4.7 Article

Robotic milking-farmer experiences and adoption rate in Jaeren, Norway

Journal

JOURNAL OF RURAL STUDIES
Volume 41, Issue -, Pages 109-117

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.08.004

Keywords

Automatic milking systems; Technology adoption; Diffusion; Dairy farming; Farm management; Technology domestication

Funding

  1. Norwegian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Robotic milking or automatic milking systems (AMS) are becoming increasingly popular in Norway as well as in the other Nordic countries. To explore what motivates farmers to invest in AMS and what the consequences for farmers' lifestyle and management are, we (the researchers) visited and interviewed 19 dairy farmers in Southern Norway. Fourteen of the farmers are situated in a region of Norway (Jaeren), where the adoption rate of AMS is significantly higher than in the rest of the country. Therefore our main interest was to explain the high adoption rate Jaeren. The findings suggest that to succeed with AMS farmers must be motivated, behave proactively and adapt the new technology to their specific needs. Saved time on milking, more interesting farming, more stable treatment of the cow and less need for relief are some of the advantages. Farmers experience to be constantly on call and information overload as the greatest disadvantages of AMS. The main reasons to invest in AMS are increased flexibility and reduced workload, and AMS has allowed a more modern lifestyle. The high adoption rate of AMS in Jaeren can be explained by human and social capital, socio-cultural factors and the well-developed agricultural knowledge system in the area. Close relations with the farm machinery industry in the area, a strong belief in technology, high wage rates and difficulties of getting skilled labor are other factors which can explain the high adoption rate of AMS. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available