FACTORS DETERMINING ADOPTION OR NON-ADOPTION OF PRECISION AGRICULTURE BY PRODUCERS ACROSS THE COTTON BELT A Thesis by CHRISTOPHER BERNARD LAVERGNE Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE December 2004 Major Subject: Agricultural Education FACTORS DETERMINING ADOPTION OR NON-ADOPTION OF PRECISION AGRICULTURE BY PRODUCERS ACROSS THE COTTON BELT A Thesis by CHRISTOPHER BERNARD LAVERGNE Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Approved as to style and content by: ____________________________ ____________________________ Gary Wingenbach Tracy Rutherford (Chair of Committee) (Member) ___________________________ ___________________________ Robert Lemon Chris Boleman (Member) (Member) ____________________________ Glen C. Shinn (Head of Department) December 2004 Major Subject: Agricultural Education iii ABSTRACT Factors Determining Adoption or Non-adoption of Precision Agriculture by Producers Across the Cotton Belt. (December 2004) Christopher B. Lavergne, B.S., Kansas State University Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Gary Wingenbach The purpose of this study was to determine factors influencing cotton producer adoption of Precision Agriculture in the cotton belt according to members of the American Cotton Producers of the National Cotton Council. The National Research Council’s Board on Agriculture defines Precision Agriculture (PA) as “a management strategy that uses information technologies to bring data from multiple sources to bear on decisions associated with crop production.” For the purpose of this study, Precision Agriculture technologies included yield monitors, global positioning units, variable rate applicators, and similar components. Many studies have found that adoption of Precision Agriculture can be profitable for agricultural producers. However, the fact that Precision Agriculture is relatively new and unproven hinders rapid adoption by agricultural producers. According to the National Research Council Board of Agriculture widespread adoption relies on economic gains outweighing the costs of the technology. This study attempted to find the factors associated with adoption of these technologies in the cotton belt. The sample population consisted of cotton producer representatives from the leading cotton-producing states. A Delphi approach was utilized to establish a consensus of cotton producer perceptions of the advantages of adopting Precision Agriculture iv technologies. Advantages included more accurate farming (i.e., row spacing, reduced overlap, and cultivation). Barriers to adoption were also documented, questioning employee capability to operate equipment, learning curve, technology complexity, and uncertain return on investment. v DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to my loving family. India, thank you for all you’ve sacrificed to make this degree a reality. From relocation to financial strains, you’ve been a sound nucleus for us all. I’d also like to thank Colby, Noah, and Lucas for putting up with Dad during this busy season. I couldn’t ask for a more loving and supportive family unit. God has truly blessed us. vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I’d like to give thanks and praise to God. Earning this degree is a far cry from my beginning—welding concrete trowels. We can truly do all things through He who gives us strength! I must acknowledge my family for supporting my pursuit of this degree. I know it’s not over yet, but we are that much closer. India, you are the best wife in the world. To leave the Flint Hills is enough sacrifice, not to mention all that you’ve endured in the last two years. Thank you, honey. I love you. To my parents, Linton and Alpha Lavergne, I thank you for teaching me the value of persistence and detail. I’ll never forget to check, double check, and triple check. I would also like to thank Dr. Tracy Rutherford and Dr. Kris Boone (Kansas State University) for igniting my interest in research. Tracy, I doubt we would have come down to A&M without your support and encouragement. Thank you for being such a great resource and friend over the last six years. To my other graduate committee members—Dr. Gary Wingenbach, Dr. Chris Boleman, and Dr. Robert Lemon—I appreciate your contribution to this research effort and great ideas. Dr. Boleman, KSU will overtake the Aggies one day- mark my words. Thank you to my colleagues from the Institute of Food Science & Engineering. Dr. Andy Vestal, I appreciate the professional guidance you’ve provided. Charlie Young, Nancye Penn, Lyne Galloway, and Grace Wilkinson, thank you for helping me to laugh especially in the hectic times. We’ve perfected firefighting! vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT................................................................................................................... iii DEDICATION............................................................................................................... v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................... vi TABLE OF CONTENTS...............................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................ ix LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................... x CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION........................................................................................ 1 Purpose of the Study........................................................................... 3 Research Objectives............................................................................ 3 Significance of the Study.................................................................... 3 Delimitations....................................................................................... 4 Limitations.......................................................................................... 4 II REVIEW OF LITERATURE....................................................................... 5 Diffusion of Innovation Theory.......................................................... 5 Communication and Change Agents................................................... 8 Innovation Attributes........................................................................... 10 Precision Agriculture (PA) Technologies........................................... 11 Adoption of PA Technologies............................................................. 14 The Cotton Belt................................................................................... 16 West Texas Precision Agriculture Producer Adoption....................... 18 Delphi Methodology........................................................................... 19 History of the Delphi........................................................................... 21 Components of Delphi........................................................................ 22 Disadvantages of Delphi..................................................................... 23 III METHODS AND PROCEDURES.............................................................. 25 viii CHAPTER Page Research Design.................................................................................. 25 Procedures........................................................................................... 25 IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION...........................................28 Results................................................................................................. 28 Advantages to Adoption...................................................................... 33 Barriers to Adoption............................................................................ 36 V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................... 39 Conclusions......................................................................................... 39 Research Question One....................................................................... 40 Research Question Two...................................................................... 41 Research Question Three.................................................................... 41 Recommendations............................................................................... 41 REFERENCES............................................................................................................... 44 APPENDIX A – CONSENT FORM............................................................................. 52 APPENDIX B – FIRST ROUND INSTRUMENT........................................................54 APPENDIX C – SECOND ROUND NOTIFICATION AND INSTRUMENT............ 55 APPENDIX D – SECOND ROUND REMINDER EXAMPLE................................... 58 APPENDIX E – THIRD ROUND NOTIFICATION AND INSTRUMENT................ 59 VITA.............................................................................................................................. 62 ix LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Page 1 Texas Cotton Regions.................................................................................. 18 x LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 1 Perceived Attributes of Innovation Questions............................................. 10 2 2003 Cotton Belt: Area Planted, Harvested and Cash Receipts................... 17 3 Advantages/ Barriers of Adopting Precision Agriculture in Cotton Production.................................................................................................... 30 4 Usual Planting and Harvesting Dates, by State............................................ 32 5 Identified Precision Agriculture Information Sources................................. 33 6 Round 2 Descriptive Statistics for Advantages to PA Adoption................. 34 7 Round 3 Descriptive Statistics for Advantages to PA Adoption................. 35 8 Round 2 Descriptive Statistics for Barriers to PA Adoption....................... 37 9 Round 3 Descriptive Statistics for Barriers to PA Adoption.......................38