| 000 | 02758nab|a22003737a|4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | MX-TxCIM | ||
| 005 | 20250124114443.0 | ||
| 008 | 250124s2022 xxk|||p|op||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
| 022 | _a0743-0167 | ||
| 022 | _a1873-1392 (Online) | ||
| 024 | 8 | _ahttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.01.001 | |
| 040 | _aMX-TxCIM | ||
| 041 | _aeng | ||
| 100 | 1 |
_aDeDecker, J. _938094 |
|
| 245 | 1 | 4 |
_aThe relationship between farmer demographics, social identity and tillage behavior : _bevidence from Michigan soybean producers |
| 260 |
_aUnited Kingdom : _bElsevier, _c2022. |
||
| 500 | _aPeer review | ||
| 500 | _aReference Only | ||
| 520 | _aEffectively promoting sustainable agricultural practices like conservation tillage (CT) is of critical importance for developing more efficient and sustainable value chains. While many studies have considered what factors might lead to tillage reduction, few have considered the role of social and structural determinants in farmer decision-making. Fewer still have considered tillage intensity as existing on a continuous spectrum that ranges from no-till to conventional tillage. Using primary data collected from Michigan soybean growers and an adapted Theory of Planned Behavior model, this article identifies key relationships between growers' demographics, social connections and their tillage practices. Results indicate that farmers with lower household income, more farming experience and weaker social network connectivity may be more likely to adopt CT technologies in Michigan soybean production. In addition to these factors, accounting for farmers’ subjective perspectives on the efficacy of CT, particularly its ability to save labor and conserve soil, may increase the success of future outreach encouraging CT in this context. These results have important implications for ongoing extension programs, as they suggest that adoption of sustainable agricultural practices such as CT is not only a function of individual level farm or farmer characteristics, but also of farmer perceptions of the opinions and practices of their unique social networks. | ||
| 546 | _aText in English | ||
| 591 | _aSnapp, S.S.: No CIMMYT Affiliation | ||
| 650 | 7 |
_aConservation tillage _2AGROVOC _91056 |
|
| 650 | 7 |
_aSocial network analysis _2AGROVOC _922920 |
|
| 650 | 7 |
_aSoybeans _2AGROVOC _93639 |
|
| 650 | 7 |
_aFarmers _2AGROVOC _91654 |
|
| 700 | 1 |
_aMalone, T. _938095 |
|
| 700 | 1 |
_aSnapp, S.S. _8001712907 _gSustainable Agrifood Systems _97149 |
|
| 700 | 1 |
_aThelen, M. _938096 |
|
| 700 | 1 |
_aAnderson, E. _912602 |
|
| 700 | 1 |
_aTollini, C. _938097 |
|
| 700 | 1 |
_aDavis, A.S. _92857 |
|
| 773 | 0 |
_tJournal of Rural Studies _dUnited Kingdom : Elsevier, 2022. _x0743-0167 _gv. 89, p. 378-386 _w72650 |
|
| 942 |
_cJA _n0 _2ddc |
||
| 999 |
_c68560 _d68552 |
||