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

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. Socio-demographic factors of growers operating different crop establishment systems.

	Grower Group			Statistical Parameters
	Plough	Min-Till	Direct Drill	p1	K-W ${\mathit{x}}^2$ 2
Age (years)	n = 77	n = 59	n = 18
1. ≤40 years	19.5% *	27.1%	38.9%
2. 41–50	27.3%	25.4%	33.3%
3. 51–65	37.7%	37.3%	22.2%
4. >65	15.6%	10.2%	5.6%
Mean of scale values	2.5	2.3	1.9	0.09	4.763
Education (1–4 scale)	n = 77	n = 59	n = 18
1. Primary/Secondary	18.2%	15.3%	0%
2. Agricultural Certificate 3	50.6%	42.4%	16.7%
3. Agricultural College 4	13%	18.6%	27.8%
4. Level 7 Degree or above 5	18.2%	23.7%	55.6%
Mean of scale values	2.3 b	2.5 b	3.4 a	<0.001	16.163
Cropping area (ha)	n = 77	n = 59	n = 18
	153.30 b	233.31 a	182.14 ab	<0.01	12.653
Occupation (1–3 scale)6	n = 77	n = 59	n = 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 values	1.43 b	1.37 b	1.83 a	<0.05	7.701
Arable as % of total farm income (% income)	n = 77	n = 59	n = 18
	83.79 b	91.56 a	91.28 ab	<0.05	8.334
Future Farming Intentions7	n = 71	n = 57	n = 18
1. Yes	97.2%	100%	94.4%
2. No	2.8%	0%	5.6%
Mean of scale values	1.0	1.0	1.1	0.289	2.480

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.

). 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. Innovation adoption and crop establishment system adoption/risk preferences.

	Grower Group			Statistical Parameters
	Plough	Min-Till	Direct Drill	p1	K-W ${\mathit{x}}^2$ 2
General Innovation Adoption Preferences-abbreviated Options (1–4 scale):	n = 77	n = 59	n = 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 values	2.8 c	2.0 b	1.5 a	<0.001	39.571
Crop Establishment System Adoption Preferences (1–4 scale)	n = 77	n = 59	n = 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 values	3.3 c	2.5 b	1.8 a	<0.001	58.112

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.

). 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. Growers’ perceptions on system management requirements and on research and extension needs.

	Grower Groups			Statistical Parameters
	Plough	Min-Till	Direct Drill	p1	K-W ${\mathit{x}}^2$ 2
Min-till requires a higher degree of management than ploughing (1–5 scale)	n = 77	n = 59	n = 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 values	4.4	4.5	4.3	0.309	2.352
Direct drill requires a higher degree of management (1–5 scale)	n = 77	n = 59	n = 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 values	4.4 b	4.8 a	4.7 ab	<0.01	11.776
Non-inversion systems need more research (1–5 scale)	n = 77	n = 59	n = 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 values	4.7	4.6	4.9	0.219	3.040
Non-inversion systems need improved extension (1–5 scale)	n = 70	n = 59	n = 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 values	3.4 b	3.7 b	4.8 a	<0.01	13.299
More support is needed for non-inversion system adoption (1–5 scale)	n = 70	n = 59	n = 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 values	3.5 b	3.5 b	4.5 a	<0.05	7.747

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).

). 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. Research Approach Preferences.

	Grower Groups			Statistical Parameters
	Plough	Min-Till	Direct Drill	p1	K-W ${\mathit{x}}^2$ 2
Question: Do we need to research and modify the detail of these systems to suit individual climates, yield potentials and growing systems?	n = 77	n = 59	n = 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 values	3.7	3.7	3.4	0.214	3.089
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 = 77	n = 59	n = 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 values	2.9 b	2.9 b	2.2 a	<0.01	12.089

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).

), 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. Information sources used for major 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	${\mathit{x}}^2$ 2
Other Farmers	74	71	72	0.933	0.138
Teagasc Advisory	79 a	51 b	28 b	<0.001	21.823
Technical Journalists	32	29	2	0.676	0.782
Co-op/Merchant	35 a	15 b	11 ab	<0.05	9.071
Machinery Suppliers	14	27	11	0.111	4.394
Irish Research	26 a	15 ab	0 b	<0.05	7.240
BASE Ireland	3 a	17 b	61 c	<0.001	39.624
International Research (exl. UK)	4 a	15 ab	39 b	<0.001	17.27
Independent Consultant	10	15	6	0.470	1.509
UK Research	3 a	20 b	17 ab	<0.01	11.364
ITLUS	6	10	6	0.680	0.770
Seed Company	1	2	6	0.493	1.416
Chemical Company	3	0	0	0.363	2.026

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).

).

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. 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	${\mathit{x}}^2$ 2
In-person Meeting with an Advisor/Other	74 a	69 a	39 b	<0.05	8.379
Discussion Groups	42	51	50	0.526	1.285
Open Days/Field Days	44	51	22	0.101	4.583
Farm Magazines/Newspapers	47	41	22	0.162	3.645
Research/Advice/Technical Websites *	23	14	11	0.241	2.849
YouTube *	13	19	22	0.516	1.324
Technical Papers/Conferences	18	8	22	0.189	3.330
Facebook/Twitter/Instagram *	9	14	28	0.104	4.536
WhatsApp Group *	3 a	7 a	39 b	<0.001	25.203
Advisory Bulletins	10	8	0	0.361	2.038
Online Farmer Forums *	4 a	5 a	22 a	<0.05	8.382
Scientific Papers	0 a	0 a	6 a	<0.05	7.605

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).

). 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. 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	${\mathit{x}}^2$ 2
Teagasc Advisory	82 a	58 b	28 c	<0.001	22.219
Co-op/Merchant	73 a	63 a	11 b	<0.001	23.479
Other Farmers	49	56	67	0.383	1.920
Irish Research	21	31	22	0.413	1.767
Technical Journalists	22	22	17	0.872	0.275
Independent Consultant	19	24	17	0.750	0.576
BASE Ireland	3 a	14 b	72 c	<0.001	55.811
Chemical Company	8	8	11	0.901	0.208
International Research (exl. UK)	3 a	2 a	33 b	<0.001	28.04
UK Research	3	5	0	0.511	1.342
Seed Company	1	2	6	0.493	1.416
ITLUS	1	3	0	0.557	1.170
Machinery Suppliers	0	0	0	0.557	1.170

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).

). 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. 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	${\mathit{x}}^2$ 2
In-person Meeting with Advisor/Other	84 a	88 a	44 b	<0.001	18.287
Discussion groups	47	41	50	0.6973	0.72097
Open Days/Field Days	49	42	22	0.1098	4.4185
Farm Magazines/Newspapers	30	36	22	0.5298	1.2704
Research/Advice/Technical Websites *	19	12	11	0.4101	1.7829
Advisory Bulletins	16	19	6	0.4074	1.796
Technical Papers/Conferences	13	17	17	0.7942	0.46087
WhatsApp Group *	4 a	12 a	56 b	<0.001	34.561
Facebook/Twitter/Instagram *	9	14	28	0.1035	4.5361
YouTube *	4	5	17	0.1095	4.4243
Online Farms Forums *	3	2	11	0.1288	4.0996
Scientific Papers	0 a	0 a	11 a	<0.001	15.31

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).

). 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.