue incorporation, etc. [77], often described as conservation tillage. When asked if components of these systems needed to be researched individually or in combination, 85% of growers responded both in isolation and in combination (Table 4). However, 39% of direct drill growers thought that systems should only be researched in their entirety. There is limited information in the literature to compare with these results. However, the challenges of relying on ‘systems’ research alone are known, whereby if the component element contributions are not known, then there is uncertainty about their performance in different scenarios, and it is difficult to predict what further development is needed to improve them [78,79].

3.5. Information Sources Used for Major Decisions and the Geographic Origin of This Information

This and the following three sections will relate to information sources and access methods, with an overall ranking by all growers of information sources and access methods given in a horizontal bar chart, while the differences between those who use different establishment systems are presented in a table with statistical parameters for comparison, and the geographic origin of this information will be presented in a figure with accompanying statistical parameters. While information sources have been studied in the past, they have typically been defined as either local or non-local [73,80]. However, in this study, growers were asked to rank specific sources.
Considering major decisions, such as adopting a new crop establishment system or something similar, “other farmers” and Independent advice (as provided by “Teagasc Advisory”) ranked highest, being chosen by >60% of growers, followed by “technical journalists” and “Co-op/merchants”, ranking in the top three of >20% of growers (Figure 2). All growers ranked “other farmers” very highly as an information source, with over 70% of growers having that source in their top three information sources. This validates the approach of using demonstration farmers for dissemination but also highlights the risk of inadequately validated practices being promoted through farmers.
Statistical analysis revealed that there were significant associations between growers’ current crop establishment systems and their ranking of “Irish research”, “Teagasc advisory”, “BASE Ireland”, “Co-op/Merchant”, “UK research”, and “International research” (Table 5).
Plough-based growers ranked “Teagasc advisory” sourced information very highly (79% had it in their top three sources) and valued information from “co-op/merchant”, “technical journalists”, and direct information from “Irish research” highly also. Min-till growers ranked “Teagasc advisory” highly, but less than plough growers. Direct drill growers were smaller in number but had significantly different preferences for information, with the conservation agriculture group “BASE Ireland” ranking next to “other farmers” as a highly ranked information source. These growers did not rank “Irish research” in their top three, with international research being relied on more. Overall, direct drill growers ranked information generated outside of Ireland more highly than min-till growers, who in turn ranked non-Irish information more highly than plough-based growers (Table 5). This is further illustrated by growers responses to the geographic origin of their top three information sources (Figure 3); non-inversion growers, and particularly those using direct drilling, access more information generated outside of Ireland; however, min-till growers still obtain the majority of their information from Irish sources. This may be a response to the relatively limited amount of Irish research on non-inversion systems (especially direct drill systems). However, there is inherently greater risk where the information being relied on is not validated by research in the geographical region in which it is to be applied.

3.6. Information Access Methods, Used for Major Decisions

In a similar manner to information sources, information access methods have been loosely defined in previous research as either traditional or ICT-based (now defined as digital) [73,81,82]. Again, in this study, specific access methods were queried.
Growers were asked what their top three information access methods were for gathering information to help them make major change decisions (Figure 4). Information access methods that have been used traditionally were the most popular overall. “In-person meeting with advisor/other”, “Discussion groups”, “Open days/field-days”, and “Farm magazines/newspapers” were the most highly ranked information access methods. The current data collected in 2021 follows pre-pandemic patterns, with farmers preferring to use traditional interpersonal communication methods [83]. However, this was surprising, given that COVID-19 restrictions were still in place when the data was collected and enforced increased familiarity with digital media would have been expected to result in higher preference ratings.
There were significant associations between the system used and the proportion of growers who had “WhatsApp group”, “Scientific papers”, “Online farm forum” and “In-person meeting with advisor/other” in their top three information access methods (Table 6). Direct drill growers valued in-person meetings less and also used “WhatsApp groups” for information access much more, which is a surprising result considering this was asked in the context of major decisions. However, this may be an example of direct drill growers, as early adopters, employing a strategy that Moldovan et al. [84] term “share and scare”. This strategy describes the dilemma of early adopters, whereby even though they “wish to display and discuss the innovations they adopt, they also wish to restrict others’ use or possession of these innovations in order to preserve their own uniqueness” [84]. When asked about their use of “WhatsApp groups”, all of these growers indicated they used it to interact with other non-inversion system users, allowing these growers, as early adopters, to discuss the innovation they have adopted. While “Facebook/Twitter/Instagram” use was small overall, there was a trend that its use was higher with non-inversion growers (particularly direct drill growers), but this was not significant. This may have been due in part to the trend of non-inversion growers, especially direct drill growers, being younger. While the direct use of “Scientific papers” as an information access method differed among groups, its overall use was very small, with only a handful of direct drill growers accessing information this way.

3.7. Information Sources Used for Agronomic Decisions and the Geographic Origin of This Information

Considering agronomic decisions, such as crop nutrition, crop protection, etc., when asked to rank their top three information sources, the most highly ranked sources amongst all growers were “Teagasc advisory”, “Co-op/merchant”, and “Other farmers”. This shows that growers prefer using information generated in Ireland for agronomic decisions, as “Teagasc advisory” and “Co-op/merchant” sources would predominantly distribute advice derived from research conducted in Ireland or in climates similar to Ireland’s (Figure 5).
There were significant associations between growers’ current establishment system and their ranking of “Teagasc advisory”, “BASE Ireland”, “Co-op/Merchant”, and “International research” (Table 7). Plough-based and min-till growers valued the sources “Teagasc Advisory” and “Co/op/Merchant”, which are likely to disseminate Irish-based information, much more than direct drill growers, who more highly valued “International research” and “Base Ireland”. It was unsurprising that non-inversion growers, especially direct drill growers, highly ranked “BASE Ireland” as an information source, as this is a farmer-led group that promotes the adoption of conservation agriculture, including minimal soil disturbance (i.e., Non-inversion tillage), and this links to the point that all grower groups highly valued other farmers as an information source. The main difference between information sources used for agronomic decisions and major change decisions is that “Co-op/Merchant” is ranked much higher and more Irish research is utilized overall for agronomic decisions.
There was an association between the geographic origin of the information sources used and the grower’s crop establishment system. Non-inversion growers (especially direct drill growers) use significantly more information from abroad than plough-based growers do. However, Irish-generated information was used more for agronomic decisions than for major change decisions overall. This is further supported by the association between system and the use of Irish research for major change but not for agronomic decisions. This indicates that most growers believe that agronomic management information needs to be climate-specific (Figure 6).

3.8. Information Access Methods Used for Agronomic Decisions

Growers were asked what their top three information access methods were for gathering information to help them make agronomic decisions. As with information access methods used for major change decisions, the most highly ranked information access methods for agronomic decisions amongst all growers were “discussion groups”, “open-days/field days”, “in-person meeting with advisor/other”, and “farm magazines/newspapers”. This further highlights the popularity and utility of traditional information access methods (Figure 7).
There were significant associations between growers’ current systems and their ranking of “WhatsApp group”, “Scientific papers”, and “In-person meeting with advisor/other” (Table 8). Again, when considering “scientific papers”, there may have been an association with their use; however, their overall use was very small, with only a handful of direct drill growers accessing information this way.

4. Conclusions

This research on information sources, information access methods, innovation adoption/risk preferences, and respondents’ opinions on research needs from growers using different establishment systems allowed a number of conclusions to be drawn.
  • As crop establishment system use is associated with grower education level, farm size, off-farm employment, and possibly age, these factors need to be considered when formulating dissemination packages to inform these groups about appropriate practices and the extent of supporting information.
  • Those practicing min-till and particularly those practicing direct drilling were prepared to take more risk in technology adoption. While this can benefit adoption, there is a risk that systems that may not be fully suited to a particular climate may be adopted, reducing long-term sustainability.
  • The majority of growers, regardless of system, agreed that non-inversion systems require more management and that there is insufficient research and extension for the adoption or management of these systems in an Atlantic-influenced climate. There is therefore a need to address this deficit to ensure appropriate adaptation and adoption of these crop establishment systems.
  • The ranking of preferred information sources across all growers indicated the high value of peer-to-peer information dissemination methods along with independent advice. However, the higher ranking of non-local information sources by growers using non-inversion systems, particularly direct-drill users, further suggests that there are considerable information deficits in this area and consequent uncertainty about the local suitability of systems and the available management information.
  • While modern digital information access methods are useful, tried and tested traditional methods must not be ignored, as most growers prefer these methods, which involve in-person interactions with others and the use of print media.
  • It is clear that if the adoption of non-inversion systems is to be optimized in an Atlantic-influenced climate, more resources will need to be dedicated to both research and extension to determine their utility and, if necessary, to adapt them to the climate.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.J., P.D.F. and K.M.; methodology, J.J. and P.D.F.; formal analysis, J.J. and V.B.A.V.; writing—original draft preparation, J.J.; writing—review and editing, J.J., P.D.F., K.M. and V.B.A.V.; visualization, J.J.; supervision, K.M. and P.D.F.; funding acquisition, P.D.F. and K.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded under the Teagasc Walsh Scholarship Program, Teagasc project no. 0822.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study received an exemption from a full ethical review from the Human Research Ethics Committee–Sciences (HREC-LS) of University College Dublin due to the survey data being anonymized. Research Ethics Exemption Reference Number (REERN): LS-E-21-92-Jameson-McDonnell.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to the privacy of the participants.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all participants who contributed to the interviews, Teagasc colleagues who helped facilitate the interviewing process, and Sean Lacey and David Hawe from Munster Technological University for their statistical support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A. Survey Questions and Response Options

The following questions were asked to respondents by the lead author via a phone interview. Where response options are not listed, growers provided a response themselves.
  • Question: What is your location (county)?
  • Question: What is your age?
Response options: Age
<25
25–40
41–50
51–65
Over 65
  • Question: What is your education level?
Response options: Education level
Primary education
Secondary education
Agricultural Certificate (1 year full-time (Level 5) or part-time (Green cert) equivalent)
Agricultural College (2 years course (Level 6))
Institute of Technology 3 years ‘ordinary’ degree (Level 7)
Level 8 Degree
Master’s Degree
PhD
Notes: level refers to Irish National Framework of Qualifications levels.
  • Question: What is the total size in Ha where crop production is practiced on your farm?
  • Question: Farming as an Occupation, is farming your?
Response options: Farming as an occupation
Sole Occupation: (if an individual engaged in farm work had no other occupation from which an income was earned, then farm work was defined as the sole occupation).
Major Occupation: (If farm work took up the greater part of a worker’s time than a second occupation, farming was to be regarded as the major occupation.
Subsidiary Occupation: (If the time spent on gainful non-farming activity exceeded that spent on farm work then farm work was to be regarded as a subsidiary occupation.
  • Question: What percentage of your cropped area is established by these systems?
Response options: % of cropped area established with each system
% of cropped area
Plough
Min-till
Direct Drill
  • Question: Do you or your successor plan to still be tillage farming in 10 years?
Response options: Future farming intentions
Yes
No
Don’t know
  • Question: What are the enterprises on your farm and what is their relative contribution to your farm income in %?
Response options: enterprises contribution to income
proportion of farm income %
Tillage
Dairy
Cattle (Sucklers)
Cattle (Drystock)
Sheep
Pigs
Poultry
Other
  • Question: How satisfied are you with your plough-based system? (plough-based respondents only)
Response options: satisfaction with plough-based system
Satisfied with plough-based and unlikely to change in the near future
Satisfied with plough-based but feeling pressurised to consider change
Actively considering major tillage system change
Have substantially changed (i.e., adopted system change across >50% of area) in recent years
Other
  • Question: With regard to adoption of new farm systems, practices and technologies, it does not suit every farmer to be an early adopter or innovator of new farm systems, practices, and technologies. This is due to scale, the additional time required when adapting and refining new practices, the economic risks associated with adopting a new system, family circumstances, dependents, etc. Taking this into consideration, which category would you place yourself in with regard to the adoption of new technologies from the following?
Response options: innovation adoption preferences
  • I adopt based solely on use in other regions
2.
I adopt based on use in other regions and some local use with limited local research.
3.
I adopt when proven by local research and in use locally.
4.
I adopt only when proven and adopted by most growers locally.
5.
None of the above apply to me or I don’t want to answer
  • Question: The following question deals with what you would need to see happening in order to adopt a new establishment system. Which of the following options best describes what you would need to see before adopting a new establishment system?
Response options: crop establishment system adoption preferences
  • I adopt based solely on use in other regions
2.
I adopt based on use in other regions and some local use with limited local research.
3.
I adopt when proven by local research and in use locally.
4.
I adopt only when proven and adopted by most growers locally.
5.
None of the above apply to me or I don’t want to answer
  • Question: The implementation of the following tillage systems requires a higher degree of management than that of plough-based systems, do you?
Response options: perceived management requirements of non-inversion systems
Min-tillDirect Drill
  • Strongly agree
  • Strongly agree
2.
Somewhat agree
2.
Somewhat agree
3.
Neither agree nor disagree
3.
Neither agree nor disagree
4.
Somewhat disagree
4.
Somewhat disagree
5.
Strongly disagree
5.
Strongly disagree
Don’t know/don’t want to answer Don’t know/don’t want to answer
  • Question: Non-plough-based establishment systems need more attention from research bodies around developing management best practices suited for these systems, do you?
Response options: non-inversion systems research
  • Strongly agree
2.
Somewhat agree
3.
Neither agree nor disagree
4.
Somewhat disagree
5.
Strongly disagree
Don’t know/don’t want to answer
  • Question: Advisory bodies aren’t currently equipped with the information they need to properly advise farmers using these non-plough systems, do you?
Response options: non-inversion systems research
  • Strongly agree
2.
Somewhat agree
3.
Neither agree nor disagree
4.
Somewhat disagree
5.
Strongly disagree
Don’t know/don’t want to answer
  • Question: There are insufficient resources from research/advisory bodies available to support people wanting to adopting no-till or min-till systems in Ireland, do you?
Response options: non-inversion systems research
  • Strongly agree
2.
Somewhat agree
3.
Neither agree nor disagree
4.
Somewhat disagree
5.
Strongly disagree
Don’t know/don’t want to answer
  • Question: At a global level, Conservation Agriculture is defined as a system that promotes minimum soil disturbance, maintenance of a permanent soil cover, and diversification of plant species.
  • In your view: Do we need to research and modify the detail of these systems to suit individual climates, yield potentials, and growing systems?
Response options: research preferences 1
No they should be adopted as a system with no variation
No as they have no role in Ireland
Yes some research is needed to tweak the system
Yes but a comprehensive research programme is needed to develop for our climate soils and yields.
  • Question: Do we need to research the individual components (e.g., cover crop aspects, cultivation aspects, rotation/species mix aspects) to understand where any benefits may come from?
Response options: research preferences 2
No, it is a system and should only be evaluated as a system
Yes, it is essential to see what elements contribute to the system performance.
Yes, it is essential to see what elements contribute but also to evaluate them in combination to see if they interact with one another.
  • Question: For the last major change you made to your cropping program, this change could have been related to changing your cultivation system, adoption of new machinery/technologies, adoption of precision agriculture techniques, etc. From the following information sources, please rank the top 3 sources of information which helped you decide to make this change?
Response options: Information sources used for major change decisions
Irish research (Teagasc, Universities, etc.) via Open days, conferences, publications
Teagasc advisory (from specialists/advisors)
ITLUS
BASE Ireland
Independent consultant (non Teagasc and non Commercial)
Chemical companies
Seed companies
Co-op/Merchant
Farm Machinery suppliers
Technical Journalist
UK Research
International research (Outside UK and Ireland)
Other farmers (either local or well-known public figures)
Other
  • Question: Thinking of the source of the information you would use for major system change, would you consider the source of information to be?
Response options: Geographic origin of information sources used for major change decisions
  • Mainly > 75% from research or validated practice in Ireland
2.
Mostly 50–75% from research or validated practice in Ireland
3.
Mostly 50–75% from Research in UK/Europe/Other
4.
Mainly > 75% from research in UK/Europe/Other
  • Question: For the last major change you made to your cropping program referenced above. From the following ways to access information, please rank the top 3 ways of accessing information that you used to help you decide to make this change?
Response options: Information access methods used for major change decisions
Technical papers/conferences
Discussion groups
Advisory bulletins
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
YouTube
WhatsApp Group
Open days/field days
Scientific Papers
Farm magazines/newspapers (Irish Farmers Journal, Todays farm, Farmers weekly etc.)
Online Farm Forums
Research/Advice/Technical Websites
In person meeting with Advisor/Other
Other
  • Question: For the last agronomic change you made to your cropping program, this change could have been related to changing your fungicide, herbicide or pesticide application rates or products or changing your fertilizer program, etc. From the following information sources, please rank the top 3 sources of information which helped you decide to make this change?
Response options: Information sources used for agronomic decisions
Irish research (Teagasc, Universities, etc.) via Open days, conferences, publications
Teagasc advice (from specialists/advisors)
ITLUS
BASE Ireland
Independent consultant (non Teagasc and non Commercial)
Chemical companies
Seed companies
Co-op/Merchant
Farm Machinery suppliers
Technical Journalist
UK Research
International research (Outside UK and Ireland)
Other farmers (either local or well-known public figures)
Other
  • Question: Thinking of the source of the information you would use for agronomic changes, would you consider the source of information to be?
Response options: Geographic origin of information sources used for agronomic decisions
Mainly > 75% from research or validated practice in Ireland
Mostly 50–75% from research or validated practice in Ireland
Mostly 50–75% from Research in UK/Europe/Other
Mainly > 75% from research in UK/Europe/Other
  • Question: For the last agronomic change you made to your cropping program referenced above. From the following ways to access information, please rank the top 3 ways of accessing information that you used to help you decide to make this change?
Response options: Information access methods used for agronomic decisions
Technical papers/conferences
Discussion groups
Advisory bulletins
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
YouTube
WhatsApp Group
Open days/field days
Scientific Papers
Farm magazines/newspapers (Irish Farmers Journal, Todays farm, Farmers weekly etc.)
Online Farm Forums
Research/Advice/Technical Websites
In person meeting with Advisor/Other
Other

References

  1. Roussy, C.; Ridier, A.; Chaib, K. Farmers’ innovation adoption behaviour: Role of perceptions and preferences. Int. J. Agric. Resour. Gov. Ecol. 2017, 13, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Montes de Oca Munguia, O.; Pannell, D.J.; Llewellyn, R. Understanding the Adoption of Innovations in Agriculture: A Review of Selected Conceptual Models. Agronomy 2021, 11, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  4. Pathak, H.S.; Brown, P.; Best, T. A systematic literature review of the factors affecting the precision agriculture adoption process. Precis. Agric. 2019, 20, 1292–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Walton, J.C.; Lambert, D.M.; Roberts, R.K.; Larson, J.A.; English, B.; Larkin, S.L.; Martin, S.W.; Marra, M.C.; Paxton, K.W.; Reeves, J.M. Adoption and Abandonment of Precision Soil Sampling in Cotton Production. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2008, 33, 428–448. [Google Scholar]
  6. Binswanger, H.P.; Sillers, D.A. Risk aversion and credit constraints in farmers’ decision-making: A reinterpretation. J. Dev. Stud. 1983, 20, 5–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Marra, M.; Pannell, D.J.; Ghadim, A.A. The economics of risk, uncertainty and learning in the adoption of new agricultural technologies: Where are we on the learning curve? Agric. Syst. 2003, 75, 215–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Couture, S.; Reynaud, A.; Dury, J. Farmer’s risk attitude: Reconciliating stated andrevealed preference approaches? In Proceedings of the Fourth World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists 2010, Montreal, QC, Canada, 28 June–2 July 2010. [Google Scholar]
  9. Canales, E.; Bergtold, J.S.; Williams, J.R. Modeling the choice of tillage used for dryland corn, wheat and soybean production by farmers in Kansas. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2018, 47, 90–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Roesch-McNally, G.E.; Arbuckle, J.; Tyndall, J.C. Barriers to implementing climate resilient agricultural strategies: The case of crop diversification in the US Corn Belt. Glob. Environ. Change 2018, 48, 206–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Feder, G.; Umali, D.L. The adoption of agricultural innovations: A review. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 1993, 43, 215–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Belknap, J.; Saupe, W.E. Farm Family Resources and the Adoption of No-Plow Tillage in Southwestern Wisconsin. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 1988, 10, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Alskaf, K.; Sparkes, D.L.; Mooney, S.J.; Sjögersten, S.; Wilson, P. The uptake of different tillage practices in England. Soil Use Manag. 2019, 36, 27–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Vijayarajan, V.B.A.; Fealy, R.M.; Cook, S.K.; Onkokesung, N.; Barth, S.; Hennessy, M.; Forristal, P.D. Grass-weed challenges, herbicide resistance status and weed control practices across crop establishment systems in Ireland’s mild Atlantic climate. Front. Agron. 2022, 4, 1063773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bossange, A.V.; Knudson, K.M.; Shrestha, A.; Harben, R.; Mitchell, J.P. The Potential for Conservation Tillage Adoption in the San Joaquin Valley, California: A Qualitative Study of Farmer Perspectives and Opportunities for Extension. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0167612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hydbom, S.; Olsson, J.A.; Olsson, P.A. The use of conservation tillage in an agro-intensive region: Results from a survey of farmers in Scania, Sweden. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2020, 35, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mango, N.; Makate, C.; Tamene, L.; Mponela, P.; Ndengu, G. Awareness and adoption of land, soil and water conservation practices in the Chinyanja Triangle, Southern Africa. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2017, 5, 122–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bontsa, N.V.; Mushunje, A.; Ngarava, S. Factors Influencing the Perceptions of Smallholder Farmers towards Adoption of Digital Technologies in Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kibue, G.W.; Liu, X.; Zheng, J.; Zhang, X.; Pan, G.; Li, L.; Han, X. Farmers’ perceptions of climate variability and factors influencing adaptation: Evidence from Anhui and Jiangsu, China. Environ. Manag. 2016, 57, 976–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Bavorová, M.; Unay-Gailhard, İ.; Ponkina, E.V.; Pilařová, T. How sources of agriculture information shape the adoption of reduced tillage practices? J. Rural. Stud. 2020, 79, 88–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yiridoe, E.K.; Atari, D.O.A.; Gordon, R.; Smale, S. Factors influencing participation in the Nova Scotia environmental farm plan program. Land Use Policy 2010, 27, 1097–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mason, R.G. The use of information sources in the process of adoption. Rural. Sociol. 1964, 29, 40. [Google Scholar]
  23. Johnson, D.; Almaraz, M.; Rudnick, J.; Parker, L.E.; Ostoja, S.M.; Khalsa, S.D.S. Farmer Adoption of Climate-Smart Practices Is Driven by Farm Characteristics, Information Sources, and Practice Benefits and Challenges. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wood, L.; Lubell, M.; Rudnick, J.; Khalsa, S.D.S.; Sears, M.; Brown, P.H. Mandatory information-based policy tools facilitate California farmers’ learning about nitrogen management. Land Use Policy 2022, 114, 105923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Beetstra, M.A.; Wilson, R.S.; Doidge, M. Conservation behavior over time: Examining a Midwestern farmer sample. Land Use Policy 2022, 115, 106002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Doran, E.M.; Doidge, M.; Aytur, S.; Wilson, R.S. Understanding farmers’ conservation behavior over time: A longitudinal application of the transtheoretical model of behavior change. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 323, 116136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Fleming, A.; Vanclay, F. Using discourse analysis to improve extension practice. Ext. Farming Syst. J. 2009, 5, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ingram, J. Technical and Social Dimensions of Farmer Learning: An Analysis of the Emergence of Reduced Tillage Systems in England. J. Sustain. Agric. 2010, 34, 183–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wauters, E.; Mathijs, E. The adoption of farm level soil conservation practices in developed countries: A meta-analytic review. Int. J. Agric. Resour. Gov. Ecol. 2014, 10, 78–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hamunen, K.; Virkkula, O.; Hujala, T.; Hiedanpää, J.; Kurttila, M. Enhancing informal interaction and knowledge co-construction among forest owners. Silva Fenn. 2015, 49, 1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. CSO (Ed.) Area, Yield and Production of Crops 2021; CSO Website: Cork, Ireland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  32. Peel, M.C.; Finlayson, B.L.; McMahon, T.A. Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2007, 11, 1633–1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Forristal, P.D.; Grant, J. The impact of break-crop and cereal rotations on crop performance and profit margins. Asp. Appl. Biol. 2011, 113, 29–36. [Google Scholar]
  34. Brennan, J.; Forristal, P.D.; McCABE, T.; Hackett, R. The effect of soil tillage system on the nitrogen uptake, grain yield and nitrogen use efficiency of spring barley in a cool Atlantic climate. J. Agric. Sci. 2015, 153, 862–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lynch, J.P.; Fealy, R.; Doyle, D.; Black, L.; Spink, J. Assessment of water-limited winter wheat yield potential at spatially contrasting sites in Ireland using a simple growth and development model. Ir. J. Agric. Food Res. 2017, 56, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Forristal, D.; Murphy, K. Can we reduce costs and increase profits with Min Till? In Proceedings of the National Tillage Conference, Carlow, Ireland, 30 January 2009. [Google Scholar]
  37. Tebrügge, F.; Düring, R.A. Reducing tillage intensity—A review of results from a long-term study in Germany. Soil Tillage Res. 1999, 53, 15–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Davies, D.B.; Finney, J.B. Reduced Cultivations for Cereals: Research, Development and Advisory Needs under Changing Economic Circumstances; Home Grown Cereals Authority Kenilworth: London, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  39. Pöhlitz, J.; Rücknagel, J.; Koblenz, B.; Schlüter, S.; Vogel, H.J.; Christen, O. Computed tomography and soil physical measurements of compaction behaviour under strip tillage, mulch tillage and no tillage. Soil Tillage Res. 2018, 175, 205–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Derpsch, R.; Franzluebbers, A.J.; Duiker, S.W.; Reicosky, D.C.; Koeller, K.; Friedrich, T.; Sturny, W.G.; Sá, J.C.M.; Weiss, K. Why do we need to standardize no-tillage research? Soil Tillage Res. 2014, 137, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Ireland. Agri-Climate Rural Environment Scheme (ACRES). 2023. Available online: https://www.gov.ie/en/service/f5a48-agri-climate-rural-environment-scheme-acres/ (accessed on 27 November 2023).
  42. Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Ireland. TAMS 3. 2023. Available online: https://www.gov.ie/en/collection/0e509-tams-3/ (accessed on 27 November 2023).
  43. Triplett, G.B., Jr.; Dick, W.A. No-Tillage Crop Production: A Revolution in Agriculture! Agron. J. 2008, 100, S-153–S-165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Derpsch, R.; Friedrich, T.; Kassam, A.; Li, H. Current Status of Adoption of No-Till Farming in the World and some of its Main Benefits. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2010, 3, 1–25. [Google Scholar]
  45. Derpsch, R.; Friedrich, T. Global Overview of Conservation Agriculture Adoption. In Proceedings of the 4th World Congress on Conservation Agriculture, New Delhi, India, 4–7 February 2009. [Google Scholar]
  46. Kassam, A.; Friedrich, T.; Shaxson, F.; Pretty, J. The spread of Conservation Agriculture: Justification, sustainability and uptake. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2009, 7, 292–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zarea, M.J. Conservation Tillage and Sustainable Agriculture in Semi-Arid Dryland Farming, in Biodiversity, Biofuels, Agroforestry and Conservation Agriculture; Lichtfouse, E., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 195–238. [Google Scholar]
  48. Soane, B.D.; Ball, B.C.; Arvidsson, J.; Basch, G.; Moreno, F.; Roger-Estrade, J. No-till in northern, western and south-western Europe: A review of problems and opportunities for crop production and the environment. Soil Tillage Res. 2012, 118, 66–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Brennan, J.; Hackett, R.; McCabe, T.; Grant, J.; Fortune, R.A.; Forristal, P.D. The effect of tillage system and residue management on grain yield and nitrogen use efficiency in winter wheat in a cool Atlantic climate. Eur. J. Agron. 2014, 54, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Giannitsopoulos, M.; Burgess, P.; Rickson, R. Effects of conservation tillage systems on soil physical changes and crop yields in a wheat–oilseed rape rotation. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2019, 74, 247–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ayling, S.M.; Bacon, E.; Christian, D.G.; Goss, M.J. The growth and yield of winter wheat following 10 years of continuous ploughing, shallow-tine cultivation or direct drilling on a non-calcareous clay soil. J. Agric. Sci. 1987, 108, 335–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cannell, R.Q.; Ellis, F.B.; Christian, D.G.; Graham, J.P.; Douglas, J.T. The growth and yield of winter cereals after direct drilling, shallow cultivation and ploughing on non-calcareous clay soils, 1974–1978. J. Agric. Sci. 1980, 94, 345–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Quinton, J.N.; Catt, J. The effects of minimal tillage and contour cultivation on surface runoff, soil loss and crop yield in the long-term Woburn Erosion Reference Experiment on sandy soil at Woburn, England. Soil Use Manag. 2004, 20, 343–349. [Google Scholar]
  54. Fortune, T.; Kennedy, T.; Mitchell, B.; Dunne, B.; Murphy, K.; Connery, J.; Grace, J. Reduced cultivations-Update from Oak park experiments. In Proceedings of the National Tillage Conference 2005, Teagasc, Carlow, Ireland, 26 January 2005. [Google Scholar]
  55. Regalado, M.J.C.; Cruz, R.T. Tillage and Crop Establishment Technologies for Improved Labor Productivity and Energy Efficiency, and Reduced Costs in Rice Production. In Proceedings of the ASABE Annual International Meeting 2010, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 20–23 June 2010; ASABE: St. Joseph, MI, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  56. Alwarnaidu Vijayarajan, V.B.; Forristal, P.D.; Cook, S.K.; Schilder, D.; Staples, J.; Hennessy, M.; Barth, S. First Detection and Characterization of Cross- and Multiple Resistance to Acetyl-CoA Carboxylase (ACCase)- and Acetolactate Synthase (ALS)-Inhibiting Herbicides in Black-Grass (Alopecurus myosuroides) and Italian Ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) Populations from Ireland. Agriculture 2021, 11, 1272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Vencill, W.K.; Nichols, R.L.; Webster, T.M.; Soteres, J.K.; Mallory-Smith, C.; Burgos, N.R.; Johnson, W.G.; McClelland, M.R. Herbicide Resistance: Toward an Understanding of Resistance Development and the Impact of Herbicide-Resistant Crops. Weed Sci. 2012, 60, 2–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cavan, G.; Cussans, J.; Moss, S. Managing the risks of herbicide resistance in wild oat. Weed Sci. 2001, 49, 236–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kennedy, T.F.; Connery, J.; Fortune, T.; Forristal, D.; Grant, J. A comparison of the effects of minimum-till and conventional-till methods, with and without straw incorporation, on slugs, slug damage, earthworms and carabid beetles in autumn-sown cereals. J. Agric. Sci. 2013, 151, 605–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Edwards, C.A.; Lofty, J.R. The Influence of Invertebrates on Root Growth of Crops with Minimal or Zero Cultivation. In Soil Organisms as Components of Ecosystems; Oikos Editorial Office: Lund, Sweden, 1977; pp. 348–356. [Google Scholar]
  61. van Groenigen, K.J.; Hastings, A.; Forristal, D.; Roth, B.; Jones, M.; Smith, P. Soil C storage as affected by tillage and straw management: An assessment using field measurements and model predictions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 140, 218–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Brown, J.L.; Stobart, R.; Hallett, P.D.; Morris, N.L.; George, T.S.; Newton, A.C.; Valentine, T.A.; McKenzie, B.M. Variable impacts of reduced and zero tillage on soil carbon storage across 4–10 years of UK field experiments. J. Soils Sediments 2021, 21, 890–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Abdalla, M.; Osborne, B.; Lanigan, G.; Forristal, D.; Williams, M.; Smith, P.; Jones, M.B. Conservation tillage systems: A review of its consequences for greenhouse gas emissions. Soil Use Manag. 2013, 29, 199–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Baggs, E.M.; Stevenson, M.; Pihlatie, M.; Regar, A.; Cook, H.; Cadisch, G. Nitrous oxide emissions following application of residues and fertiliser under zero and conventional tillage. Plant Soil 2003, 254, 361–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Carlton, R.R.; West, J.S.; Smith, P.; Fitt, B.D. A comparison of GHG emissions from UK field crop production under selected arable systems with reference to disease control. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2012, 133, 333–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Abdalla, M.; Jones, M.; Ambus, P.; Williams, M. Emissions of nitrous oxide from Irish arable soils: Effects of tillage and reduced N input. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems 2010, 86, 53–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Townsend, T.J.; Ramsden, S.J.; Wilson, P. How do we cultivate in England? Tillage practices in crop production systems. Soil Use Manag. 2016, 32, 106–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Vanclay, F. Social Principles for Agricultural Extension to Assist in the Promotion of Natural Resource Management. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2004, 44, 213–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Dillman, D.A.; Smyth, J.D.; Christian, L.M. Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  70. CSO. Census of Agriculture 2020; CSO: Cork, Ireland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  71. CSO. Census of Population 2016—Profile 10 Education, Skills and the Irish Language. 2023. Available online: https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp10esil/p10esil/le/ (accessed on 31 January 2023).
  72. McNamara, K.T.; Wetzstein, M.E.; Douce, G.K. Factors Affecting Peanut Producer Adoption of Integrated Pest Management. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 1991, 13, 129–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Llewellyn, R.S. Information quality and effectiveness for more rapid adoption decisions by farmers. Field Crops Res. 2007, 104, 148–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Brick, K.; Visser, M. Risk preferences, technology adoption and insurance uptake: A framed experiment. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2015, 118, 383–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Simtowe, F. Can Risk-Aversion Towards Fertilizer Explain Part of the Non-Adoption Puzzle for Hybrid Maize? Empirical Evidence from Malawi. J. Appl. Sci. 2006, 6, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Giné, X.; Yang, D. Insurance, credit, and technology adoption: Field experimental evidencefrom Malawi. J. Dev. Econ. 2009, 89, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kassam, A.; Friedrich, T.; Derpsch, R. Global spread of Conservation Agriculture. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2019, 76, 29–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Flora, C.B. Building sustainable agriculture: A new application of farming systems research and extension. In Integrating Sustainable Agriculture, Ecology, and Environmental Policy; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 37–49. [Google Scholar]
  79. Bhan, S.; Behera, U.K. Conservation agriculture in India—Problems, prospects and policy issues. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2014, 2, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Prokopy, L.S.; Floress, K.; Klotthor-Weinkauf, D.; Baumgart-Getz, A. Determinants of agricultural best management practice adoption: Evidence from the literature. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2008, 63, 300–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Aker, J.C. Dial “A” for agriculture: A review of information and communication technologies for agricultural extension in developing countries. Agric. Econ. 2011, 42, 631–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Norton, G.W.; Alwang, J. Changes in Agricultural Extension and Implications for Farmer Adoption of New Practices. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2020, 42, 8–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Byrne, P.W.C.; Wims, P. Irish farmers’ use of ICTs and their preferences for engagement with extension. J. Ext. Syst. 2015, 31, 91–102. [Google Scholar]
  84. Moldovan, S.; Steinhart, Y.; Ofen, S. “Share and scare”: Solving the communication dilemma of early adopters with a high need for uniqueness. J. Consum. Psychol. 2015, 25, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Distribution of the surveyed growers on a county basis (percentage of the surveyed growers in each county) in Ireland (n = 154).
Figure 1. Distribution of the surveyed growers on a county basis (percentage of the surveyed growers in each county) in Ireland (n = 154).
Sustainability 16 01419 g001
Figure 2. Information sources, used for major change decisions (by all growers), as determined by ranking in growers top three choices. Teagasc Advisory—Advisory/Extension service of the Agriculture and Food Development Authority of Ireland. ITLUS—Irish Tillage and Land Use Society (Grouping of farmers, researchers, and advisors interested in crop production who hold meetings and conferences). BASE Ireland—Biodiversity, Agriculture, Soil, Environment Ireland (Group comprising mostly farmer members that promotes conservation agriculture in Ireland). Technical Journalist—Technical journalist as a source of information.
Figure 2. Information sources, used for major change decisions (by all growers), as determined by ranking in growers top three choices. Teagasc Advisory—Advisory/Extension service of the Agriculture and Food Development Authority of Ireland. ITLUS—Irish Tillage and Land Use Society (Grouping of farmers, researchers, and advisors interested in crop production who hold meetings and conferences). BASE Ireland—Biodiversity, Agriculture, Soil, Environment Ireland (Group comprising mostly farmer members that promotes conservation agriculture in Ireland). Technical Journalist—Technical journalist as a source of information.
Sustainability 16 01419 g002
Figure 3. Geographic origin of growers’ top 3 information sources used to help with major change decisions. p < 0.001, KW = 54.401. Mean of scale codes—Plough = 1.3 c, Min-till = 2.0 b, Direct Drill = 2.8 a. Superscript letters denote where significant differences exist between groups.
Figure 3. Geographic origin of growers’ top 3 information sources used to help with major change decisions. p < 0.001, KW = 54.401. Mean of scale codes—Plough = 1.3 c, Min-till = 2.0 b, Direct Drill = 2.8 a. Superscript letters denote where significant differences exist between groups.
Sustainability 16 01419 g003
Figure 4. Information access methods, used for major decisions (all growers).
Figure 4. Information access methods, used for major decisions (all growers).
Sustainability 16 01419 g004
Figure 5. Top three information sources used for agronomic decisions (all growers).
Figure 5. Top three information sources used for agronomic decisions (all growers).
Sustainability 16 01419 g005
Figure 6. Geographic origin of growers’ top 3 information sources used to help with agronomic decisions. p < 0.001, KW = 25.771. Mean of scale codes—Plough = 1.1 b, Min-till = 1.3 b, Direct Drill = 2.2 a. Superscript letters denote where significant differences exist between groups.
Figure 6. Geographic origin of growers’ top 3 information sources used to help with agronomic decisions. p < 0.001, KW = 25.771. Mean of scale codes—Plough = 1.1 b, Min-till = 1.3 b, Direct Drill = 2.2 a. Superscript letters denote where significant differences exist between groups.
Sustainability 16 01419 g006
Figure 7. Top three information access methods used for agronomic decisions (all growers).
Figure 7. Top three information access methods used for agronomic decisions (all growers).
Sustainability 16 01419 g007
Table 1. Socio-demographic factors of growers operating different crop establishment systems.
Table 1. Socio-demographic factors of growers operating different crop establishment systems.
Grower GroupStatistical Parameters
PloughMin-TillDirect Drillp1K-W x 2 2
Age (years)n = 77n = 59n = 18
1. ≤40 years19.5% *27.1%38.9%
2. 41–5027.3%25.4%33.3%
3. 51–6537.7%37.3%22.2%
4. >6515.6%10.2%5.6%
Mean of scale values2.52.31.90.094.763
Education (1–4 scale)n = 77n = 59n = 18
1. Primary/Secondary18.2%15.3%0%
2. Agricultural Certificate 350.6%42.4%16.7%
3. Agricultural College 413%18.6%27.8%
4. Level 7 Degree or above 518.2%23.7%55.6%
Mean of scale values2.3 b2.5 b3.4 a<0.00116.163
Cropping area (ha)n = 77n = 59n = 18
153.30 b233.31 a182.14 ab<0.0112.653
Occupation (1–3 scale)6n = 77n = 59n = 18
1. Sole 62.3%67.8%33.3%
2. Major 32.5%27.1%50%
3. Subsidiary 5.2%5.1%16.7%
Mean of scale values1.43 b1.37 b1.83 a<0.057.701
Arable as % of total farm income (% income)n = 77n = 59n = 18
83.79 b91.56 a91.28 ab<0.058.334
Future Farming Intentions7n = 71n = 57n = 18
1. Yes97.2%100%94.4%
2. No2.8%0%5.6%
Mean of scale values1.01.01.10.2892.480
Notes: *: All values with % in this table indicate the proportion of growers that selected that specific option. 1: p-value, 2: Kruskal–Wallis Chi-squared, 3: Agricultural Certificate—1-year post-secondary course (Level 5 or equivalent in Irish framework of qualifications); 4: Agricultural College—2 years post-secondary course (Level 6 or equivalent in Irish framework of qualifications); 5: Level 7 degree or above—this refers to a college/university course of 3 or more years in duration that, upon completion, merits the awarding of an ordinary, honors, masters, or doctoral degree. 6: Occupation—response options: 1. Sole (engaged only in farming); 2. Major (More time spent on farm work than on secondary occupation); 3. Subsidiary (More time spent on secondary occupation than on farm work); 7: Future farming intentions–questions and response options: Question: Do you or your successor plan to be still arable farming in 10 years? Responses: 1. Yes; 2. No. Superscript letters denote significant differences across rows.
Table 2. Innovation adoption and crop establishment system adoption/risk preferences.
Table 2. Innovation adoption and crop establishment system adoption/risk preferences.
Grower GroupStatistical Parameters
PloughMin-TillDirect Drillp1K-W x 2 2
General Innovation Adoption Preferences-abbreviated Options (1–4 scale):n = 77n = 59n = 18
  • Adoption based solely on use in other regions
5.2% *22%50%
2.
Adoption based on use in other regions and some local use with limited local research.
39%57.6%50%
3.
Adoption when proven by local research and is in use locally.
28.6%16.9%0%
4.
Adoption only occurs when proven and adopted by most growers locally.
27.3%3.4%0%
Mean of scale values2.8 c2.0 b1.5 a<0.00139.571
Crop Establishment System Adoption Preferences (1–4 scale)n = 77n = 59n = 18
  • Adoption based solely on use in other regions
0%10.2%33.3%
2.
Adoption based on use in other regions and some local use with limited local research.
10.4%42.4%55.6%
3.
Adoption when proven by local research and is in use locally.
45.5%39%11.1%
4.
Adoption only occurs when proven and adopted by most growers locally.
44.2%8.5%0%
Mean of scale values3.3 c2.5 b1.8 a<0.00158.112
Notes: *: All values with % in this table indicate the proportion of growers that selected that specific option. 1: p-value; 2: Kruskal–Wallis Chi-squared. Superscript letters denote significant differences across rows.
Table 3. Growers’ perceptions on system management requirements and on research and extension needs.
Table 3. Growers’ perceptions on system management requirements and on research and extension needs.
Grower GroupsStatistical Parameters
PloughMin-TillDirect Drillp1K-W x 2 2
Min-till requires a higher degree of management than ploughing (1–5 scale)n = 77n = 59n = 17
  • Strongly disagree
3.9% *5.1%5.6%
2.
Somewhat disagree
5.2%1.7%0%
3.
Neither agree nor disagree
0%5.1%0%
4.
Somewhat agree
33.8%18.6%44.5%
5.
Strongly agree
57.1%69.5%44.5%
Mean of scale values4.44.54.30.3092.352
Direct drill requires a higher degree of management (1–5 scale)n = 77n = 59n = 18
  • Strongly disagree
2.6%0%5.6%
2.
Somewhat disagree
5.2%3.4%0%
3.
Neither agree nor disagree
1.3%1.7%0%
4.
Somewhat agree
27.3%6.8%5.6%
5.
Strongly agree
63.6%88.1%88.9%
Mean of scale values4.4 b4.8 a4.7 ab<0.0111.776
Non-inversion systems need more research (1–5 scale)n = 77n = 59n = 18
  • Strongly disagree
0%1.7%0%
2.
Somewhat disagree
2.6%0%0%
3.
Neither agree nor disagree
1.3%0%0%
4.
Somewhat agree
23.4%30.5%11.1%
5.
Strongly agree
72.7%67.8%88.9%
Mean of scale values4.74.64.90.2193.040
Non-inversion systems need improved extension (1–5 scale)n = 70n = 59n = 18
  • Strongly disagree
20%15%0%
2.
Somewhat disagree
17.1%8%0%
3.
Neither agree nor disagree
0%7%0%
4.
Somewhat agree
28.6%31%22.2%
5.
Strongly agree
34.3%39%77.8
Mean of scale values3.4 b3.7 b4.8 a<0.0113.299
More support is needed for non-inversion system adoption (1–5 scale)n = 70n = 59n = 18
  • Strongly disagree
15.7%20.3%0%
2.
Somewhat disagree
14.3%6.8%0%
3.
Neither agree nor disagree
4.3%5.1%16.7%
4.
Somewhat agree
33%35.6%16.7%
5.
Strongly agree
32.6%32.2%66.7%
Mean of scale values3.5 b3.5 b4.5 a<0.057.747
Notes: *: All values with % in this table indicate the proportion of growers that selected that specific option. 1: p-value; 2: Kruskal–Wallis Chi-squared. Superscript letters denote where significant differences exist between groups (show comparisons across rows).
Table 4. Research Approach Preferences.
Table 4. Research Approach Preferences.
Grower GroupsStatistical Parameters
PloughMin-TillDirect Drillp1K-W x 2 2
Question: Do we need to research and modify the detail of these systems to suit individual climates, yield potentials and growing systems?n = 77n = 59n = 18
  • No they should be adopted as a system with no variation
1.3% *0%11.1%
2.
No as they have no role in Ireland
1.3%0%0%
3.
Yes some research is needed to tweak the system
19.5%32.2%27.8%
4.
Yes but a comprehensive research program is needed to develop for our climate soils and yields.
77.9%67.8%61.1%
Mean of scale values3.73.73.40.2143.089
Question: Do we need to research the individual components (e.g., cover crop aspects, cultivation aspects, rotation/species mix aspects) to understand where any benefits may come from?n = 77n = 59n = 18
  • No, it is a system and should only be evaluated as a system
0%3.4%38.9%
2.
Yes, it is critical to identify elements contributing to the system performance
13%6.8%0%
3.
Yes, it is critical to identify elements contributing but also to evaluate them in combination to identify how they interact with each other.
87%89.8%61.1%
Mean of scale values2.9 b2.9 b2.2 a<0.0112.089
Notes: *: All values with % in this table indicate the proportion of growers that selected that specific option. 1: p-value; 2: Kruskal–Wallis Chi-squared. Superscript letters denote where significant differences exist between groups (show comparisons across rows).
Table 5. Information sources used for major decisions, ranked by different respondent groups.
Table 5. Information sources used for major decisions, ranked by different respondent groups.
Information Source% of Growers Who Had Information Source in Their Top 3Statistical Parameters
Plough (n = 77)Min-Till (n = 59)Direct Drill (n = 18)p1 x 2  2
Other Farmers7471720.9330.138
Teagasc Advisory79 a51 b28 b<0.00121.823
Technical Journalists322920.6760.782
Co-op/Merchant35 a15 b11 ab<0.059.071
Machinery Suppliers1427110.1114.394
Irish Research26 a15 ab0 b<0.057.240
BASE Ireland3 a17 b61 c<0.00139.624
International Research (exl. UK)4 a15 ab39 b<0.00117.27
Independent Consultant101560.4701.509
UK Research3 a20 b17 ab<0.0111.364
ITLUS61060.6800.770
Seed Company1260.4931.416
Chemical Company3000.3632.026
Notes: 1: p-value, 2: Chi-squared. Teagasc Advisory—Advisory/Extension service of the Agriculture and Food Development Authority of Ireland. ITLUS—Irish Tillage and Land Use Society (Grouping of farmers, researchers, and advisors interested in crop production who hold meetings and conferences). BASE Ireland—Biodiversity, Agriculture, Soil, Environment Ireland (Group comprising mostly farmer members that promotes conservation agriculture in Ireland). Technical Journalist—Technical journalist as a source of information. Superscript letters denote where significant differences exist between groups (show comparisons across rows).
Table 6. Top three information access methods, used for major decisions, ranked by different respondent groups.
Table 6. Top three information access methods, used for major decisions, ranked by different respondent groups.
Information Access Method% of Growers Who Had Information Source in Their Top 3.Statistical Parameters
Plough (n = 77)Min-Till (n = 59)Direct Drill (n = 18)p1 x 2  2
In-person Meeting with an Advisor/Other74 a69 a39 b<0.058.379
Discussion Groups4251500.5261.285
Open Days/Field Days4451220.1014.583
Farm Magazines/Newspapers4741220.1623.645
Research/Advice/Technical Websites *2314110.2412.849
YouTube *1319220.5161.324
Technical Papers/Conferences188220.1893.330
Facebook/Twitter/Instagram *914280.1044.536
WhatsApp Group *3 a7 a39 b<0.00125.203
Advisory Bulletins10800.3612.038
Online Farmer Forums *4 a5 a22 a<0.058.382
Scientific Papers0 a0 a6 a<0.057.605
Notes: 1: p-value, 2: Chi-squared. *: denotes “digital” information access methods; social media refers to a digital subgroup: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube. Superscript letters denote where significant differences exist between groups (show comparisons across rows).
Table 7. Top three information sources used for agronomic decisions, ranked by different respondent groups.
Table 7. Top three information sources used for agronomic decisions, ranked by different respondent groups.
Information Source% of Growers Who Had Information Source in Their Top 3.Statistical Parameters
Plough (n = 77)Min-Till (n = 59)Direct Drill (n = 18)p1 x 2  2
Teagasc Advisory82 a58 b28 c<0.00122.219
Co-op/Merchant73 a63 a11 b<0.00123.479
Other Farmers4956670.3831.920
Irish Research2131220.4131.767
Technical Journalists2222170.8720.275
Independent Consultant1924170.7500.576
BASE Ireland3 a14 b72 c<0.00155.811
Chemical Company88110.9010.208
International Research (exl. UK)3 a2 a33 b<0.00128.04
UK Research3500.5111.342
Seed Company1260.4931.416
ITLUS1300.5571.170
Machinery Suppliers0000.5571.170
Notes: 1: p-value, 2: Chi-squared. Teagasc Advisory—Advisory/Extension service of the Agriculture and Food Development Authority of Ireland. ITLUS—Irish Tillage and Land Use Society (Grouping of farmers, researchers, and advisors interested in crop production who hold meetings and conferences). BASE Ireland—Biodiversity, Agriculture, Soil, Environment Ireland (Group comprising mostly farmer members that promotes conservation agriculture in Ireland). Technical Journalist—Technical journalist as a source of information. Superscript letters denote where significant differences exist between groups (shows comparisons across rows).
Table 8. Top three information access methods used for agronomic decisions, ranked by different respondent groups.
Table 8. Top three information access methods used for agronomic decisions, ranked by different respondent groups.
Information Access Method% of Growers Who Had Information Source in Their Top 3.Statistical Parameters
Plough (n = 77)Min-Till (n = 59)Direct Drill (n = 18)p1 x 2  2
In-person Meeting with Advisor/Other84 a88 a44 b<0.00118.287
Discussion groups4741500.69730.72097
Open Days/Field Days4942220.10984.4185
Farm Magazines/Newspapers3036220.52981.2704
Research/Advice/Technical Websites *1912110.41011.7829
Advisory Bulletins161960.40741.796
Technical Papers/Conferences1317170.79420.46087
WhatsApp Group *4 a12 a56 b<0.00134.561
Facebook/Twitter/Instagram *914280.10354.5361
YouTube *45170.10954.4243
Online Farms Forums *32110.12884.0996
Scientific Papers0 a0 a11 a<0.00115.31
Notes: 1: p-value, 2: Chi-squared. *: denotes “digital” information access methods; social media refers to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube. Superscript letters denote where significant differences exist between groups (shows comparisons across rows).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jameson, J.; McDonnell, K.; Alwarnaidu Vijayarajan, V.B.; Forristal, P.D. Knowledge Exchange and Innovation Adoption Preferences of Arable Growers in Ireland’s Atlantic-Influenced Climate. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1419. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16041419

AMA Style

Jameson J, McDonnell K, Alwarnaidu Vijayarajan VB, Forristal PD. Knowledge Exchange and Innovation Adoption Preferences of Arable Growers in Ireland’s Atlantic-Influenced Climate. Sustainability. 2024; 16(4):1419. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16041419

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jameson, Jack, Kevin McDonnell, Vijaya Bhaskar Alwarnaidu Vijayarajan, and Patrick D. Forristal. 2024. "Knowledge Exchange and Innovation Adoption Preferences of Arable Growers in Ireland’s Atlantic-Influenced Climate" Sustainability 16, no. 4: 1419. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16041419

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop