FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W91102761> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W91102761 endingPage "602" @default.
• W91102761 startingPage "596" @default.
• W91102761 abstract "New technology in crop production is emerging that can provide site-specific field and crop detail information to some operators. Satellite positioning, commonly referred to as global positioning systems, mapping software, and yield-monitoring equipment are all high-tech methods of providing this precision agriculture. But precision agriculture, or at least long strides in that direction, is possible short of these methods and capital investments. Integrated Crop Management (ICM) is one alternative to providing information-intensive management and precision farming, without the need for hard technology. Major elements of an ICM program include thorough crop production and protection planning, crop rotations, tillage management, and nutrient testing, as well as varying fertility rates based on manure and legume credits, scouting for weeds/insects/diseases, and keeping and analyzing field based records. Inherent in ICM is the involvement of the producer in increasing management tools and the knowledge base to make a decision. This knowledge base is generated to a significant degree from on-farm or site-specific observations. The Iowa Model Farms Demonstration Project (IMFDP) was an extension service program established to encourage farmers to adopt ICM practices. Evaluation of the program reveals that opportunities existed for refined practices among the sample of cooperators, although this was not recognized by all, as nearly half of the original participants did not complete the 3-yr project. Among those who remained in the project, several practices were refined and resulted in increased profitability. Among participants who discontinued the program, many perceived the graduated user fee was not justified from the benefits they experienced. Project staff acknowledged they did a poor job of stressing the successes and noting cost savings made by these producers. Lack of detailed records did not allow a clear analysis of the cost-benefit ratio of the program. While documented success of ICM is necessary, a relationship of trust between the consultant and producer is also essential, for successful implementation of ICM practices. Research Question Precision agriculture is possible short of space-age technology and costly capital investments. Integrated Crop Management (ICM) is one alternative approach to providing intensive management and precision farming, without the need for hard technology, ICM is accomplished through the adoption of farm management systems that incorporate components of integrated pest management and nutrient management. Inherent within ICM is increasing the knowledge base of the provider to make a decision. This information base is generated from onfarm or site-specific observations. Through practicing ICM, all the inputs and resources the individual has, including such personal resources as knowledge, are examined. What does ICM entail and how can farmers be encouraged to adopt ICM techniques? We address these questions through examination of the Iowa Model Farms Demonstration Project (IMFDP), established to promote the voluntary adoption of management practices through intensive assistance, demonstration, and educational programs. IMFDP differed from more conventional extension projects in its emphasis upon intensive management, site-specific information, and individual consultation rather than group instruction. Literature Summary Extension programs, as well as assistance from the private sector, often are designed around model conditions and resources. ICM demands site-specific information and holistic integration (Le., assistance must be tailored to resources and to the farm). This implies a new model for education, mainly a personalized and active learning setting with continuous dialogue and feedback. The IMFDP project emphasized these characteristics, a departure eom more traditional adoption-diffusion models. Study Description IMFDP had three Iowa sites where ICM services were provided to cooperator farmers by crop consultant professionals. The services provided included advice on overall crop management planning (e.g., pest and nutrient management plans) and assistance with enterprise records, as well as in-the-field services such as soil testing, equipment calibration, and scouting for weeds, insects, and diseases. These services were conducted through personal delivery rather than through a group setting, and they used site-specific rather than mass-infonnation techniques. A graduated user fee was established in which services were provided at no cost to the cooperators involved in year one, but the fee increased in successive years to the level where the services were fully self supporting by the end of the 3-yr project. In 1989, 188 farmers who initially indicated interest in the project as cooperators were interviewed. In 1992, 166 of these were interviewed again. During the 3 yr of the IMFDP, 54% of the original participants left the project. For analysis purposes, the group was split between those who remained in the project (cooperators), and those who did not (former cooperators). A random sample of farmers also is included. This analysis includes only those individuals who responded to both the 1989 and 1992 surveys. To test the assumption that opportunities exist for on-farm refinements, a case study of two operators is presented, one who remained in the project the entire 3 yr and one who dropped out of the project after the first year. Applied Questions Do opportunities exist for on-farm refinements? Opportunities for on-farm refinements (e.g., more precise applications, decreased inputs) clearly existed. In the two case studies, the consultant saw major opportunities for improvement with both the cooperator and former cooperator, yet these opportunities were not always Scized by the former cooperator. What changes toward ICM were made over the project lifetime? Cooperators were the only group to decrease significantly their rate of N per acre and make positive changes in all pest management and record keeping practices consistent with ICM. These changes include scouting before treatment, spot treating rather than broadcasting, use of postemergence herbicides, using less than label rates, and keeping detailed, field-based cost of production and profit information. Changes in former cooperators' attitudes on integrated management are also significant. While in 1989 this group was more favorable to statements regarding various ICM practices, in 1992 they were significantly less favorable toward these statements. Why did cooperators remain in the project? Recognition of the opportunities for on-farm refinements and the economic benefits of makiig these refinements were the primary motivators for the cooperators remaining in the project, even as user fees increased. The importance of record keeping in assisting with making these refinements also was noted by cooperators. These cooperators have identified the association between several factors; opportunities for on-farm refinements, intensive management, the importance of record keeping, and the economic benefits of using these practices. Former cooperators cited two primary reasons for withdrawing: (i) they saw no economic benefit (64%), and (ii) they could no longer afford the service (62%). This perception of the economic benefit of the project differs distinctly fiom the cooperators, 77% of whom indicated the economic benefits of the program were worth the added time and costs." @default.
• W91102761 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W91102761 creator A5040311930 @default.
• W91102761 creator A5047723826 @default.
• W91102761 creator A5077503375 @default.
• W91102761 date "1997-10-01" @default.
• W91102761 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W91102761 title "Crop Management Teaching Old Dogs Survival Tricks: A Case Study in Promoting Integrated Crop Management" @default.
• W91102761 doi "https://doi.org/10.2134/jpa1997.0596" @default.
• W91102761 hasPublicationYear "1997" @default.
• W91102761 type Work @default.
• W91102761 sameAs 91102761 @default.
• W91102761 citedByCount "6" @default.
• W91102761 countsByYear W911027612019 @default.
• W91102761 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W91102761 hasAuthorship W91102761A5040311930 @default.
• W91102761 hasAuthorship W91102761A5047723826 @default.
• W91102761 hasAuthorship W91102761A5077503375 @default.
• W91102761 hasConcept C137580998 @default.
• W91102761 hasConcept C150903083 @default.
• W91102761 hasConcept C2988270110 @default.
• W91102761 hasConcept C54286561 @default.
• W91102761 hasConcept C6557445 @default.
• W91102761 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W91102761 hasConceptScore W91102761C137580998 @default.
• W91102761 hasConceptScore W91102761C150903083 @default.
• W91102761 hasConceptScore W91102761C2988270110 @default.
• W91102761 hasConceptScore W91102761C54286561 @default.
• W91102761 hasConceptScore W91102761C6557445 @default.
• W91102761 hasConceptScore W91102761C86803240 @default.
• W91102761 hasFunder F4320333148 @default.
• W91102761 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W91102761 hasLocation W911027611 @default.
• W91102761 hasOpenAccess W91102761 @default.
• W91102761 hasPrimaryLocation W911027611 @default.
• W91102761 hasRelatedWork W1963879802 @default.
• W91102761 hasRelatedWork W2011522885 @default.
• W91102761 hasRelatedWork W2043177239 @default.
• W91102761 hasRelatedWork W2102758895 @default.
• W91102761 hasRelatedWork W2732824578 @default.
• W91102761 hasRelatedWork W2950960619 @default.
• W91102761 hasRelatedWork W2977622523 @default.
• W91102761 hasRelatedWork W3033882156 @default.
• W91102761 hasRelatedWork W342373771 @default.
• W91102761 hasRelatedWork W592578931 @default.
• W91102761 hasVolume "10" @default.
• W91102761 isParatext "false" @default.
• W91102761 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W91102761 magId "91102761" @default.
• W91102761 workType "article" @default.