Cited by 25Agricultural Innovations and PracticesAgricultural Development and ManagementAgriculture and Rural Development Research

Exploring farmers’ decisions to engage in grass measurement on dairy farms in Ireland

Regan, Áine, Douglas, John, Maher, John, O’Dwyer, Tom·2021·The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension

Abstract

Purpose Employing a theoretical model of human behaviour (COM-B), the current study explores the factors influencing farmers’ engagement with grass measurement on Irish dairy farms.Methodology The current study employed a qualitative research design. One-to-one semi-structured interviews were carried out with 21 dairy farmers.Findings Factors inhibiting farmers from engaging in grass measurement included a high perceived task effort, a lack of skill and self-efficacy to carry out the task, uncertainty over personal value of engagement, a lack of tangible support, and a confidence in, and preference for, existing intuition-based decision-making.Practical implications Recommendations for communication, extension, education and technology development are offered to tackle the ‘high task effort’ associated with grass measurement by farmers and to support skill development and self-efficacy of dairy farmers.Theoretical implications The study proves value in moving from behavioural frameworks which focus solely on individual constructs as ‘barriers to adoption’ towards using frameworks which also account for the important role of factors external to the individual such as their social and physical surroundings.Value A comprehensive theoretical framework is offered for understanding dairy farmers’ engagement with grass measurement along with evidence-based suggestions for communication, extension, education and technology development.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1389224x.2020.1858892

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The general consensus in Irish studies is that adoption rates of practices in grassland management and reproductive performance are relatively low, notably due to information constraints.

    “To date, the general consensus in Irish studies is that adoption rates of practices in the areas of grassland management and reproductive performance are relatively low, notably due to information constraints (Hyland et al., 2018;Regan et al., 2021;Shalloo et al., 2021Shalloo et al., , 2018)).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Regan, Á., Douglas, J., Maher, J., & O’Dwyer, T.
Affiliations
Teagasc - The Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority (IE)
Corresponding author
Regan, Áine
Venue
The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension
Published
2020-12-15
Volume
27
Issue
3
Pages
355-380
ISSN
  • 1389-224X (ISSN-L)
  • 1750-8622
OpenAlex
W3110908525
Cited by
25
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1
FWCI
4.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Innovations and Practices
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Development and Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Agriculture and Rural Development Research
Keywords
dairy farmers, farmer decision-making, COM-B model, self-efficacy, barriers to adoption, agricultural extension, grassland management, farmer education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review