The use and value of information systems as evaluated by dairy and specialty crop farm managers

Journal of Agromedicine

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 324-335

  Chapman, Larry J ^a   Newenhouse, Astrid C ^a   Karsh, Ben Tzion ^a   Taveira, Alvaro D ^b  

^a University of Wisconsin Madison   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN WHITEWATER   (United States)

Author keywords

Diffusion of innovations; Farmers; Information behavior; Knowledge systems

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGRICULTURE; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DAIRYING; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MALE; MASS COMMUNICATION; MASS MEDIUM; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PUBLIC RELATIONS; QUESTIONNAIRE; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; AGRICULTURE; DAIRYING; DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INTERPROFESSIONAL RELATIONS; MALE; MASS MEDIA; MIDDLE AGED; QUESTIONNAIRES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 70449084598     PISSN: 1059924X     EISSN: 15450813     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10599240903041950     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Wilson TD. Human information behavior. Informing Sci. 2000;3:49-55.
2. Sligo FX, Massey C. Risk, trust and knowledge networks in farmers' learning. J Rural Stud. 2007;23:170-182.
3. Lasley P, Padgitt S, Hanson M. Telecommunications technology and its implications for farmers and Extension services. Technol Soc. 2001;23:109-120.
4. Estill CF, Baron S, Steege AL. Research and dissemination needs for ergonomics in agriculture. Public Health Rep. 2002;117:440-445.
5. Rogers E. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press; 2003.
6. Fliegel FC, Korsching PF. Diffusion Research in Rural Sociology. Middleton WI: Social Ecology Press; 2001.
7. Griliches Z. Hybrid corn: An exploration in the economics of technological change. Econometrica. 1957;25: 501-522.
8. Feder G, Umali DL. The adoption of agricultural innovations: A review. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 1993;43:215-239.
9. Napier TL, Thraen CS, Gore A, Goe WR. Factors affecting the adoption of conventional and soil conservation tillage practices in Ohio. J Soil Wat Conserv. 1984; 39:205-209.
10. Napier TL, Forster DL. Farmer attitudes and behavior associated with soil erosion control. In: Halcrow HG, Heady EO, Cotner ML, eds. Soil Conservation Policies, Institutions, and Incentives. Ankeny IA: Soil Conservation Society of America; 1982. pp. 137-150.
11. Hooks GM, Napier RL, Carter MV. Correlates of adoption behaviors: The case of farm technologies. Rural Sociol. 1983;48(2):308-323.
12. Earle TR, Rose CW, Brownlea AA. Socioeconomic predictors of intention towards soil conservation and thier implication in environmental management. J Environ Manag. 1979;9:225-236.
13. Boyd HH. Influentials and Innovation: Communication, Competence and Conservation Technology Among Wisconsin's Non-Farm Agricultural Influentials. Doctoral dissertation. University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 1998.
14. Hippel E. Democratizing Innovation. Boston MA: MIT Press; 2005.
15. Leeuwis C. Changing perspectives on innovation. In: Leeuwis C, ed. Communication for Rural Innovation: Rethinking Agricultural Extension 3rd ed. Oxford UK:HBlackwell Science; 2004:Chapter 8. pp. 129-146.
16. Sligo FX, Massey C, Lewis K. Informational benefits via knowledge networks among farmers. J Workplace Learning. 2005;17:452-466.
17. Leeuwis C. Fields of conflict and castles in the air: Some thoughts and observations on the role of communication in public sphere innovation processes. J Agric Educ Extens. 2004;10:63-76.
18. Bruges M, Smith W. Participatory approaches for sustainable agriculture: a contradiction in terms? Agric Human Values. 2008;25:13-23.
19. Cornwall A, Jewkes R. What is participatory research? Soc Sci Med. 1995;41:1667-1676.
20. Park P. What is participatory research? A theoretical and methodological perspective. In: Park P, et al., eds. Voices of Change: Participatory Research in the United States and Canada. Westport CT: Bergin and Garvey; 1993:1-19.
21. USDA 2002. Census of Ag - State Data Table 34. p. 500-10 (No. of US nursery operations). Available at http://www.nass.usda.gov/index.asp.
22. Chapman LJ, Newenhouse AC, Karsh BT. Evaluation of a three year intervention to increase adoption of safer nursery crop production practices. Applied Ergonomics (in press, 2009).
23. USDA 2006. National Agricultural Statistics Service. (No. of US and Wisconsin Dairy Operations.) Available at http://www.nass.usda.gov/ Publications/Ag_Statistics/agr06/CHAP08.PDF.
24. Chapman LJ, Taveira AD, Josefsson KG and Hard D. Evaluation of an occupational injury intervention among Wisconsin dairy farmers. J Agric Saf Health. 2003;9:197-209.
25. USDA 2004. 2002 Census of Agriculture. Table 34. Specified Crops by Acres Harvested: 2002 and 1997 for Berry Farms That Produced or Sold $1000 or More of Agricultural Products.
26. Chapman LJ, Newenhouse AC, Pereira KM, Karsh B, Meyer RM, Brunette CM, Ehlers J. Evaluation of a four year intervention to reduce musculoskeletal hazards among berry growers.J Saf Res. 2008b;39:215-224.
27. Chapman LJ, Newenhouse AC, Meyer RH, Taveira AD, Karsh B, Ehlers J, Palermo T. Evaluation of an intervention to reduce musculoskeletal hazards among fresh market vegetable growers. Appl Ergon. 2004; 35: 57-66.
28. Dillman DA. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley & Sons; 2000.
29. Fett J, Mundy P. Disseminating annual crop practice recommendations via supplements in weekly agricultural newspapers. Paper presented at the Agricultural Communicators in Education annual convention, Minneapolis, MN, July 15-18 1990. Reprints c/o J Fett, University of Wisconsin Agricultural Journalism Department, 440 Henry Mall, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
30. Smith T. Wisconsin Dairy Industry Needs Assessment. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin Center for Dairy Profitability. May 1995.