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

Knowledge Exchange and Innovation Adoption Preferences of Arable Growers in Ireland’s Atlantic-Influenced Climate 1 2 * Sustainability 2024 , 16 (4), 1419; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16041419 (registering DOI) Abstract : 1. Introduction −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. 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. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Questionnaire Survey 2.2. Grower Selection 2.3. Survey Questions 2.4. Data Analysis 2.5. Limitations 3. Results and Discussion 3.1. Study Area 3.2. Socio-Demographics 3.3. Innovation Adoption and Crop Establishment System Adoption Preferences 3.4. Perceived System Management Requirements and Growers Research and Extension Feedback/Preferences 3.5. Information Sources Used for Major Decisions and the Geographic Origin of This Information 3.6. Information Access Methods, Used for Major Decisions 3.7. Information Sources Used for Agronomic Decisions and the Geographic Origin of This Information 3.8. Top Three Information Access Methods Used for Agronomic Decisions 4. Conclusions 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 Funding Institutional Review Board Statement Informed Consent Statement Data Availability Statement Acknowledgments Conflicts of Interest Appendix A. Survey Questions and Response Options 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 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 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-till Direct Drill 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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] 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] Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] Feder, G.; Umali, D.L. The adoption of agricultural innovations: A review. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 1993 , 43, 215–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] Mason, R.G. The use of information sources in the process of adoption. Rural. Sociol. 1964 , 29, 40. [Google Scholar] 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] 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] 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] 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] Fleming, A.; Vanclay, F. Using discourse analysis to improve extension practice. Ext. Farming Syst. J. 2009 , 5, 1–9. [Google Scholar] 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] 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] 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] CSO (Ed.) Area, Yield and Production of Crops 2021; CSO Website: Cork, Ireland, 2021. [Google Scholar] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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). 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). 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] Cavan, G.; Cussans, J.; Moss, S. Managing the risks of herbicide resistance in wild oat. Weed Sci. 2001 , 49, 236–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] CSO. Census of Agriculture 2020; CSO: Cork, Ireland, 2020. [Google Scholar] 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). 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] Llewellyn, R.S. Information quality and effectiveness for more rapid adoption decisions by farmers. Field Crops Res. 2007 , 104, 148–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 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] 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] Giné, X.; Yang, D. Insurance, credit, and technology adoption: Field experimental evidencefrom Malawi. J. Dev. Econ. 2009 , 89, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] Kassam, A.; Friedrich, T.; Derpsch, R. Global spread of Conservation Agriculture. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2019 , 76, 29–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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 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 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 (red), Min-till = 2.0 (green), Direct Drill = 2.8 (blue). 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 (red), Min-till = 1.3 (green), Direct Drill = 2.2 (blue). Superscript letters denote where significant differences exist between groups. Grower Group Statistical Parameters Plough Min-Till Direct Drill p 1 K-W 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 Intentions 7 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 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. Grower Group Statistical Parameters Plough Min-Till Direct Drill p 1 K-W 2 General Innovation Adoption Preferences-abbreviated Options (1–4 scale): n = 77 n = 59 n = 18 5.2% * 22% 50% 39% 57.6% 50% 28.6% 16.9% 0% 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 0% 10.2% 33.3% 10.4% 42.4% 55.6% 45.5% 39% 11.1% 44.2% 8.5% 0% Mean of scale values 3.3 c 2.5 b 1.8 a <0.001 58.112 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. Grower Groups Statistical Parameters Plough Min-Till Direct Drill p 1 K-W 2 Min-till requires a higher degree of management than ploughing (1–5 scale) n = 77 n = 59 n = 17 3.9% * 5.1% 5.6% 5.2% 1.7% 0% 0% 5.1% 0% 33.8% 18.6% 44.5% 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 2.6% 0% 5.6% 5.2% 3.4% 0% 1.3% 1.7% 0% 27.3% 6.8% 5.6% 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 0% 1.7% 0% 2.6% 0% 0% 1.3% 0% 0% 23.4% 30.5% 11.1% 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 20% 15% 0% 17.1% 8% 0% 0% 7% 0% 28.6% 31% 22.2% 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 15.7% 20.3% 0% 14.3% 6.8% 0% 4.3% 5.1% 16.7% 33% 35.6% 16.7% 32.6% 32.2% 66.7% Mean of scale values 3.5 b 3.5 b 4.5 a <0.05 7.747 1 : p-value; 2 : Kruskal–Wallis Chi-squared. Superscript letters denote where significant differences exist between groups (show comparisons across rows). Grower Groups Statistical Parameters Plough Min-Till Direct Drill p 1 K-W 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 1.3% * 0% 11.1% 1.3% 0% 0% 19.5% 32.2% 27.8% 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 0% 3.4% 38.9% 13% 6.8% 0% 87% 89.8% 61.1% Mean of scale values 2.9 b 2.9 b 2.2 a <0.01 12.089 1 : p-value; 2 : Kruskal–Wallis Chi-squared. Superscript letters denote where significant differences exist between groups (show comparisons across rows). 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) p 1   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 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. 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) p 1   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 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. 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) p 1   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 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. 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) p 1   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 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. © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 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