What if precision agriculture is not profitable?: A comprehensive analysis of the right timing for exiting, taking into account different entry options
-
Published:2024-02-17
Issue:3
Volume:25
Page:1284-1323
-
ISSN:1385-2256
-
Container-title:Precision Agriculture
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Precision Agric
Abstract
AbstractThe digitization of agriculture is widely discussed today. But despite proven benefits, its acceptance in agricultural practice remains low. In small-structured areas, this trend is even more pronounced. There are even known cases where farmers initially purchased and used technology, but then stopped using it due to lack of profitability or other reasons. Interestingly, despite extensive research on precision agriculture technologies (PATs), the processes of adoption and phase-out with their associated economic impacts have never been studied. This paper provides a methodological framework for evaluating the economics of PAT deployment, taking into account changes during the period of use; the framework provides decision rules for determining the appropriate time to phase out technology. Using a selected PAT, a farm model, and defined entry and exit scenarios, it was shown that farms with outdated technology and farms with retrofittable technology are at a significant economic disadvantage during implementation compared to farms already using technology suitable for site-specific fertilization or farms relying on the use of a contractor. And even in the event of a phase-out, the two disadvantaged starting conditions face significantly greater uncertainties and costs. Moreover, the decision to phase out in time is difficult, as making an informed and fact-based decision is not possible after the first year of use. Therefore, it is advisable that farmers are not only accompanied before and during phase-in, but also receive professional support during use.
Funder
Bundesministerium für Verbraucherschutz, Ernährung und Landwirtschaft Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Umwelt Nürtingen-Geislingen
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference66 articles.
1. Achilles, W., Anter, J., Belau, T., & Blankenburg, J. (Eds.). (2018). Faustzahlen für die Landwirtschaft (15th ed.). Darmstadt: Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft e.V. (KTBL). 2. Adrian, A. M., Norwood, S. H., & Mask, P. L. (2005). Producers’ perceptions and attitudes toward precision agriculture technologies. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 48, 256–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2005.04.004 3. Al-Gaadi, K. A., Hassaballa, A. A., Tola, E., Kayad, A. G., Madugundu, R., Alblewi, B., & Assiri, F. (2016). Prediction of potato crop yield using precision agriculture techniques. PLoS ONE, 11, e0162219. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162219 4. Barnes, A. P., Soto, I., Eory, V., Beck, B., Balafoutis, A., Sánchez, B., Vangeyte, J., Fountas, S., van der Wal, T., & Gómez-Barbero, M. (2019a). Exploring the adoption of precision agricultural technologies: A cross regional study of EU farmers. Land Use Policy, 80, 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.004 5. Barnes, A. P., Soto, I., Eory, V., Beck, B., Balafoutis, A. T., Sanchez, B., Vangeyte, J., Fountas, S., van der Wal, T., & Gómez-Barbero, M. (2019b). Influencing incentives for precision agricultural technologies within European arable farming systems. Environmental Science & Policy, 93, 66–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.014
|
|