Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T02:54:18.331Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors affecting the adoption of conservation tillage on clay soils in southwestern Ontario, Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Johanna Wandel  and
John Smithers
Johanna Wandel
Affiliation:
Ph.D. candidate, Department of Geography, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario NIG 2W1, Canada.
John Smithers*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario NIG 2W1, Canada.
*
Corresponding author is J. Smithers (jsmither@uoguelph.ca).
Get access

Abstract

Despite significant progress in promoting the wider use of conservation tillage systems among farmers in Ontario, recent evidence suggests that adoption levels remain low overall, and especially low in those areas where agricultural soils are predominantly clay-based. Given the prominence of cash-crop agriculture in these regions, there is continuing interest in understanding the reasons for non-adoption in these areas, and in identifying strategies that would result in greater use of conservation tillage systems. This paper reports on an empirical analysis of conservation tillage adoption among a sample of 50 farmers in Lambton County, Ontario. The purpose of the research was to document and explain variations in the use of conservation tillage, and to assess prospects for increasing the adoption of this technology. A statistical analysis revealed that personal and attitudinal factors were largely unrelated to decisions concerning the use of conservation tillage. Instead, significant factors related to the scale of the farm operation as reflected in both farm size and sales, and in the nature of the farming system itself Subsequent analysis of farmers' stated motivations and perceived barriers suggests that inertia and uncertainty act as impediments to adoption. The findings point to the need for site-specific and farm system-specific information on the performance of this technology, and to the importance of benefits that are readily observable and communicable within local farming communities.

Keywords

agricultural sustainabilityfarmer attitudesinnovation adoption research
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , December 2000 , pp. 181 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Bryant, C., and Tousaw, S.. 1991. Soil conservation practices and their effects in southwest Ontario. Draft paper.Google Scholar
2.Carter, M.R. 1994. Conservation Tillage in Temperate Agroecosystems. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
3.Diebel, P.L., Taylor, D.B., and Batie, S.S.. 1993. Barriers to low-input agriculture adoption: A case study of Richmond County, Virginia. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 8:120–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Dumanski, J., Gregorich, L.J., Kirkwood, V., McCann, M.A., Culley, J.L.B., and Coote, D.R.. 1994. The Status of Land Management Practices on Agricultural Land in Canada. Tech. Bull. 1994-3E. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research, Ottawa.Google Scholar
5.Fliegel, F.C. 1993. Diffusion Research in Rural Sociology: The Record and Prospects for the Future. Greenwood Press, Westcott, CT.Google Scholar
6.Gamon, J.A., and Scofield, G.G.. 1998. Perceptions of sustainable agriculture: A longitudinal study of young and potential producers. J. Agric. Educ. 39:63–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Guerin, L.J., and Guerin, T.F.. 1994. Constraints to the adoption of innovations in agricultural research and environmental management: A review. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 34:549–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Hilts, S. 1997. Landscapes and stewardship in Ontario. Environments: J. Interdisc. Studies 24(3): 11–16.Google Scholar
9.Lal, R. 1991. Tillage and agricultural sustainability. Soil Tillage Res. 20:133–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.McNairn, H.E., and Mitchell, B.. 1992. Locus of control and farmer orientation: Effects on conservation adoption. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 5:87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Napier, T.L., and Camboni, S.M.. 1993. Use of conventional and conservation practices among farmers in the Scioto River Basin in Ohio. J. Soil Water Conserv. 48:231–237.Google Scholar
12.Nowak, P.J. 1987. The adoption of agricultural conservation technologies: Economic and diffusion explanations. Rural Sociol. 52:208–220.Google Scholar
13.Opoku, G., Vyn, T.J., and Swanton, C.J.. 1997. Modified no-till systems for corn following wheat on clay soils. Agron. J. 89:549–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Ruttan, V.W. 1996. What happened to technology adoption-diffusion research? Sociol. Ruralis 36:51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Science Council of Canada. 1992. Sustainable Agriculture: The Research Challenge. Report 43. Ottawa.Google Scholar
16.Smit, B., and Smithers, J.. 1992. Adoption of soil conservation practices: An empirical analysis in Ontario, Canada. Land Degrad. Rehabil. 3:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Statistics Canada. 1991. Census of Agriculture. Ottawa.Google Scholar
18.Stonehouse, D.P. 1995. Profitability of soil and water conservation in Canada: A review. J. Soil Water Conserv. 50:215–219.Google Scholar
19.Stonehouse, D.P. 1997. Socio-economics of alternative tillage systems. Soil Tillage Res. 43:109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Troughton, M., and Nelson, G.. 1997. The countryside in Ontario, Canada. Environments: J. Interdisc. Studies 24(3):1–83.Google Scholar
21.Vyn, T.J., and Raimbault, B.A.. 1993. Long-term effect of five tillage systems on corn response and soil structure. Agron. J. 85:1074–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Warriner, G.K., and Moul, T.M.. 1992. Kinship and personal communication network influences on the adoption of agriculture conservation technology. J. Rural Studies 8:279–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Weersink, A., Walker, M., Swanton, C., and Shaw, J.E.. 1992. Costs of conventional and conservation tillage systems. J. Soil Water Conserv. 47:328–334.Google Scholar