case study on social media in agriculture

Advertisement

Drivers and challenges of precision agriculture: a social media perspective

• Published: 04 October 2020
• Volume 22 , pages 1019–1044, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Martinson Ofori   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6581-8909 1 &
• Omar El-Gayar 1  

3414 Accesses

32 Citations

14 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Precision agriculture, which has existed for over four decades, ensures efficient use of agricultural resources for increased productivity and sustainability with the use of technology. Due to the lingering perception that the adoption of precision agriculture has been slow, this study examines public thoughts on the practice of precision agriculture by employing social media analytics. A machine learning-based social media analytics tool—trained to identify and classify posts using lexicons, emoticons, and emojis—was used to capture sentiments and emotions of social media users towards precision agriculture. The study also validated the drivers and challenges of precision agriculture by comparing extant literature with social media data. By mining online data from January 2010 to December 2019, this research captured over 40,000 posts discussing a myriad of concerns related to the practice. An analysis of these posts uncovered joy as the most predominant emotion, also reflected the prevalence of positive sentiments. Robust regulatory and institutional policies that promote both national and international agenda for PA adoption, and the potential of agricultural technology adoption to result in net-positive job creation were identified as the most prevalent drivers. On the other hand, the cost and complexity of currently available technologies, as well as the need for proper data security and privacy were the most common challenges present in social media dialogue.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Social Media and Innovation

Making Sense of Governmental Activities Over Social Media: A Data-Driven Approach

Realizing Social-Media-Based Analytics for Smart Agriculture

https://www.ispag.org/ .

Asur, S., & Huberman, B. A. (2010). Predicting the future with social media. In 2010 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on web intelligence and intelligent agent technology (pp. 492–499). https://doi.org/10.1109/WI-IAT.2010.63 .

Aubert, B. A., Schroeder, A., & Grimaudo, J. (2012). IT as enabler of sustainable farming: An empirical analysis of farmers’ adoption decision of precision agriculture technology. Decision Support Systems, 54 (1), 510–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.07.002 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Bakshi, R. K., Kaur, N., Kaur, R., & Kaur, G. (2016). Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. In 2016 3rd international conference on computing for sustainable global development (INDIACom) (pp. 452–455).

Balafoutis, A. T., Beck, B., Fountas, S., Tsiropoulos, Z., Vangeyte, J., van der Wal, T., et al. (2017). Smart farming technologies—Description, taxonomy and economic impact. In S. M. Pedersen & K. M. Lind (Eds.), Precision agriculture: technology and economic perspectives (pp. 21–77). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68715-5_2 .

Bian, J., Yoshigoe, K., Hicks, A., Yuan, J., He, Z., Xie, M., et al. (2016). Mining Twitter to assess the public perception of the “Internet of Things”. PLoS ONE, 11 (7), e0158450. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158450 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bort, J. (2014, March 14). Bill Gates: People don’t realise how many jobs will soon be replaced by software bots . Business Insider Australia. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/bill-gates-bots-are-taking-away-jobs-2014-3. .

CEMA - European Agricultural Machinery. (2017, February 13). Digital farming: What does it really mean? https://www.cema-agri.org/page/digital-farming-what-does-it-really-mean. .

Choi, S. L. (2016). Integrating social media and rainfall data to understand the impacts of severe weather in Argentina. Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. https://hdl.handle.net/2142/90667.

Clercq, M. D., Vats, A., & Biel, A. (2018). Agriculture 4.0: The future of farming technology. World Government Summit , 30.

Connolly, A. J., & Phillips-Connolly, K. (2012). Can agribusiness feed billion new people…and save the planet? A GLIMPSE into the future. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 15 , 14.

Google Scholar  

Connolly, A. J., Sodre, L. R., & Phillips-Connolly, K. (2016a). GLIMPSE 2.0: A framework to feed the world. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 19 (4), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.22434/IFAMR2015.0202 .

Connolly, A. J., Sodre, L. R., & Potocki, A. D. (2016b). GLIMPSE: Using social media to identify the barriers facing farmers’ quest to feed the world. Social Networking, 05 (04), 118–127. https://doi.org/10.4236/sn.2016.54012 .

Crimson Hexagon. (2018a). Enterprise consumer insights | Forsight from Crimson Hexagon . https://www.crimsonhexagon.com/forsight/. .

Crimson Hexagon. (2018b, December 10). Emotion analysis: Overview . Crimson Hexagon. https://help.crimsonhexagon.com/hc/en-us/articles/211129163-Emotion-Analysis-Overview. .

Crimson Hexagon. (2019a, March 6). Explore tab: Topic wheel section . Crimson Hexagon. https://help.crimsonhexagon.com/hc/en-us/articles/203641365-Explore-Tab-Topic-Wheel-Section. .

Crimson Hexagon. (2019b, August 18). Explore tab: Clusters . Crimson Hexagon. https://help.crimsonhexagon.com/hc/en-us/articles/202913009-Explore-Tab-Clusters. .

Crimson Hexagon. (2019c, December 10). Sentiment analysis: Overview . Crimson Hexagon. https://help.crimsonhexagon.com/hc/en-us/articles/203523885-Sentiment-Analysis-Overview. .

Di Consiglio, L., Reis, F., Lehtonen, R., Beręsewicz, M., Karlberg, M., European Commission, & Statistical Office of the European Union. (2018). An overview of methods for treating selectivity in big data sources: 2018 edition. .

Efron, M. (2010). Hashtag retrieval in a microblogging environment. In Proceeding of the 33rd international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval , 787788.

Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 6 (3/4), 169–200.

El-Gayar, O., Nasralah, T., & Elnoshokaty, A. (2019). Wearable devices for health and wellbeing: Design insights from Twitter. In 52nd Hawaii international conference on systems sciences (HICSS-52’19) .

El-Gayar, O., & Ofori, M. (2020). Disrupting agriculture: The status and prospects for ai and big data in smart agriculture. In M. Strydom & S. Buckley (Eds.), AI and big data’s potential for disruptive innovation . IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-9687-5.ch007 .

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (FAO). (2020). Climate-smart agriculture . https://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture/en/. .

George, D. R. (2011). “Friending Facebook?” A minicourse on the use of social media by health professionals. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 31 (3), 215–219. https://doi.org/10.1002/chp.20129 .

Hanna, R., Rohm, A., & Crittenden, V. L. (2011). We’re all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem. Business Horizons, 54 (3), 265–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.007 .

Harvey, C. A., Chacón, M., Donatti, C. I., Garen, E., Hannah, L., Andrade, A., et al. (2014). Climate-smart landscapes: Opportunities and challenges for integrating adaptation and mitigation in tropical agriculture: Climate-smart landscapes. Conservation Letters, 7 (2), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12066 .

Hazell, P., & Wood, S. (2008). Drivers of change in global agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363 (1491), 495–515. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2166 .

Hopkins, D. J., & King, G. (2010). A method of automated nonparametric content analysis for social science. American Journal of Political Science, 54 (1), 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00428.x .

IFAD. (2016). Fostering inclusive rural transformation. In Rural Development Report 2016 . International Fund for Agricultural Development. https://www.ifad.org/documents/30600024/e8e9e986-2fd9-4ec4-8fe3-77e99af934c4. .

Jackson, L. A., Ervin, K. S., Gardner, P. D., & Schmitt, N. (2001). The racial digital divide: Motivational, affective, and cognitive correlates of internet use. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31 (10), 2019–2046. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb00162.x .

Kamilaris, A., Kartakoullis, A., & Prenafeta-Boldú, F. X. (2017). A review on the practice of big data analysis in agriculture. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 143 , 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2017.09.037 .

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53 (1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003 .

Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (1999). The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and ease-of-use. Information & Management, 35 (4), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(98)00096-2 .

Kernecker, M., Knierim, A., Wurbs, A., Kraus, T., & Borges, F. (2020). Experience versus expectation: Farmers’ perceptions of smart farming technologies for cropping systems across Europe. Precision Agriculture, 21 , 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-019-09651-z .

Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology . California: SAGE.

Krotov, V., & Silva, L. (2018). Legality and ethics of web scraping. In AMCIS 2018 proceedings . https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2018/DataScience/Presentations/17.

Kshetri, N. (2014). The emerging role of Big Data in key development issues: Opportunities, challenges, and concerns. Big Data & Society, 1 (2), 205395171456422. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714564227 .

Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010). What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on world wide web - WWW ’10 , 591. https://doi.org/10.1145/1772690.1772751 .

Latta, R. E. (2018, July 24). Text - H.R.4881 - 115th Congress (2017–2018): Precision Agriculture Connectivity Act of 2018 [Webpage]. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4881/text. .

Lee, G., & Kwak, Y. H. (2012). An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 29 (4), 492–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.001 .

Lesser, A. (2014, October 8). Big data and big agriculture . https://gigaom.com/report/big-data-and-big-agriculture/. .

Lipizzi, C., Iandoli, L., & Ramirez Marquez, J. E. (2015). Extracting and evaluating conversational patterns in social media: A socio-semantic analysis of customers’ reactions to the launch of new products using Twitter streams. International Journal of Information Management, 35 (4), 490–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.04.001 .

Lleida University. (2020). Precision agriculture definitions . https://www.grap.udl.cat/en/presentation/pa_definitions.html. .

Lowenberg-DeBoer, J., & Erickson, B. (2019). Setting the record straight on precision agriculture adoption. Agronomy Journal, 111 (4), 1552. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2018.12.0779 .

Lowenberg-DeBoer, J., Huang, I. Y., Grigoriadis, V., & Blackmore, S. (2019). Economics of robots and automation in field crop production. Precision Agriculture . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-019-09667-5 .

Lynch, C. (2015, October 15). Stephen Hawking on the future of capitalism and inequality . CounterPunch.Org. https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/15/stephen-hawkings-on-the-tuture-of-capitalism-and-inequality/. .

McCarthy, N., Lipper, L., & Zilberman, D. (2017). Economics of climate smart agriculture: An overview. In Climate smart agriculture: Building resilience to climate change (1st Ed.). Springer.

Misaki, E., Apiola, M., Gaiani, S., & Tedre, M. (2018). Challenges facing sub-Saharan small-scale farmers in accessing farming information through mobile phones: A systematic literature review. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 84 (4), e12034. https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12034 .

Moreno, M. A., Goniu, N., Moreno, P. S., & Diekema, D. (2013). Ethics of social media research: Common concerns and practical considerations. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 16 (9), 708–713. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0334 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Novak, P. K., Smailović, J., Sluban, B., & Mozetič, I. (2015). Sentiment of emojis. PLoS ONE . https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144296 .

Ofori, M., & El-Gayar, O. (2019). The state and future of smart agriculture: Insights from mining social media. IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), 2019 , 5152–5161. https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData47090.2019.9006587 .

Özdemir, V., & Hekim, N. (2018). Birth of industry 5.0: making sense of big data with artificial intelligence, “The Internet of Things” and next-generation technology policy. OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, 22 (1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1089/omi.2017.0194 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Pathak, H. S., Brown, P., & Best, T. (2019). A systematic literature review of the factors affecting the precision agriculture adoption process. Precision Agriculture, 20 (6), 1292–1316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-019-09653-x .

Pierpaoli, E., Carli, G., Pignatti, E., & Canavari, M. (2013). Drivers of precision agriculture technologies adoption: A literature review. Procedia Technology, 8 , 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2013.11.010 .

Porter, J. R., Xie, L., Challinor, A. J., Cochrane, K., Howden, S. M., Iqbal, M. M., et al. (2014). Food security and food production systems. In K. Hakala & P. Aggarwal (Eds.), Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 659–708). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Preissing, J., Leeuwis, C., Hall, A., van Weperen, W., & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (Eds.). (2013). Facing the challenges of climate change and food security: The role of research, extension and communication for development . Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Read, W., Robertson, N., & McQuilken, L. (2011). A novel romance: The technology acceptance model with emotional attachment. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 19 (4), 223–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2011.07.004 .

Robert, P. C. (2002). Precision agriculture: A challenge for crop nutrition management. In W. J. Horst, A. Bürkert, N. Claassen, H. Flessa, W. B. Frommer, H. Goldbach, W. Merbach, H.-W. Olfs, V. Römheld, B. Sattelmacher, U. Schmidhalter, M. K. Schenk, & N. v. Wirén (Eds.), Progress in plant nutrition: Plenary lectures of the XIV international plant nutrition colloquium: Food security and sustainability of agro-ecosystems through basic and applied research (pp. 143–149). Springer, Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2789-1_11 .

Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers (2nd ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Roser, M. (2020). Employment in agriculture. Our World in Data . https://ourworldindata.org/employment-in-agriculture. .

Runge, K. K., Yeo, S. K., Cacciatore, M., Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., Xenos, M., et al. (2013). Tweeting nano: How public discourses about nanotechnology develop in social media environments. Journal of Nanoparticle Research . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-012-1381-8 .

Saidu, A., Clarkson, A. M., Adamu, S. H., Mohammed, M., & Jibo, I. (2017). Application of ICT in agriculture: Opportunities and challenges in developing countries. International Journal of Computer Science and Mathematical Theory, 3 (1), 11.

Saravanan, M., & Perepu, S. K. (2019). Realizing social-media-based analytics for smart agriculture. The Review of Socionetwork Strategies, 13 (1), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12626-019-00035-3 .

Say, S. M., Keskin, M., Sehri, M., & Sekerli, Y. E. (2017). Adoption of precision agriculture technologies in developed and developing countries . 14.

Statista. (2018). Number of social media users worldwide 2010–2021 . Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/. .

Steenwerth, K. L., Hodson, A. K., Bloom, A. J., Carter, M. R., Cattaneo, A., Chartres, C. J., et al. (2014). Climate-smart agriculture global research agenda: Scientific basis for action. Agriculture & Food Security, 3 (1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/2048-7010-3-11 .

Stevens, T., Aarts, N., Termeer, C., & Dewulf, A. (2016). Social media as a new playing field for the governance of agro-food sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 18 , 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.11.010 .

Sykuta, M. E. (2016). Big data in agriculture: Property rights, privacy and competition in ag data services. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review Special Issue, 19 (A), 18.

Tey, Y. S., & Brindal, M. (2012). Factors influencing the adoption of precision agricultural technologies: A review for policy implications. Precision Agriculture, 13 (6), 713–730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-012-9273-6 .

Walter, A., Finger, R., Huber, R., & Buchmann, N. (2017). Opinion: Smart farming is key to developing sustainable agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114 (24), 6148–6150. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707462114 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Wang, Y., Jin, L., & Mao, H. (2019). Farmer cooperatives’ intention to adopt agricultural information technology—Mediating effects of attitude. Information Systems Frontiers, 21 (3), 565–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-019-09909-x .

Weltzien, C. (2016). Digital agriculture—or why agriculture 4.0 still offers only modest returns. Landtechnik, 71 (2), 66–68.

Williams, H. T. P., McMurray, J. R., Kurz, T., & Hugo Lambert, F. (2015). Network analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 32 , 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.006 .

Wiseman, L., Sanderson, J., Zhang, A., & Jakku, E. (2019). Farmers and their data: An examination of farmers’ reluctance to share their data through the lens of the laws impacting smart farming. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 90–91 , 100301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2019.04.007 .

Wojcik, S., & Hughes, A. (2019, April 24). How Twitter users compare to the general public. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech . https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-users/. .

Wolfert, S., Ge, L., Verdouw, C., & Bogaardt, M.-J. (2017). Big data in smart farming—A review. Agricultural Systems, 153 , 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.023 .

Wolfert, S., Goense, D., & Sorensen, C. A. G. (2014). A future internet collaboration platform for safe and healthy food from farm to fork. In 2014 annual SRII global conference (pp. 266–273). https://doi.org/10.1109/SRII.2014.47 .

World Bank. (2019, December 4). Climate smart agriculture investment plans: Bringing CSA to life [Text/HTML]. World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/agriculture/publication/climate-smart-agriculture-investment-plans-bringing-climate-smart-agriculture-to-life. .

World Bank. (2020). Climate-smart agriculture [Text/HTML]. World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climate-smart-agriculture .

Wuebbles, D. J., Fahey, D. W., Hibbard, K. A., DeAngelo, B., Doherty, S., Hayhoe, K., et al. (2017). Executive summary. In D. J. Wuebbles, D. W. Fahey, K. A. Hibbard, D. J. Dokken, B. C. Stewart, & T. K. Maycock (Eds.), Climate science special report: Fourth national climate assessment (Vol. I, pp. 12–34). U.S. Global Change Research Program. https://doi.org/10.7930/J0DJ5CTG .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Business and Information Systems, Dakota State University, Madison, USA

Martinson Ofori & Omar El-Gayar

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martinson Ofori .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ofori, M., El-Gayar, O. Drivers and challenges of precision agriculture: a social media perspective. Precision Agric 22 , 1019–1044 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-020-09760-0

Download citation

Accepted : 26 September 2020

Published : 04 October 2020

Issue Date : June 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-020-09760-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Social media
• Precision agriculture
• Smart farming
• Food sustainability
• Sentiment analysis
• Public perception
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Investigating knowledge dissemination and social media use in the farming network to build trust in smart farming technology adoption

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

ISSN : 0885-8624

Article publication date: 3 May 2023

Issue publication date: 27 June 2023

This paper aims to investigate how actors in the farmer’s network influence the adoption of smart farming technology (SFT) and to understand how social media affects this adoption process, in particular focusing on the influence of social media on trust in knowledge dissemination within the network.

Design/methodology/approach

The methodology used a two-stage process, with semi-structured interviews of farmers, augmented by a netnographic approach appropriate to the social media context.

The analysis illustrates the key role of the farmer network in the dissemination of SFT knowledge, bringing insight into an important B2B context. While social media emerges as a valuable way to connect farmers and promote discussion, it remains underused in knowledge dissemination on SFT. Also, farmers exhibit more trust in the content from peers online rather than from SFT vendors.

Originality/value

Novel insights are gained into the influence of the farming network on the accelerated adoption of SFT, including the potential role of social media in mitigating the homophilous nature of peer-to-peer interactions among farmers through exposure to more diverse actors and information. The use of a social network theory lens has provided new insights into the role of trust in shaping social media influence on the farmer, with variances in farmer trust of information from technology vendors and from peers.

• Technology adoption
• Social media
• Knowledge dissemination
• Smart farming technology

Dilleen, G. , Claffey, E. , Foley, A. and Doolin, K. (2023), "Investigating knowledge dissemination and social media use in the farming network to build trust in smart farming technology adoption", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing , Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 1754-1765. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-01-2022-0060

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2023, Grainne Dilleen, Ethel Claffey, Anthony Foley and Kevin Doolin.

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial & non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

1. Introduction

Smart farming technology (SFT) has been identified as a panacea for many challenges faced by the agricultural sector ( Kernecker et al. , 2019 ). Analogous to deployment in an Industry 4.0 setting, SFT is information and communication technology incorporated into agricultural machinery, equipment and landscapes, thereby creating large volumes of data that farmers can use to optimise their operations ( Pivoto et al. , 2018 ). SFT facilitates a reduction in farmers’ usage of fertilisers/pesticides, lowering their environmental footprints whilst increasing yield output and saving time and money ( Hellin and Fisher, 2018 ). SFT enables farm-to-fork traceability, which directly addresses consumers’ food quality concerns whilst laying the groundwork for food security and sustainability through precision farming ( Ping et al. , 2018 ; Roussaki et al. , 2019 ). However, widespread adoption of SFT by farmers across Europe is yet to be achieved ( Barnes et al. , 2019a ; Pathak et al. , 2019 ).

This study addresses the need for scholarly insight into two important aspects of SFT adoption: 1. The role of the farmer network in SFT adoption . Understanding how and why farmers adopt SFT is central to successful technology deployment and uptake ( Kernecker et al. , 2019 ). This paper responds to the many calls ( Jayashankar et al. , 2018 ; Klerkx, 2021 ; Nordin et al. , 2021 ; Ofori and El-Gayar, 2020 ) in the extant literature for empirical research to investigate the role of the farmer’s network in influencing SFT adoption.

2. Social media (SM) influence on farmer adoption of SFT within the network . The dissemination of information or knowledge within agricultural extension models has traditionally been viewed as a linear process ( Röling, 1992 ). More recently, communication has moved towards being a dialogue between many actors, facilitated by SM ( Chowdhury and Hambly Odame, 2013 ). This study responds to the call to examine the deployment of SM in agriculture, in particular how SM influences farmers’ decisions and their adoption of technology ( Liu et al. , 2018 ; Philips et al. , 2018 ). With the exception of studies focusing on the operational benefits of enhanced information ( Sundström et al. , 2020 ), there has been a dearth of studies investigating the influence of SM on B2B relationships compared to business-to-consumer (B2C) relationships ( Asare et al. , 2016 ; Drummond et al. , 2020 ; Singaraju et al. , 2016 ). We propose that SM-enhanced knowledge dissemination through the network can influence the trust of the buyer in the credibility of the source ( Brennan and Croft, 2012 ; Zhang and Li, 2019 ), thereby increasing the intention of the farmer to adopt SFT.

Building on the premise in the technology adoption literature that adoption results from building networks of heterogenous associations, this research comprises an empirical study to address the following overarching questions: How does the farmer’s network influence SFT adoption? How does SM influence farmers’ adoption of SFT? What is the influence of SM on trust in knowledge dissemination within the network related to SFT?

We begin by reviewing the literature and presenting the theoretical framework. The composition of the farmer’s network, the farmer’s use of SM and its effect on their behaviour is discussed. The research methods adopted are described, followed by an analysis of the findings. The paper concludes with a discussion of the findings, managerial implications, the limitations of the study and indications for future research.

2. Literature review

2.1 social networks and technology adoption.

Social behaviour comprises an exchange not just of material goods but also intangibles such as ego gratification, symbols, etc. ( Homans, 1958 ). A core feature is the concept of reciprocity, which underlies motivation in exchange relationships, where mutual gratification and contribution is anticipated ( Gouldner, 1960 ). Perhaps not surprisingly, reciprocity is critical in online SM interactions where one party contributing tokens of appreciation such as shares or likes of content is rewarded by the other party in a similar fashion ( Kim and Kim, 2021 ; Surma, 2016 ). Reciprocity and trust are critical elements of social exchange ( Mayer et al. , 1995 ; Putnam, 2000 ; Skaalsveen et al. , 2020 ) and significant influences on online group buying ( Shiau and Luo, 2012 ), which is relevant to the SFT purchasing context of this study.

Social networks are crucial in technology adoption, diffusion and innovation decisions ( Rampersad et al. , 2012 ), helping to transfer knowledge within and between organisations ( Marchiori and Franco, 2020 ; Massaro et al. , 2017 ). They also enable sense-making tasks, including a cost-benefit analysis regarding the effort and time associated with technology adoption ( Abbas et al. , 2018 ). A network is defined “by individual members (nodes) and the links among them through which information, money, goods or services flow” ( Maertens and Barrett, 2012 , p. 353). Links between nodes are represented by edges, while edge weights represent the frequency of information exchange and its influence ( Valujeva et al. , 2023 ).

Social network analysis (SNA) enables the identification of stakeholders within a network and understanding of the relationships and reciprocity between actors as well as their associated influence ( Valujeva et al. , 2023 ). SNA identifies two types of networks; a sociocentric network where the relationships between all actors are measured and an ego-centric network where the focus is on one individual and their relationships with other nodes ( Froehlich and Brouwer, 2021 ). This research focuses on the ego-centric network with the farmer representing the ego-centric node. When conducting SNA, three factors must be considered; social capital, homophily and contagion ( Froehlich and Brouwer, 2021 ). Social capital relates to resources available in the network, the individual’s position within the network and how involvement allows the person to reach their goals and fulfil objectives ( Han et al. , 2019 ). Trust between actors is a critical factor in the development of relationships and one of the most important measurements of social capital ( Inkpen and Tsang, 2005 ; Massaro et al. , 2017 ; Nosratabadi et al. , 2020 ). This trust is built on the individual’s perception of the benevolence, integrity and competency of the other actors in the network ( Mayer et al. , 1995 ) and is based on the concept of reciprocity ( Putnam, 2000 ). If the actors trust each other, there is more likely to be open communication and information sharing. However, Granovetter (1973) argues that weak ties or loose connections are also needed in the network to enable more diverse information exchange. Homophily describes the concept that people are more likely to develop relationships with those who share similar attitudes, values and opinions ( Kossinets and Watts, 2009 ). It is intensified by proximity, meaning that if actors are geographically or physically close to each other, they are more likely to form a relationship ( McPherson et al. , 2001 ). Lastly, contagion relates to the diffusion of information through the network ( Froehlich and Brouwer, 2021 ).

2.2 The farmer’s network

Farmers participate in interlinked networks composed of human and non-human entities ( Gray and Gibson, 2013 ) such as peer farmers, farm advisors, associations, cooperatives, material providers, vendors, agribusinesses, artifacts and organisational structures ( Jallow et al. , 2017 ; Joffre et al. , 2019 ; Klerkx, 2021 ). Although the network consists of multiple actors, the principle of homophily is evident with farmers mostly connecting with other farmers who they see as similar ( Phillips et al. , 2021 ). This network enables knowledge transfer, observation, advice seeking and sense checking regarding the procedures and technologies being adopted on the farm ( Chavas and Nauges, 2020 ; Joffre et al. , 2020 ; Pathak et al. , 2019 ). In-person connection is important when making a decision regarding the adoption of digital technologies, but digital communication sources are beneficial to learn about the benefits of such technologies ( Colussi et al. , 2022 ).

Interactions between farmers in the network are significant and influential, particularly regarding the adoption of SFT ( Blasch et al. , 2020 ; Knierim et al. , 2018 ). Farmers trust the information that other farmers with direct experience of using SFT share, due to their credibility and competency ( Rust et al. , 2021 ). However, Barnes et al. (2019b ) question the role of peer farmers due to the sophisticated technical nature of the decision. Accordingly, the debate regarding the influence of peer farmers in the adoption of SFT warrants further exploration. Farm advisors and agronomists play an important network role in diffusing information on SFT to farmers ( Eastwood et al. , 2019 ; Higgins and Bryant, 2020 ). Knierim et al. (2018) suggest that information received from farm advisors, who are independent from any company, is the most influential. However, many farm advisors struggle with constantly changing technologies and the associated data analysis required ( Nettle et al. , 2018 ), suggesting their role in facilitating SFT adoption is limited.

Technology vendors are seen as peripheral actors in the network, as farmers often feel the need to sense check the information received with peer farmers and advisors ( Hartwich et al. , 2007 ). Certainly, the adoption of SFT has been hampered by farmer uncertainty regarding the value of implementation, distrust of the technology vendor and scepticism ( Jakku et al. , 2019 ; Wolfert et al. , 2017 ). This is due to the perception that technology vendors overemphasise the benefits of technology implementation ( Jerhamre et al. , 2022 ). Thus, it is argued that trust in technology vendors is not as strong as other actors in the network.

2.3 The influence of social media on farmer smart farming technology adoption

The use of SM to discuss agricultural issues has become popular ( Ofori and El-Gayar, 2020 ), facilitating networking and knowledge exchange on farming practices and technologies ( Barrett and Rose, 2020 ; Morris and James, 2017 ; Philips et al. , 2018 ; Riley and Robertson, 2021 ; Skaalsveen et al. , 2020 ). This has been further heightened by the COVID-19 pandemic ( Colussi et al. , 2022 ). Farmers are participating in more farmer-to-farmer and farmer-to-rural professional conversations on Twitter ( Jiang et al. (2022) . In their study of farmers’ adoption of no-till farming practices, Skaalsveen et al. (2020) found that farmers favoured Twitter as a preferred means of SM communication as it enables easier peer interactions. Das et al. (2019) observed that farmers use Facebook and Twitter to learn more about new technologies, particularly those already using an existing SFT on farm. YouTube has enabled farmers to share videos of their practices as well as learning from other farmers, technology vendors and experts ( Burbi and Hartless Rose, 2016 ). WhatsApp has become popular with farmers creating or joining groups created by government or knowledge transfer bodies ( Colussi et al. , 2022 ; Vedeld et al. , 2020 ).

This increased use of SM is because of the ability to receive and share content, regardless of location and without the limitation of a traditional gatekeeper ( Ventura et al. , 2008 ). SM users’ pool of weak ties has increased, resulting in more diverse information being shared ( Grabner-Kräuter, 2010 ). As a result, SM has expanded the reach of the network considerably ( Drummond et al. , 2020 ) and allowed network actors to change their strategic roles or positions relevant to others ( Pardo et al. , 2022 ). Thus, Singaraju et al. (2016) deduce that SM platforms are examples of intermediary or bridging actors, connecting actors together. Highly influential SM users, or “influencers”, hold a critical position in the network, managing the flow of information ( Himelboim, 2017 ). Rust et al. (2021) note that farmer influencers have become important for sharing information. However, Kim and Kim (2021) identify the concept of perceived similarity between the influencer and the SM user as necessary in developing trust and reciprocity.

Alongside the positives associated with SM marketing and usage, the growth of digital content and the proliferation of fake news across digital platforms have made it difficult for farmers to ascertain which sources of information to trust ( Rust et al. , 2021 ). There is an abundance of low-value information, which often leads to users’ lack of trust and scepticism in the content ( Cao et al. , 2021 ). Sterrett et al. (2019) ascertain that the credibility, integrity and honesty of the person posting the content, as well as the platform used, is an indicator of whether people will view the information as trustworthy. If the online platform environment is considered helpful, trust in the content is more likely to exist ( Ebrahim, 2019 ). Nevertheless, platforms such as Twitter are subject to homophily; users and businesses are more likely to connect with and retweet content from users who share their own experiences and beliefs ( Himelboim et al. , 2017 ). Wang et al. (2020) also highlight that, as with other SM users, farmers often present a positive representation of themselves or “good farming” practices on SM, thereby filtering what they share online.

3. Methodology

Based on the preceding, this study adopted a two-stage approach. Personal interviews were selected as the main method to gain an in-depth understanding of the composition of the farmer’s network, the interactions between actors and the role that SM plays in SFT adoption. Netnography was then conducted to further explore the farmer’s network on SM and determine the content being shared. Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted with farmers across Europe, having judged that theoretical saturation had been achieved ( Saunders et al. , 2018 ). The number of interviews is in line with other studies exploring technology adoption in a farming context ( Higgins and Bryant, 2020 ; Jayashankar et al. , 2019 ; Regan, 2019 ; Skaalsveen et al. , 2020 ). A purposive sampling method was followed, and participants were recruited using email. The demographic profile of the farmers interviewed is available in Table 1 .

Interviews were online and lasted on average 35 min. Each interview was structured into three segments: understanding the farmer, exploring their knowledge and use of SFT and exploring their network and the influence of SM. Interviews were transcribed and reviewed to ensure accuracy. All identifying information was removed to protect the farmers’ identity. NVivo12 Plus was used to manage the qualitative data and assist in the analysis process. A thematic analysis was followed, which was consistent with the Braun and Clarke (2006) six-step framework. Anonymised quotes are used in the Findings and Discussion.

Netnography ( Kozinets, 2006 ) was then used to study the farmer’s network on Twitter and to analyse SM content. Twitter was chosen as the site of study as it is an open network and was mentioned frequently in the interviews. Various studies have validated the use of Twitter when observing B2B SM use ( Cripps et al. , 2020 ; Juntunen et al. , 2020 ). Twitter is also consistent with the recommendation of Kozinets et al. (2014) to select a field site that will help to answer the research questions and allow for rich data collection. An observational, non-participatory role was undertaken, where the Twitter posts and accounts followed were passively monitored. Archival data (pre-existing online), where the researchers were not active participants in its creation, were gathered in the form of text and visual posts. Costello et al. (2017) acknowledge that due to the volumes of data being explored in netnography, studies using the approach are unlikely to be both wide and deep. Consequently, four Twitter accounts of farmers in the UK and Ireland were analysed. Two accounts were from farmers interviewed (Irish dairy farmers) and two accounts were identified by other farmers in the interviews (UK beef and sheep farmer and Irish dairy farmer). None of these accounts was classified as influencers. The number of other Twitter accounts followed by the farmers analysed ranged from approximately 300–950. Firstly, an analysis was undertaken of the accounts the farmers followed on Twitter and categorised into different actor groups accordingly. These groups comprised farmers, advisory services (farm advisors, agronomists, vets and researchers), agricultural initiatives such as EU projects and development projects, agrimedia (agricultural journalists or agricultural publications), agri-business providers/employees, technology vendors/employees, government bodies, weather-related and “Other”, which consisted of non-farming-related accounts or accounts where there was no qualifying information in the Twitter biography. Next, content analysis of Twitter posts (native and retweets) from March–June 2022 was conducted. The information was exported into NVivo12, analysed and coded accordingly.

4. Findings

A sequential analysis strategy was undertaken with the interviews analysed first, followed by the netnographic analysis.

4.1 Farming in the business-to-business domain

All farmers identified their farm as a business, driven by the need to make profit, regardless of whether they had off-farm employment. For example, Farmer H stated, “the focus for my farm is economical”. Words like “enterprise”, “career” and “business owner” were used consistently by respondents throughout the interviews. Respondent A summarised their thoughts by saying “I think the broader picture is very much to look at farming as a business and every farmer, be they big or small, as a business owner”.

4.2 Use and benefits of smart farming technology

Adopters and non-adopters were positively disposed towards SFT. The noted benefits related to increased productivity, “An average cow milked 8 litres, now with the robot, they are milking 10 litres” (Respondent G), cost savings, “I’m saving on seeds and fertilizer, so you can see the economic benefits” (Respondent K) and labour savings. The use of SFT to deliver environmental sustainability was also cited as important, especially to deal with the increased climate change requirements. One farmer was clear however that he did not want technology to replace all labour, “Our culture is to get your hands dirty. Smart solutions can help with 80% of the work, but the rest should be according to touch and feel” (Respondent I). Respondents perceived that SFT was particularly relevant to dairy and tillage farming due to the larger farm size and their ability to invest. The majority of respondents felt that SFT was economically out of reach for the small-scale farmer. Equally, the location of the farm had an influence on adoption, “Autonomous tractors would be very useful in The Netherlands with flat land, not so much Spain” (Respondent M).

4.3 Actor engagement

The nodes in the farmer’s network comprised peer farmers (similar farm type and size), other farmers, farm advisory services, farming associations, agri-business suppliers, technology vendors and research institutes (albeit to a lesser degree). Frequent engagement with other network actors was important for all farmers, allowing them to gather information on SFT, learn from others’ experiences, solicit advice and sense-check decisions. As Respondent D stated, “There is a great saying in farming that you'll never learn anything inside your own gate”. Other farmers were the most preferred, frequently contacted and trusted source of information, “My first stop is progressive farmers in the locality” (Respondent N). This communication could take place in person, on the phone or using digital communication tools such as WhatsApp or Twitter, depending on where the farmer was located. Multiple farmers liked that SM allowed them to engage with a wider network of farmers in their own country and abroad, “It’s a useful way of learning, they post a photo, and you send a direct message” (Respondent R). Where possible, the respondents preferred to visit another farm to see the technology in operation, although videos on SM helped. Negative and positive reviews of SFT from other farmers in their network considerably influenced the farmer’s opinion of the technology.

The perception of the role of the farm advisor in SFT adoption was varied. Some farmers felt that advisors were a good resource, but their expertise lay in financial advice. Respondent C felt that advisors were not as knowledgeable about new technologies, “The fellas on YouTube are generally maybe a year or two ahead of advisors”. Formal groups such as the Irish Farmers’ Association (IFA), Coldiretti (Italy) or RegenAg (UK) were acknowledged as important for facilitating discussions on new farming practices and new technologies.

The majority of farmers were involved in a family farm but rarely discussed adopting technology with other family members. Such members were recognised as a key source of general farming information, but parents or older generations had limited exposure to technology and therefore were rarely consulted. Furthermore, a small number of farmers mentioned that they like to engage with researchers to allow them to gain new knowledge, which could lead to a competitive advantage.

4.4 Trust in the network

Peer farmers were the most trusted actors in the network, followed by other farmers and family members. This was due to their first-hand experience with technology (competency), and that they were more likely to “give an honest opinion” (integrity) (Respondent O). Farm advisors and farming associations were also seen as having the farmer’s interests at heart (benevolence) and therefore afforded a strong level of trust. Trust in agri-businesses and technology vendors varied, “same as any other sales company, some good, some bad, you have to do your own background checks and make sure they have a good history” (Respondent E). The distrust stemmed from three sources; the perception of being oversold the technology, the provider’s ability to deal with any technical issues encountered and uncertainty regarding the use of data generated from these technologies. Respondent K was very clear, “they <technology provider> start to speak about the economic benefits, but they have no idea how to harvest, to cultivate the land- so I just don’t trust them”. Having a provider located close to the farm was important to many farmers, “if there is a provider close to me, that can support me easily, then I will trust them” (Respondent M). The use of data split respondents’ opinions. Some were happy to share data provided there was a benefit for them, while others felt there should be agreements in place clearly specifying how the data is being used.

4.5 Social media and digital communication channels

SM channels were used by all respondents although they varied in their approach, with some taking an active role creating content while others perused information. YouTube was the most popular forum, although users mostly viewed information rather than having their own account. Facebook was the next most popular; however, it was used more as a personal SM forum rather than for farming content. Next was Twitter, followed by LinkedIn and then Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok. Several respondents had developed business SM accounts for the farm and used their personal channels to share information. One farmer was using Facebook as a sales tool to sell animals to other farmers, while another was using Instagram as a promotional tool to attract consumers directly.

Farming press was identified as a good source of information on SFT, as were online sites and farming programmes on the radio. Many of these channels also recommended or directed to relevant SM accounts for more information. Therefore, SM was emphasised as a relevant source of information when learning about SFT, enabling the farmer to compare their farm against others, “You can go on and see what the farmers in United States are talking about in technology terms” (Respondent H). However, the downside was the time needed to explore information or create relevant content for their own accounts. Digital communication tools such as WhatsApp, email and specialised online fora were also popular.

4.6 Information search, sense making and networking on social media

Respondents followed several different SM accounts ranging from farmers they knew, farmers running similar farm types, high profile or “influencer” type farmers, knowledge transfer groups, agrimedia, as well as technology vendors. The location of the account was not important. Twitter was recognised as a great source to learn about new technologies, while YouTube was highlighted as good for learning about certain brands and their features. SM was also popular in helping to address problems or queries relating to technology and farming practices. Respondent D outlined, “you’ll have a reply instantly. You could have six different pieces of advice, with six different people within a blink of an eye”. Twitter was also mentioned as a good forum to raise questions about a technology, “I might contact whoever I saw tweeting about or writing about it directly and just ask like well, can you give us a bit of an insight or share some experience” (Respondent A). YouTube also helped in terms of providing videos about how to use a particular SFT.

One of the major benefits of SM recognised by all respondents was its ability to facilitate connections with other farmers. “I really like the reach” said Respondent S, while Respondent D commented “Twitter, I suppose its inundated with farmers, its nearly become like an agricultural network”. It allowed them to communicate with other farmers outside their locality, ask advice and peruse other’s experiences.

4.7 Trust in social media content

Overall, respondents were in general somewhat distrusting of the content viewed on SM. Respondent S outlined, “I don’t trust social media, but I use it to give some light about what I need to find out more about”. The distrust was due to disinformation being shared or the inability to filter information. The platform was also seen as important as one respondent indicated that the negative always wins, especially on Twitter. Multiple farmers mentioned taking the conversation offline to validate the information received.

The level of trust in the SM content depended on the source, as Respondent Q acknowledged “It depends on who is providing the info, maybe for reputable sources”. Farmers were more likely to trust information from other farmers on SM, “if I see another farmer tweeting about it then that's one thing, if I see a company tweeting about it who are selling it than that's a different thing” (Respondent A). Information provided by farmers on SM was useful to then compare with their own context. High-profile influencer farmers were seen as a relevant source of information, “I follow a few farmers on YouTube and generally they kind of get free demonstrations, or free samples or free demos, and I suppose you become aware of the name” (Respondent C). However, respondents were not always as trusting in the content due to sponsored deals. “Farmers like me” (Respondent N) were seen as more influential. Farmers mostly trusted the information posted by agricultural groups and agrimedia on SM but would need to validate it themselves with additional research. Posts by SFT vendors were in general not trusted as the perception was that farmers were being sold to and the content was overinflated. The benevolence and integrity of the vendors was called into question.

4.8 Netnographic analysis

The netnographic analysis showed that the farmer’s network on Twitter comprised of both personal and business actors. Across the four accounts analysed, the top three actor categories followed were Farmers, Other and Advisory services. Farmers were consistently the highest group representing between 33% and 43% of the accounts that the farmers followed. This included peer farmers in terms of type of farm, farmers from other farm types, farmers from the same country, farmers from abroad and high-profile or influencer-type farmers. Within this farmer category, farmers from the same farm type accounted for the highest percentage. The next most popular category was Other, which represented between 23% and 39% of accounts followed. Advisory services accounted for 8%–14%, while agricultural initiatives varied between 2% and 9%. Agri-businesses represented 3%–7% of the accounts followed, while technology vendors were not major actor groups, accounting for less than 3%. In some instances, farmers followed a particular employee of the agri-business or SFT vendor, increasing their representation. Government actors consistently represented a small percentage of approximately 1%–2% of accounts followed.

In terms of content shared across the farmer’s SM accounts, it varied considerably. Most commonly, it showed images of work being conducted on farm such as harvesting, preparing bedding and milking, alongside images of animals or the fields. Environmental discussions were also prominent, given the timing of the analysis when the debate around the need for the agricultural sector to reduce carbon emissions was in the public domain. Retweets from other farmers, agrimedia publications, farming events and non-farming-related content were popular. To a lesser extent, content regarding farm machinery and technology such as tractors and automatic calf feeders was posted by farmers. Occasionally, farmers tweeted questions looking for advice on animals, the cost of inputs and recommendations on technology to deploy. Most of the engagement on the Twitter posts was farmer-to-farmer led, with other farmers posting their experiences or questions under the original post. Advisory services and initiatives occasionally interacted with links to articles and relevant information. Infrequently, farmers shared and commented on posts from technology vendors who were running a competition/giveaway.

5. Discussion

This research supports and enriches the existing discourse pertaining to technology adoption within an agricultural context. The findings suggest that exploring the influence of SM and the farmers’ network on the SFT adoption decision in a B2B context is needed. Farmers, regardless of farm size, herd size or off-farm employment, clearly identify as business owners. This supports the literature, which outlines that increasingly farmers see themselves as businesspeople or entrepreneurs rather than the traditional producer-farmer identity ( Couzy and Dockes, 2008 ; Vesala and Vesala, 2010 ). SFT adoption has been cited as being crucial to improving agricultural sustainability, lowering its associated environmental footprint and increasing productivity ( Islam et al. , 2021 ). Results from this study suggest that farmers recognise the benefits of SFT adoption and are interested in learning more about the advantages and challenges of implementation. Thus, understanding the role of the business network and how digital communication tools such as SM can facilitate SFT adoption is timely.

Overall, the results indicate that the farmer’s network is essential in the dissemination of information relating to SFT and plays an important sense-checking role. As outlined in the conceptual diagram in Figure 1 , the overall network is heterogenous in nature with multiple actors involved, with varying levels of influence. Peer and other farmers are the most important actors due to the level of trust and reciprocity they are afforded. The concept of social capital is important as farmers trust the information, both positive and negative, that other farmers share about technology due to their perceived competency and integrity. This directly contradicts Barnes et al. (2019b ) who question the role that farmer-to-farmer networks play in SFT adoption due to the technology’s high cost and sophisticated nature. It supports previous theoretical and empirical work that highlights the importance that farmers place on other farmers’ opinions ( Blasch et al. , 2020 ; Knierim et al. , 2018 ). However, local peer farmers constitute a large portion of the farmer’s offline network, suggesting that an element of homophily is evident, which can limit the diffusion of information and subsequent adoption of technology. SM is an important bridging actor in the network, introducing more weak ties and thus more diverse information related to SFT, and increasing the heterogenous nature of the network. Fisher et al. (2018) determine that heterophilous networks are important in creating awareness of innovative technology while homophilous networks help with adoption. Therefore, further diversifying the farmer’s online network could result in an increased understanding of SFT. Other actors in the network such as vendors, advisory services and agrimedia publications play a pivotal role in introducing new actors to the farmer’s network.

Eastwood et al . (2017) highlighted the importance of farm advisors and extension agents in sharing knowledge on SFT. Interviewed farmers stated that although farm advisors are important and trusted actors in the network, in relation to SFT adoption, their role is not always as influential. This was bolstered by the netnographic analysis, which showed that advisory services only represented between 8% and 10% of the accounts that the farmers followed on Twitter. These findings support Higgins and Bryant (2020) who posit that advisors play a limited role in providing SFT advice to farmers. This suggests that there is a need for advisors to upskill on SFT and then proactively share and promote this information. Demonstration events of SFT on farms, facilitated by advisors, could help to change the perception that they are lagging behind with regard to new technologies. Results from the interviews suggest that actors such as agronomists, farming associations and research institutes have an adequate presence on Twitter and are important in sharing new knowledge. Increased interaction between these trusted bodies and farmers on SM could result in a wider dissemination of knowledge.

Findings from this research provide empirical evidence supporting the viewpoint that SM is an important tool to share knowledge and experiences ( Barrett and Rose, 2020 ; Mills et al. , 2019 ). SM facilitates multiple exposures to farming and SFT information, which is necessary for social contagion or the adequate diffusion of information. The level of SFT information being shared on SM is however relatively limited. Farmers are more likely to post about their day-to-day work and share images of their farming activities than the technology in operation. Phone calls, face-to-face discussions and digital communication through specialised fora and one-to-one conversations are still the preferred method of communication. This supports Morris and James (2017) who deduce that SM in the agricultural sector has not reached its full potential. SM, therefore, is an untapped resource which actors in the farmer’s network can use to increase interactions. Farmer discussion groups and meetings, which discuss new practices and technologies, could be videoed and shared across SM, increasing the reach of the dissemination activities. Equally, agrimedia publications can also facilitate the dissemination of SFT knowledge by sharing relevant news stories, opinion pieces and features by farmers.

Results concur with Riley and Robertson (2021) who highlight that SM connects farmers, thereby widening their network. The study outlines how information from the network is generally trusted, but trust in SM information depends on the source and the platform used. Early adopters of technology are often seen as influencers and tend to be more active on SM ( Skaalsveen et al. , 2020 ). Both the netnographic analysis and the conducted interviews confirm that farmers followed such influential or high-profile farmers across SM. Following these accounts facilitated the awareness of new technologies and learning of specific features and benefits. Micro-influencers or small-scale influencers were also popular and in general more trusted. Leveraging “everyday” farmers and micro-influencers to produce user-generated content, particularly on Twitter and YouTube, could further raise the profile of SFT once the content was seen as authentic and transparent.

Results suggest that farmers are trusting of technology but more sceptical of SFT vendors and their SM content due to the perception of being “over sold” to or “over-promising”. As highlighted in previous research, trust in B2B relationships is important to minimise concerns and vulnerability associated with adoption ( Jayashankar et al. , 2018 ). To improve this relationship, SFT vendors need to be more vocal with structural assurances such as guarantees and regulations to alleviate potential concerns. In addition, issues relating to data governance and data sovereignty divide thinking. Some farmers were concerned with the lack of transparency regarding data management, while others believe it is part of using the technology. This is somewhat consistent with findings from Wiseman et al. (2019) who find that farmers’ lack of trust in SFT is often linked to uncertainty regarding how the provider is managing the data generated. Clearly communicating how the data is being used in a non-technical manner to farmers could alleviate their concerns. Furthermore, conducting interviews on SM with “everyday” farmers who are using SFT could help to build trust.

Crucially, the results imply that although SM is beneficial in sharing knowledge and sense-checking information, its role in persuading the adoption of SFT is limited. The adoption decision is more influenced through offline connections in the network. However, awareness is a prerequisite for adopting technology ( Dessart et al. , 2019 ). Ineffective communication of an innovation leads to a lack of awareness, resulting in failed diffusion and lower rates of adoption ( Rogers, 2003 ). Awareness of SFT is relatively limited as the market launch is recent ( Knierim et al. , 2018 ). Thus, encouraging more SM content and interaction regarding SFT is a key step towards ensuring social contagion.

6. Conclusion and implications

6.1 theoretical implications.

This study set out to investigate the influence of the farmer’s network on the adoption of SFT. There are two main theoretical contributions. Firstly, the study is rooted in social network theory, providing fresh empirical insight into the influence of the farming network on the accelerated adoption of SFT ( Jayashankar et al. , 2018 ; Joffre et al. , 2020 ; Klerkx, 2021 ; Nordin et al. , 2021 ; Ofori and El-Gayar, 2020 ) and finds that the farmer’s network is heterogeneous in nature, with a number of actors with various levels of influence on the farmer’s SFT adoption process. However, homophily is evident in peer farmer interaction, but the use of SM as a bridging actor introduces more diverse actors and information into the network. However, SM is being underutilised for sharing SFT knowledge, demonstrating the need for increased interaction between actors. Secondly, this study has provided new insights into the role of trust, which emerged as a significant influence on adoption and knowledge dissemination. In contrast to Barnes et al. (2019a , 2019b ), the study found that farmers trust their peers when it comes to technology, while remaining sceptical about technology vendors. We provide empirical support for Barrett and Rose (2020) and Mills et al. (2019) through critical insights into the role of trust in shaping SM influence on the farmer ( Rust et al. , 2021 ; Zhang and Li, 2019 ). Lastly, this study, in identifying the role of SM within the farming network for sharing knowledge and experience, addresses the calls for more research to understand the influence of SM on businesses’ decisions and practices ( Asare et al. , 2016 ; Drummond et al. , 2018 ) ( Morris and James, 2017 ).

6.2 Managerial implications

The findings of this study have implications in B2B marketing within the SFT domain. SM has the power to fully transform the agri-tech communications landscape, as shown in the schematic in Figure 2 .

SFT vendors should invest further in SM to engage farmers. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube have been identified as important sources of information to learn about new SFT. Vendors must go beyond implementing a purely informational platform by engaging in multi-directional dialogues with multiple actors in the farmer’s network. Information transparency is key to gaining farmers’ trust in SFT vendor SM posts, especially sponsored content, or endorsements. Sentiment analysis provides an automated means for vendors to truly understand what their customers are saying about them online and is a tool that should not be underestimated. Additionally, conversational dissemination, driven by responsive agents and close-to-human AI bot technologies, is key to driving meaningful engagement and conversation.

Findings indicate that technology vendors should provide processes to support social bonds that may develop among farmers. In particular, fostering of virtual communities hosted by appropriate vendors and agencies would further develop confidence and trust in SFT adoption. Encouraging and incentivising actors, particularly peer farmers and micro-influencer farmers, to act as advocates or brand ambassadors is an important step in this process, with the caveat that information transparency is crucial. This is critical if the agricultural sector is to meet its sustainability goals across the next 20 years.

The research also has implications for farm advisory services, research institutes and agrimedia publications. The research suggests that these organisations need to ensure that they spend adequate time on SM diffusing SFT information and engaging in dialogue with farmers. Questions and answers sessions using online tools such as Facebook Live and Twitter Spaces could give an opportunity to farmers to learn about SFT and also sense-check their concerns. Key to this is demonstrable value creation arising from the adoption of SFT in multiple contexts.

Lastly, not all farmers are proficient in using SM; further education and training could be provided on how these platforms can assist their business further, such as using it for sales purposes, developing business relationships and expanding their network, driving heterophily. Farm advisory services and knowledge transfer agents are central to delivering this training. This also raises the important contribution that could be made through supporting farmers to embrace technology and therefore benefit from the advantages, which will percolate through society.

7. Limitations

While the qualitative approach to the research helped to build up a rich profile of the network effects on farmer adoption of SFT, the results from the semi-structured interviews are exploratory in nature. Further research is required to quantify the role of the network in promoting or inhibiting farmer adoption of SFT. This could take the form of a survey of farmers in the EU using measures of constructs that were explored in this study. Future netnographic studies could take an active engagement role on Twitter or a virtual community to monitor discussions and interactions.

Conceptual diagram of the farmer’s network and influence strength

Transforming conversations through SM and virtual communities

Demographic profile of respondents

Authors’ own work

Abbas , A. , Zhou , Y. , Deng , S. and Zhang , P. ( 2018 ), “ Text analytics to support sense-making in social media: a Language-Action perspective ”, MIS Quarterly , Vol. 42 No. 2 , pp. 427 - 464 .

Asare , A.K. , Brashear-Alejandro , T.G. and Kang , J. ( 2016 ), “ B2B technology adoption in customer driven supply chains ”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing , Vol. 31 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 12 .

Barnes , A.P. , Soto , I. , Eory , V. , Beck , B. , Balafoutis , A. , Sánchez , B. , Vangeyte , J. , Fountas , S. , van der Wal , T. and Gómez-Barbero , M. ( 2019a ), “ Exploring the adoption of precision agricultural technologies: a cross regional study of EU farmers ”, Land Use Policy , Vol. 80 , pp. 163 - 174 .

Barnes , A.P. , Soto , I. , Eory , V. , Beck , B. , Balafoutis , A.T. , Sanchez , B. , Vangeyte , J. , Fountas , S. , van der Wal , T. and Gómez-Barbero , M. ( 2019b ), “ Influencing incentives for precision agricultural technologies within European arable farming systems ”, Environmental Science & Policy , Vol. 93 , pp. 66 - 74 .

Barrett , H. and Rose , D.C. ( 2020 ), “ Perceptions of the fourth agricultural revolution: what’s in, what’s out, and what consequences are anticipated? ”, Sociologia Ruralis , Vol. 62 No. 2 , pp. 162 - 189 .

Blasch , J. , van der Kroon , B. , van Beukering , P. , Munster , R. , Fabiani , S. , Nino , P. and Vanino , S. ( 2020 ), “ Farmer preferences for adopting precision farming technologies: a case study from Italy ”, European Review of Agricultural Economics , Vol. 49 No. 1 , pp. 33 - 81 .

Braun , V. and Clarke , V. ( 2006 ), “ Using thematic analysis in psychology ”, Qualitative Research in Psychology , Vol. 3 No. 2 , pp. 77 - 101 .

Brennan , R. and Croft , R. ( 2012 ), “ The use of social media in B2B marketing and branding: an exploratory study ”, Journal of Customer Behaviour , Vol. 11 No. 2 , pp. 101 - 115 .

Burbi , S. and Hartless Rose , K. ( 2016 ), “ The role of internet and social media in the diffusion of knowledge and innovation among farmers ”, paper presented at International Farming Association (IFSA) Symposium , Newport , 12-15 July .

Cao , D. , Meadows , M. , Wong , D. and Xia , S. ( 2021 ), “ Understanding consumers’ social media engagement behaviour: an examination of the moderation effect of social media context ”, Journal of Business Research , Vol. 122 , pp. 835 - 846 .

Chavas , J.P. and Nauges , C. ( 2020 ), “ Uncertainty, learning, and technology adoption in agriculture ”, Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy , Vol. 42 No. 1 , pp. 42 - 53 .

Chowdhury , A. and Hambly Odame , H. ( 2013 ), “ Social media for enhancing innovation in agri-food and rural development: current dynamics in Ontario, Canada ”, The Journal of Rural and Community Development , Vol. 8 No. 2 , pp. 97 - 119 .

Colussi , J. , Morgan , E.L. , Schnitkey , G.D. and Padula , A.D. ( 2022 ), “ How communication affects the adoption of digital technologies in soybean production: a survey in Brazil ”, Agriculture , Vol. 12 No. 5 , pp. 1 - 24 .

Costello , L. , McDermott , M.-L. and Wallace , R. ( 2017 ), “ Netnography: range of practices, misperceptions, and missed opportunities ”, International Journal of Qualitative Methods , Vol. 16 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 12 .

Couzy , C. and Dockes , A.-C. ( 2008 ), “ Are farmers businesspeople? Highlighting transformations in the profession of farmers in France ”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business , Vol. 6 No. 3 , pp. 407 - 420 .

Cripps , H. , Singh , A. , Mejtoft , T. and Salo , J. ( 2020 ), “ The use of twitter for innovation in business markets ”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning , Vol. 38 No. 5 , pp. 587 - 601 .

Das , J.V. , Sharma , S. and Kaushik , A. ( 2019 ), “ Views of Irish farmers on smart farming technologies: an observational study ”, Agri Engineering , Vol. 1 No. 2 , pp. 164 - 187 .

Dessart , F.J. , Barreiro-Hurlé , J. and van Bavel , R. ( 2019 ), “ Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review ”, European Review of Agricultural Economics , Vol. 46 No. 3 , pp. 417 - 471 .

Drummond , C. , McGrath , H. and O'Toole , T. ( 2018 ), “ The impact of social media on resource mobilisation in entrepreneurial firms ”, Industrial Marketing Management , Vol. 70 , pp. 68 - 89 .

Drummond , C. , O'Toole , T. and McGrath , H. ( 2020 ), “ Digital engagement strategies and tactics in social media marketing ”, European Journal of Marketing , Vol. 54 No. 6 , pp. 1247 - 1280 .

Eastwood , C. , Klerkx , L. and Nettle , R. ( 2017 ), “ Dynamics and distribution of public and private research and extension roles for technological innovation and diffusion: case studies of the implementation and adaptation of precision farming technologies ”, Journal of Rural Studies , Vol. 49 , pp. 1 - 12 .

Eastwood , C. , Ayre , M. , Nettle , R. and Dela Rue , B. ( 2019 ), “ Making sense in the cloud: farm advisory services in a smart farming future ”, NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences , Vol. 90-91 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 10 .

Ebrahim , R.S. ( 2019 ), “ The role of trust in understanding the impact of social media marketing on brand equity and brand loyalty ”, Journal of Relationship Marketing , Vol. 19 No. 4 , pp. 287 - 308 .

Fisher , M. , Holden , S.T. , Thierfelder , C. and Katengeza , S.P. ( 2018 ), “ Awareness and adoption of conservation agriculture in Malawi: what difference can farmer-to-farmer extension make? ”, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability , Vol. 16 No. 3 , pp. 310 - 325 .

Froehlich , D.E. and Brouwer , J. ( 2021 ), “ Social network analysis as mixed analysis ”, The Routledge Reviewer's Guide to Mixed Methods Analysis , Routledge , London , pp. 209 - 218 .

Gouldner , A.W. ( 1960 ), “ The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement ”, American Sociological Review , Vol. 25 No. 2 , pp. 161 - 178 .

Grabner-Kräuter , S. ( 2010 ), “ Web 2.0 social networks: the role of trust ”, Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 90 No. S4 , pp. 505 - 522 .

Granovetter , M.S. ( 1973 ), “ The strength of weak ties ”, American Journal of Sociology , Vol. 78 No. 6 , pp. 1360 - 1380 .

Gray , B.J. and Gibson , J.W. ( 2013 ), “ Actor-Networks, farmer decisions, and identity ”, Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment , Vol. 35 No. 2 , pp. 82 - 101 .

Han , S-h. , Chae , C. and Passmore , D.L. ( 2019 ), “ Social network analysis and social capital in human resource development research: a practical introduction to R use ”, Human Resource Development Quarterly , Vol. 30 No. 2 , pp. 219 - 243 .

Hartwich , F. , Pérez , M.M. , Ramos , L.A. and Soto , J.L. ( 2007 ), “ Knowledge management for agricultural innovation: lessons from networking efforts in the bolivian agricultural technology system ”, Knowledge Management for Development Journal , Vol. 3 No. 2 , pp. 21 - 37 .

Hellin , J. and Fisher , E. ( 2018 ), “ Building pathways out of poverty through climate smart agriculture and effective targeting ”, Development in Practice , Vol. 28 No. 7 , pp. 974 - 979 .

Higgins , V. and Bryant , M. ( 2020 ), “ Framing agri‐digital governance: industry stakeholders, technological frames and smart farming implementation ”, Sociologia Ruralis , Vol. 60 No. 2 , pp. 438 - 457 .

Himelboim , I. ( 2017 ), “ Social network analysis (social media) ”, in Matthes , J. , Davis , C.S. and Potter , R.F. (Eds), The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods , John Wiley & Sons , New York, NY , pp, pp. 1 .- 15 .

Himelboim , I. , Smith , M.A. , Rainie , L. , Shneiderman , B. and Espina , C. ( 2017 ), “ Classifying twitter Topic-Networks using social network analysis ”, Social Media + Society , Vol. 3 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 13 .

Homans , G.C. ( 1958 ), “ Social behavior as exchange ”, American Journal of Sociology , Vol. 63 No. 6 , pp. 597 - 606 .

Inkpen , A.C. and Tsang , E.W.K. ( 2005 ), “ Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer ”, Academy of Management Review , Vol. 30 No. 1 , pp. 146 - 165 .

Islam , N. , Rashid , M.M. , Pasandideh , F. , Ray , B. , Moore , S. and Kadel , R. ( 2021 ), “ A review of applications and communication technologies for internet of things (IoT) and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) based sustainable smart farming ”, Sustainability , Vol. 13 No. 4 , pp. 1 - 20 .

Jakku , E. , Taylor , B. , Fleming , A. , Mason , C. , Fielke , S. , Sounness , C. and Thorburn , P. ( 2019 ), “ If they don’t tell us what they do with it, why would we trust them?” Trust, transparency and benefit-sharing in smart farming ”, NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences , Vol. 90-91 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 13 .

Jallow , M.F.A. , Awadh , D.G. , Albaho , M.S. , Devi , V.Y. and Thomas , B.M. ( 2017 ), “ Pesticide risk behaviors and factors influencing pesticide use among farmers in Kuwait ”, Science of the Total Environment , Vol. 574 , pp. 490 - 498 .

Jayashankar , P. , Johnston , W.J. , Nilakanta , S. and Burres , R. ( 2019 ), “ Co-creation of value-in-use through big data technology – a B2B agricultural perspective ”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing , Vol. 35 No. 3 , pp. 508 - 523 .

Jayashankar , P. , Nilakanta , S. , Johnston , W.J. , Gill , P. and Burres , R. ( 2018 ), “ IoT adoption in agriculture: the role of trust, perceived value and risk ”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing , Vol. 33 No. 6 , pp. 804 - 821 .

Jerhamre , E. , Carlberg , C.J.C. and van Zoest , V. ( 2022 ), “ Exploring the susceptibility of smart farming: identified opportunities and challenges ”, Smart Agricultural Technology , Vol. 2 , pp. 1 - 8 .

Jiang , S. , Angarita , R. , Cormier , S. , Orensanz . and Rousseaux , J. . ( 2022 ), F. “ Informativeness in twitter textual contents for farmer-centric plant health monitoring ”, Paper presented at ICPRAI 2022 – 3rd International Conference on Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence , Paris , 1-3 June .

Joffre , O.M. , Poortvliet , P.M. and Klerkx , L. ( 2019 ), “ To cluster or not to cluster farmers? Influences on network interactions, risk perceptions, and adoption of aquaculture practices ”, Agricultural Systems , Vol. 173 , pp. 151 - 160 .

Joffre , O.M. , De Vries , J.R. , Klerkx , L. and Poortvliet , P.M. ( 2020 ), “ Why are cluster farmers adopting more aquaculture technologies and practices? The role of trust and interaction within shrimp farmers' networks in the mekong Delta, Vietnam ”, Aquaculture , Vol. 523 , pp. 1 - 11 .

Juntunen , M. , Ismagilova , E. and Oikarinen , E.-L. ( 2020 ), “ B2B brands on twitter: engaging users with a varying combination of social media content objectives, strategies, and tactics ”, Industrial Marketing Management , Vol. 89 , pp. 630 - 641 .

Kernecker , M. , Knierim , A. , Wurbs , A. , Kraus , T. and Borges , F. ( 2019 ), “ Experience versus expectation: farmers’ perceptions of smart farming technologies for cropping systems across Europe ”, Precision Agriculture , Vol. 21 No. 1 , pp. 34 - 50 .

Kim , D.Y. and Kim , H.-Y. ( 2021 ), “ Trust me, trust me not: a nuanced view of influencer marketing on social media ”, Journal of Business Research , Vol. 134 , pp. 223 - 232 .

Klerkx , L. ( 2021 ), “ Digital and virtual spaces as sites of extension and advisory services research: social media, gaming, and digitally integrated and augmented advice ”, The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension , Vol. 27 No. 3 , pp. 277 - 286 .

Knierim , A. , Borges , F. , Kernecker , M. , Kraus , T. and Wurbs , A. ( 2018 ), “ What drives adoption of smart farming technologies? Evidence from a cross-country study ”, Paper presented at 13th European IFSA Symposium. Farming systems: facing uncertainties and enhancing opportunities , Chania , 1-5 July .

Kossinets , G. and Watts , D.J. ( 2009 ), “ Origins of homophily in an evolving social network ”, American Journal of Sociology , Vol. 115 No. 2 , pp. 405 - 450 .

Kozinets , R.V. ( 2006 ), “ Click to connect: netnography and tribal advertising ”, Journal of Advertising Research , Vol. 46 No. 3 , pp. 279 - 288 .

Kozinets , R.V. , Dolbec , P.-Y. and Earley , A. ( 2014 ), “ Netnographic analysis: Understanding culture through social media data ”, in Uwe , F. (Ed.), Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis , Sage , London , pp. 262 - 275 .

Liu , T. , Bruins , R.J.F. and Heberling , M.T. ( 2018 ), “ Factors influencing farmers' adoption of best management practices: a review and synthesis ”, Sustainability , Vol. 10 No. 2 , pp. 1 - 26 .

McPherson , M. , Smith-Lovin , L. and Cook , J.M. ( 2001 ), “ Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks ”, Annual Review of Sociology , Vol. 27 No. 1 , pp. 415 - 444 .

Maertens , A. and Barrett , C.B. ( 2012 ), “ Measuring social networks' effects on agricultural technology adoption ”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics , Vol. 95 No. 2 , pp. 353 - 359 .

Marchiori , D. and Franco , M. ( 2020 ), “ Knowledge transfer in the context of inter-organizational networks: foundations and intellectual structures ”, Journal of Innovation & Knowledge , Vol. 5 No. 2 , pp. 130 - 139 .

Massaro , M. , Moro , A. , Aschauer , E. and Fink , M. ( 2017 ), “ Trust, control and knowledge transfer in small business networks ”, Review of Managerial Science , Vol. 13 No. 2 , pp. 267 - 301 .

Mayer , R.C. , Davis , J.H. and Schoorman , F.D. ( 1995 ), “ An integrative model of organizational trust ”, The Academy of Management Review , Vol. 20 No. 3 , pp. 709 - 734 .

Mills , J. , Reed , M. , Skaalsveen , K. , Ingram , J. and Bruyn , L.L. ( 2019 ), “ The use of twitter for knowledge exchange on sustainable soil management ”, Soil Use and Management , Vol. 35 No. 1 , pp. 195 - 203 .

Morris , W. and James , P. ( 2017 ), “ Social media, an entrepreneurial opportunity for agriculture-based enterprises ”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development , Vol. 24 No. 4 , pp. 1028 - 1045 .

Nettle , R. , Crawford , A. and Brightling , P. ( 2018 ), “ How private-sector farm advisors change their practices: an Australian case study ”, Journal of Rural Studies , Vol. 58 , pp. 20 - 27 .

Nordin , S.M. , Ahmad Rizal , A.R. and Zolkepli , I.A. ( 2021 ), “ Innovation diffusion: the influence of social media affordances on complexity reduction for decision making ”, Frontiers in Psychology , Vol. 12 , pp. 1 - 12 .

Nosratabadi , S. , Khazami , N. , Abdallah , M.B. , Lackner , Z. , Band , S.S. , Mosavi , A. and Mako , C. ( 2020 ), “ Social capital contributions to food security: a comprehensive literature review ”, Foods , Vol. 9 No. 11 , pp. 1 - 18 .

Ofori , M. and El-Gayar , O. ( 2020 ), “ Drivers and challenges of precision agriculture: a social media perspective ”, Precision Agriculture , Vol. 22 No. 3 , pp. 1019 - 1044 .

Pardo , C. , Pagani , M. and Savinien , J. ( 2022 ), “ The strategic role of social media in business-to-business contexts ”, Industrial Marketing Management , Vol. 101 , pp. 82 - 97 .

Pathak , H.S. , Brown , P. and Best , T. ( 2019 ), “ A systematic literature review of the factors affecting the precision agriculture adoption process ”, Precision Agriculture , Vol. 20 No. 6 , pp. 1292 - 1316 .

Philips , T. , Klerkx , L. and McEntee , M. ( 2018 ), “ An investigation of social media’s roles in knowledge exchange by farmers ”, Paper presented at 13th European IFSA Symposium , Chania , 1-5 July .

Phillips , T. , McEntee , M. and Klerkx , L. ( 2021 ), “ An investigation into the use of social media for knowledge exchange by farmers and advisors ”, Rural Extension & Innovation Systems Journal , Vol. 17 No. 2 , pp. 1 - 13 .

Ping , H. , Wang , J. , Ma , Z. and Du , Y. ( 2018 ), “ Mini-review of application of IoT technology in monitoring agricultural products quality and safety ”, International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering , Vol. 11 No. 5 , pp. 35 - 45 .

Pivoto , D. , Waquil , P.D. , Talamini , E. , Finocchio , C.P.S. , Dalla Corte , V.F. and de Vargas Mores , G. ( 2018 ), “ Scientific development of smart farming technologies and their application in Brazil ”, Information Processing in Agriculture , Vol. 5 No. 1 , pp. 21 - 32 .

Putnam , R.D. ( 2000 ), Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community , Touchstone , New York, NY .

Rampersad , G. , Troshani , I. and Plewa , C. ( 2012 ), “ IOS adoption in innovation networks: a case study ”, Industrial Management & Data Systems , Vol. 112 No. 9 , pp. 1366 - 1382 .

Regan , Á. ( 2019 ), “ Smart farming’ in Ireland: a risk perception study with key governance actors ”, NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences , Vol. 90-91 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 10 .

Riley , M. and Robertson , B. ( 2021 ), “ #farming365 – exploring farmers’ social media use and the (re)presentation of farming lives ”, Journal of Rural Studies , Vol. 87 , pp. 99 - 111 .

Rogers , E.M. ( 2003 ), Diffusion of Innovation , 5th ed. The Free Press , New York, NY .

Röling , N.G. ( 1992 ), “ The emergence of knowledge systems thinking. A. Changing perception of relationships among innovation, knowledge process and configuration ”, Knowledge and Policy , Vol. 5 No. 1 , pp. 42 - 65 .

Roussaki , I. , Kosmides , P. , Routis , G. , Doolin , K. , Pevtschin , V. and Marguglio , A. ( 2019 ), “ A multi-actor approach to promote the employment of IoT in agriculture ”, Global IoT Summit (GIoTS), IEEE , pp. 1 - 6 .

Rust , N.A. , Stankovics , P. , Jarvis , R.M. , Morris-Trainor , Z. , de Vries , J.R. , Ingram , J. , Mills , J. , Glikman , J.A. , Parkinson , J. , Toth , Z. , Hansda , R. , McMorran , R. , Glass , J. and Reed , M.S. ( 2021 ), “ Have farmers had enough of experts? ”, Environmental Management , Vol. 69 No. 1 , pp. 31 - 44 .

Saunders , B. , Sim , J. , Kingstone , T. , Baker , S. , Waterfield , J. , Bartlam , B. , Burroughs , H. and Jinks , C. ( 2018 ), “ Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization ”, Quality & Quantity , Vol. 52 No. 4 , pp. 1893 - 1907 .

Shiau , W.-L. and Luo , M.M. ( 2012 ), “ Factors affecting online group buying intention and satisfaction: a social exchange theory perspective ”, Computers in Human Behavior , Vol. 28 No. 6 , pp. 2431 - 2444 .

Singaraju , S.P. , Nguyen , Q.A. , Niininen , O. and Sullivan-Mort , G. ( 2016 ), “ Social media and value co-creation in multi-stakeholder systems: a resource integration approach ”, Industrial Marketing Management , Vol. 54 , pp. 44 - 55 .

Skaalsveen , K. , Ingram , J. and Urquhart , J. ( 2020 ), “ The role of farmers' social networks in the implementation of no-till farming practices ”, Agricultural Systems , Vol. 181 , pp. 1 - 14 .

Sterrett , D. , Malato , D. , Benz , J. , Kantor , L. , Tompson , T. , Rosenstiel , T. , Sonderman , J. and Loker , K. ( 2019 ), “ Who shared it?: deciding what news to trust on social media ”, Digital Journalism , Vol. 7 No. 6 , pp. 783 - 801 .

Sundström , M. , Alm , K.H. , Larsson , N. and Dahlin , O. ( 2020 ), “ B2B social media content: engagement on LinkedIn ”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing , Vol. 36 No. 3 , pp. 454 - 468 .

Surma , J. ( 2016 ), “ Social exchange in online social networks. The reciprocity phenomenon on facebook ”, Computer Communications , Vol. 73 , pp. 342 - 346 .

Valujeva , K. , Freed , E.K. , Nipers , A. , Jauhiainen , J. and Schulte , R.P.O. ( 2023 ), “ Pathways for governance opportunities: social network analysis to create targeted and effective policies for agricultural and environmental development ”, Journal of Environmental Management , Vol. 325 , pp. 1 - 10 .

Vedeld , T. , Hofstad , H. , Mathur , M. , Büker , P. and Stordal , F. ( 2020 ), “ Reaching out? Governing weather and climate services (WCS) for farmers ”, Environmental Science & Policy , Vol. 104 , pp. 208 - 216 .

Ventura , F. , Brunori , G. , Milone , P. , Berti , G. , Ploeg , J. and Marsden , T. ( 2008 ), Unfolding Webs, the Dynamics of Regional Rural Development , Van Gorcum , Assen .

Vesala , H.T. and Vesala , K.M. ( 2010 ), “ Entrepreneurs and producers: identities of Finnish farmers in 2001 and 2006 ”, Journal of Rural Studies , Vol. 26 No. 1 , pp. 21 - 30 .

Wang , Z. , Ali , S. , Akbar , A. and Rasool , F. ( 2020 ), “ Determining the influencing factors of biogas technology adoption intention in Pakistan: the moderating role of social media ”, Int J Environ Res Public Health , Vol. 17 No. 7 , pp. 1 - 20 .

Wiseman , L. , Sanderson , J. , Zhang , A. and Jakku , E. ( 2019 ), “ Farmers and their data: an examination of farmers’ reluctance to share their data through the lens of the laws impacting smart farming ”, NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences , Vols 90/91 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 10 .

Wolfert , S. , Ge , L. , Verdouw , C. and Bogaardt , M.-J. ( 2017 ), “ Big data in smart farming – a review ”, Agricultural Systems , Vol. 153 , pp. 69 - 80 .

Zhang , C.-B. and Li , Y.-N. ( 2019 ), “ How social media usage influences B2B customer loyalty: roles of trust and purchase risk ”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing , Vol. 34 No. 7 , pp. 1420 - 1433 .

Acknowledgements

Declaration: This research is supported by the H2020-funded project, DEMETER, grant agreement 857202 ( http://h2020-demeter.eu ).

This research is supported by the H2020 DEMETER project (Grant Agreement No. 857202), funded by the European Commission under H2020-EU.2.1.1 (DT-ICT-08-2019).

Corresponding author

Related articles, all feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

Social Media for Farms: A Revolutionary Agricultural Tool

Social media can allow farmers to reach new audiences and ultimately inspire a new wave of young agriculturalists.

The distance between farm and fork is growing. In the United States, food travels an estimated 1,500 to 2,500 miles from the farm before reaching your table, a distance that has increased up to 25 percent in the last two decades. Consumers are growing more and more disconnected from the food they eat as the number of farmers continues to shrink, putting the future of the agriculture industry in question. How can consumers become better connected to the food they eat?  

Social media is a potential solution. Young agriculturalists are leveraging social media platforms to share their stories, experiences, and insights, using platforms like Instagram and TikTok to connect with a broader audience and educate them about the world of agriculture. These digital storytelling efforts are helping to bridge the gap between rural communities and urban consumers, fostering engagement and promoting a positive image of agriculture in the digital age that could ultimately inspire a new wave of agriculturalists.

Potato Ty: Finding a Potato Future Online 

Vancouver, Canada-based potato farmer Tyler Heppell—or, as you may know him, Potato Ty—started his social media journey in 2022 in hopes of raising awareness about some of the most productive farmland in Canada that was at risk of being developed. After collecting over 80,000 signatures on a petition, Heppell became a national news story and started to grow his following on social media, prompting his idea to continue sharing his passion online for protecting farmland. 

“I started to create daily videos of how food was produced and was shocked at how the vast majority of people didn’t know how their food was grown,” explained Heppell. “I made it my mission to educate the end consumer on how farms work—the struggles, the successes, and everything farm related. I believe if we have a more educated end consumer, it will greatly reduce the amount of food waste we see.” 

The narrative of a farmer taking to digital platforms is not merely about adapting to technology; it is a testament to the innovative spirit of modern agriculturalists. For Heppell, social media was not just a place for selfies and snapshots, but a battleground for advocacy, a place to rally support, and a medium to enlighten thousands about the nuances of farming. 

Heppell now has an online following totaling more than 645,000 people on Instagram and TikTok collectively. He uses his accounts @potayty (Instagram) and @heppellspotato (TikTok) to share engaging and creative content centered around potatoes. Through his posts, he showcases various recipes, cooking techniques, and unique ways to enjoy potatoes, as well as the behind-the-scenes of being a potato farmer.

        View this post on Instagram                       A post shared by Potato Ty (@potayty)

Heppell’s social media success goes beyond passive audience engagement—he even gets his audience to participate in what he calls Ugly Potato Day. “I want to show the end consumer how hard we work to put food on the store shelves, and how much work goes into each harvest,” said Heppell. “I see how much food waste there is, and if the masses only knew how much work went into growing a crop, I know it would help reduce the food waste we see in North America. That’s why I created Ugly Potato Day, where we give out our ugly potatoes to the public, so they can see first-hand that just because a potato is ugly in appearance, doesn’t mean it’s not nutritious and delicious.” 

@heppellspotato Why we do Ugly Potato day, and our next ugly potato day coming up! Please share with anyone in the greater vancouver area! #greenscreenvideo #uglypotato #uglypotatoday #potatotiktok #potato #giveaway @Potato Ty ♬ original sound - Potato Ty

Heppell’s biggest Ugly Potato Day had more than 4,000 people show up and raised over $6,400 for food banks, giving away a total of 45,000 pounds of “ugly” produce to the community. Heppell now aims to have an Ugly Potato Day every two months at his farm.

Avery Claire Mallory: Saving the Family Farm 

Avery Claire Mallory, known for her work on her family farm Lily Hill Farm , is another prominent creator and influencer in the agricultural space. With a passion for sustainable farming and homesteading, her content on topics such as organic gardening, animal husbandry, and self-sufficiency resonates with a wide audience.  

“My agricultural journey has been a whirlwind of challenges, growth, and unwavering determination,” said Mallory. “It all started when my father, facing physical and financial limitations, considered selling our family farm. The thought of losing such a significant part of our lives was unbearable, and deep down, I knew I had to do something to save it.” 

Mallory left behind her career in international finance to return to Georgia with her husband and take over the family farm. They knew very little about agriculture initially, but were eager to learn and willing to put in the hard work. It has been a rollercoaster ride—they have made mistakes along the way, stumbled, and have faced their fair share of financial hardships—but they never lost sight of their vision to make the family farm profitable again. 

“As we navigated the challenges, I realized the power of storytelling and connecting with people. That's when I turned to social media. I started sharing our journey, the ups and downs, the joys and struggles. It was a way to document our progress and build a community around our farm,” Mallory shared.

        View this post on Instagram                       A post shared by Avery Claire Mallory | Lily Hill Farm (@lilyhillcattle)

Using social media to showcase their story became a vital part of Lily Hill Farm’s agricultural journey and provided them with a voice, with a way to connect with like-minded individuals and build a loyal customer base. “Overall, our agricultural journey has been a testament to the power of passion, resilience, and the ability to adapt. It has taught us that there is value in sharing your story,” said Mallory. She has over 102,000 followers on her Instagram page @lilyhillcattle and over 17,000 followers on TikTok, also @lilyhillcattle . 

Mallory’s social media presence has a significant impact on the perception of agriculture. In many ways, agriculture has been misunderstood or underappreciate by the public, but by sharing their story, their struggles, and their successes through social media, Mallory has been able to provide a glimpse into the world of farming and bridge the divide between farmers and consumers.

@lilyhillcattle Angus cattle flesh out easier than other breeds due to a combination of genetic factors, feed efficiency, early maturation, and adaptability. They have been selectively bred for meat production traits, which contribute to their ability to develop good muscle mass and easily marble. ♬ original sound - Avery Claire

“One of the key impacts of our social media presence has been the opportunity to showcase the care and dedication that goes into raising our beef. Through photos, videos, and personal anecdotes, we have been able to highlight the love and attention we give to our animals, the sustainable practices we follow, and the beauty of the American’s farmland. This has helped dispel misconceptions about the agricultural industry and shed light on the responsible and compassionate side of farming,” explained Mallory. Through storytelling and authenticity, she has been able to create a more positive, informed, and transparent perception of agriculture, helping consumers appreciate the hard work and dedication that goes into producing their food. They have opened up a dialogue where people can feel free to ask questions, learn about farming practices, and gain a deeper understanding of where their food comes from.

Fighting for a Future: Inspiring Young Agriculturalists 

Sharing their journeys online may have started as a way to get their stories into the world, but it has transformed into far more; Heppell and Mallory hope to inspire the next generation of leaders to get engaged in agriculture. With the average age of the US farmer nearing 60 years old , Heppell and Mallory’s mission to inspire young agriculturalists is more important than ever. 

“The next generation needs to see how fulfilling and fun the farm can actually be,” said Heppell. At Heppell’s Potato Corp, they help educate the next generation by hosting multiple school tours per year. Their goal is to show kids how farms work, and that being a farmer can be a fantastic career. “I would encourage every farmer or rancher to reach out to a local school and set up a tour of your farm. You never know, that could be the difference in someone’s life and push them to pursue the beautiful life of a farmer.” 

Mallory follows a similar philosophy. “I strongly believe that social media is an incredibly powerful platform to engage the next generation of leaders within agriculture. The younger generation is already deeply immersed in social media, making it an ideal space to connect, educate, and inspire them about the opportunities and importance of agriculture,” said Mallory. By featuring her experiences, challenges, and accomplishments, she hopes to inspire and empower other young people to consider pursuing a future in agriculture. “It's important to emphasize that farming is not just a traditional occupation, but a dynamic and rewarding profession that allows individuals to make a meaningful impact on food production and the environment.” 

Reconnecting people with the sources of their food while spotlighting the intricacies and beauty of farming has never been more crucial. As global challenges such as climate change, population growth, and diminishing natural resources loom, the next generation of agriculturalists will be at the forefront of developing sustainable solutions. By taking their stories to social media, farmers like Heppell and Mallory are not only challenging misconceptions, but are also sowing the seeds for a sustainable future.

Share Options

• Share to Twitter
• Share to Facebook
• Share to Linkedin

Social Media for Enhancing Innovation in Agri-food and Rural Development: Current Dynamics in Ontario, Canada

• Ataharul Chowdhury University of Guelph
• Helen Hambly Odame University of Guelph

2 THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL MEDIA IN ENHANCING AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION IN NIGERIA: A CASE OF IKA SOUTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA OF DELTA STATE.

SALUBI HANNAH OYEYINKA

Agriculture plays an important role in Nigeria economy. Sustainable agricultural production requires current and relevant information by expert in the field .The delivery of agricultural extension services, agricultural science centers and agricultural universities are limited and unstable with little impact There is a need to fill the gap by exploring other optional for alternative agricultural extension service delivery mechanisms. Information and communication technology (ICT) can provide information on agricultural extension with more precision, faster relevant and higher quality. With the present challenges of corona virus, social media including the internet is now the most important source of useful information among the farmers in Nigeria.

Social media is yet another ICT-based tool that is used purely for entertainment, with great potential for knowledge sharing and collaboration in agriculture. These ICT devices are relatively easy to use and gaining popularity in the agricultural sector . Social media has great potential to be used as a tool of communication and networking for the benefit of the farming community, many farmers recognized it and started using it. Facebook is the most used social media platform in the world, with more than 1.87 billion monthly active user on its site . Social media channels enhanced and strengthened the relationship of agro based communities and helped rural workers combat the segregations created by their work. It has crossed geographical boundaries, thereby connecting the peasant communities to mutual interest. Blogs have a large presence covering topic on agriculture, animal husbandry, health and other topics of general interest. Social media plays a significant role in agricultural information among majority of young farmers in Ika South. This is because; it has been connecting young farmers and agro business farmers within the graphical area. It enhance interactions and information flows among the young farmers. In addition, distance is more a barrier. However, the use of social media is without few hindrances . Some of the challenges faced by Ika South young farmers in accessing social media are network problem, costly charge when accessing the internet as well as poor power service

From the study , it was deduce that public extension officers in Ika South area are insufficient hence the need for innovative services to fill the gap.

KEYWORDS: Social media, Agricultural Extension, Ika South.

INTRODUCTION

Nigeria as a country is presently facing economic recession due to Corona Virus pandemic. There is therefore need for a corresponding increase in agricultural production to meet the recommended level for human health as well as economic development.

Agricultural production implies the production of crops and farm animals that are useful to human beings. It further involves gathering, processing, recording, storing, distributing, selling of farm yields and provision of raw materials for local and foreign industries. Agricultural production in no doubt enhance growth and development of any nation, sadly, farmers are not meeting up with the high demand for agricultural output.

Today, meaningful agricultural production involves using the internet to access relevant agricultural information, retrieve, download, record, disseminate and communicate useful farm ideas about crops and livestock production, processing storing and marketing of farm yields using information and communication technology. The high demand for food items expansion and diversification in industries that utilize agricultural produce have placed a need for agricultural education to revolutionize its production sector pattern in order to meet the challenges.

Social media has become a powerful tool that connects millions of people globally from the comfort of our homes. Social media is revolutionizing the way business is carried out bringing new ways of communication and exchange of information across the globe. Social media is becoming a very important tool in farming because it has the ability to connect with farmers and agribusiness people from around the world over large geographical distances. The benefits of this can be as large or small as the farmer’s choose, depending on how much time we wish to spend on it. Social media plays a very important role in enhancing interactions and information flows among different actors involved in agricultural innovation and also enhance capacities of agricultural extension.

The power of social media is in the features that allow it to be applied to a whole range of applications that involve interactions between people (Chuli, et al, 2012). It has also remove the limitations of geographical distance from users, which enables a platform that shares knowledge and culture and can play a part in the economic and political power.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The agricultural sector globally is embracing social media and utilizing it to promote knowledge within the industry as well as networking with other like-minded agricultural professionals. The communities and relationships that agriculture is largely based on are further extended through social media channels and rural workers have begun to use social media to combat the feeling of isolation which arises due to the nature of their work.

Social media has taken us back to the days of storytelling, where everyone in a group has the opportunity to add to the story or share another point of view. This is so because it taps into one of humans most basic natural needs. Forming groups and sharing information, providing entertainment and communicating. Information and communication technology (ICT) can provide information on agricultural extension with more precision, faster, relevant and higher quality. (Goyal, 2011, Kritiken 2012 and World Bank, 2016). These technologies are reviving agricultural expansion and advisory services worldwide. (World Bank, 2016). ICT –based tools in agriculture vary from web portals, mobile telephone and hybrid project (ICT with traditional extension elements) (Shantichandra et al, 2013). Mass media including the internet is now the second most important source of useful information for agricultural families.

Advantages of social media in Agricultural extension as discussed by ( Saravanan et al., 2015)

• Highly cost-effective
• Simultaneously reaches large numbers of clients
• Location and client-specific, problem –oriented.
• User-generated content and discussion among community members.
• Easily accessed from mobile phones
• Increase the internet presence of extension organizations and their client reach
• The democratization of information by making it accessible to all.
• Brings all stakeholders into single platform
• Can measure reach and success by tracking the number of visitors, friends, followers, mentions, facebook ‘likes’, conversation index and number of shares

Social Media Tools Commonly Used in Agriculture Extension

The use of social media in agriculture sector and expansion has gained momentum in recent times, with only popular platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube being used for agriculture and extension related works. Whatsapp is another major platform used by extension professionals to communicate with peer or client farmers but as communication (individual and group) is personal, more information is available about groups other than being referred to by media. The various social media tools popular these days are listed below

Facebook is the most used social media platform in the world, with more than 1.87 billion monthly active users on its site (We Are Social, 2017). And this means a huge potential for extension professionals. Some examples where Facebook is being used as an extension tool by individuals, professional networks, and extension organizations.

Microblogging site Twitter is one of the most popular social media platforms globally with more than 300 million users. In a social context, it has been one of the major catalysts used for creating public opinions and for organizing people into groups. In agriculture too, it is one of the most used platforms.

YouTube It is the video-sharing platform with a mission to give everyone a voice and show them the world and is based on four values: Freedom of expression, Freedom of information, Freedom of opportunity, and Freedom of belonging. Users can upload and watch the videos, and there is provision for sharing and commenting on videos with additional facilities for the subscription of other users.

Blogs contain detailed information on specific topics. They create and facilitate an in-depth discussion on any issue through comments from the readers. With increased popularity, many blog competitions are also organized worldwide for rural youth to encourage them to start a discussion about farming. Even organizations like World Bank, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) have their blogs not just to discuss issues but announce their new publications like policy papers, working papers, and reports and so on; communicate summaries of important publications, and to increase awareness and discussion on important issues related to agriculture and rural development.

A messenger app for smart phones, it is an internet-based messaging platform that supports text, audio, video, pdf, and various other forms of files. Real-time video chatting has also been integrated recently, making it more popular among users. Currently, there are more than one billion users of the app in 180 countries. Though initially used for personal messaging, it is gaining more popularity among agricultural professionals and practitioners to share information, which is aided by the group messaging feature.

Role of Social Media in Farming

In the global context, the agricultural sector is using social media to promote relevant information and knowledge within the industry and to network with other like-minded agricultural professionals. Social media channels enhanced and strengthened the relationships of agro-based communities and helped rural workers combat the segregation created by their work. It has crossed geographical boundaries, thereby connecting the peasant communities to mutual interest.

So far, blogs have a large presence covering topics on agriculture, animal husbandry, health, education, and other topics of general interest. Social media such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and blogs are emerging as an appropriate platform to share information and create awareness among various stakeholders to generate and shape the content of the event.

These media complement traditional media as a viable source of information and facilitate the marketing of agricultural products and their products using pictures, links, and videos. They provide opportunities for users to share and exchange information and to discuss burning issues in agriculture based on their knowledge and

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study adopted a descriptive survey and farmers in Ika South Young Farmers Association were purposively sampled due to its relatively conventional mode of small scale farming hence the small scale farmers in the area met the characteristics of the study. The study randomly sampled 80 small scale farmers in the area and questionnaires and focus group discussion was also used to obtain information from the farmers.

Of recent, the number of extension workers has been decreasing drastically while the number of small scale farmers has been increasing therefore creating the need for innovative services to address this gap. (Gakuru et al., 2009). Compared with agriculture sector in developing countries, agriculture is becoming increasingly knowledge intensive. As agriculture systems become more complex, farmers’ access to reliable, timely and relevant information sources become more critical to their competitiveness. Information must be relevant and meaningful to farmers, in addition to being packaged and delivered in a way preferred by them. ( Diekmann Loibl & Batte, 2009).

From the study, it was established that farmers required agricultural information to make the right decisions. The study further revealed that farmers require adequate and reliable agricultural information.

Furthermore 90% of the respondents agreed that they seek information from different sources in terms of literacy levels 80% of the respondents were well educated and hence are able to educate other farmers. On the other hand, 95% of the respondents had educational background in agriculture which gave them more advantages than other farmers.

In terms of availability of extension services, the study revealed that few extension officers were in place but they were not readily available to give farmers extension services due to the high demand of the extensions services and the present restriction caused by Corona Virus. This forced many farmers to seek alternative avenues like social media to get agricultural information. The study revealed that 85% of, the respondents agreed that extension officers provide information on small holder include enterprise selection, farm planning, market price information and farm visits.

The study established that Besses’ District has public extension officers available for the entire district which is insufficient and this supports Gakuru et al. (2009) who stated that the number of extension workers has been decreasing while farmer numbers have been increasing; hence the need for innovative services to address this gap. Furthermore, the extension information offered is out of date, irrelevant and not applicable to small farmers’ needs, leaving such farmers with very little information or resources to improve their productivity.

Majority of the farmers use social media to seek for a variety of agricultural information, mostly scientific, educational and technology based, including training information, agrochemicals and technological information. The study further revealed that 65% of farmers however do not take as much interest in market based agricultural information including market trends, price, and stock available as well as credit facilities, source, terms and conditions.

It follows then, that, farmers in the study area source for agricultural information from a variety of avenues, key among which include the internet, social media and extension services. As such, the social media, as compared to other sources is significantly adopted among farmers in the study area.

Extension services can be made available using various 1CT channels. Broad basing agricultural extension activities; developing farming system research and extension; having location-specific modules of research and extension; and promoting market extension, sustainable agricultural development, participatory research, etc. are some of the numerous areas where ICT can play an important role (Mbugua et al., 2012). They further state that IT can help by enabling extension workers to gather, store, retrieve and disseminate a broad range of information needed by farmers, thus transforming them from extension workers into knowledge workers.

Respondents were further asked to indicate the various challenges they encountered when trying to obtain information from social media. Among the most common challenges faced include poor network access, power outages, and costly charges when accessing the internet.

From the study, it can be concluded that majority of farmers have a positive attitude towards the use of social media in seeking agricultural information. Facebook is the most common social media platform among farmers in the study area.

Further deduction indicated that while most farmers using social media are active on the same, few either rarely or never use the media to obtain agricultural information. Majority of the young farmers’ source for agricultural information from variety of avenues. They have only little interest in market-based agricultural information, market trend, price and stock availability and credit facilities.

It can be concluded that majority of the young farmers in Ika South highly require agricultural information especially on training information, agrochemicals and technological information.

RECOMMENDATIONS

From the study it is recommended that the authority in Ika South should establish government owned information centers for young farmers to access agricultural information online with stable power supply.

Instead of much effort given to communication campaigns, social media can complement especially now that we’re observing social distancing, as a result of Corona Virus pandemic.

Babu S, Glendenning .C, Okyere. K & Govindarajan. S. (2012). Farmer Information Needsand Search Behaviour. Case Study in Tamil Nadu India, IFPRI. Chui, M., Manyika, “The Economics of Agricultural Information: Factors Affecting Commercial Farmers Information strategy in Ohio”. Review of Agricultural Economics. 31(4): 853-872

Diekmann, F., C. Loibl, M.T. Battle. (2009).

Gakuru, M; Kristen W. & Stephen, F. (2009). Inventory of innovative farmer Advisory services using Information Communication Technologies. The Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa.

Goyal, A. (2011). ICT in Agriculture Sourcebook: Connecting Smallholders knowledge, Networks, and Institutions, World Bank, Washington D.C.

Mbugua, O.K. et al. (2012). Information access and rating of delivery pathways by smallholder dairy farmers in central Kenya. K.ARI, Naivasha.

Karthikeyan, C. (2012). Impact of e-Velanmai (e-Agriculture): An ICT EnabledAgricultural Extension Model. International J. of Exten. Ed. 50(8): 24-30

NSSO. (2014). Key Indicators of Situation of Agricultural Households in India, NSS 70thRound, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation Ministry of Statistics program Implementation, GOI, New Delhi.

Shanthinichandra, K., and Mohanraj. (2013). Farmers’ Willingness to Pay (WTP) Behaviour for ICT Based Extension Approach, International J. of Exten. Ed. 9:24-31.

Thomas, K. Micheal, O. and Silahs, C. (2016). Thomas, K. et al, 2016. Impact of Social media on Agricultural Extension in Kenya. Int. Journal of Agricultural Extension anfd Rural Dev. Stud. Vol3. No.1, 30-36.

World Bank (2016). World.Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends. Washington

2021 Association for Digital Education and Communications Technology Conference Proceedings Copyright © by SALUBI HANNAH OYEYINKA. All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book

• Publisher Home

• About the Journal
• Editorial Team
• Article Processing Fee
• Privacy Statement
• Crossmark Policy
• Copyright Statement
• GDPR Policy
• Open Access Policy
• Publication Ethics Statement
• Author Guidelines
• Announcements

Social Media in Agricultural Extension Services: Farmers and Extension Agents Perspective

• Mithun Kumar Ghosh  

Mithun Kumar Ghosh

Search for the other articles from the author in:

• Shaikh Shamim Hasan  

Shaikh Shamim Hasan

• Ummey Maria  

Ummey Maria

• Safayet Akon  

Safayet Akon

• Hossain Ali  

Hossain Ali

• Moheuddin Moheuddin  

Moheuddin Moheuddin

• Abdullah Al Noman  

Abdullah Al Noman

Abstract Views 1348

Downloads 899

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

The study aimed to assess the present status of social media in agricultural extension services as well as attitude of the farmers with their problems towards social media. The study was conducted in five unions of Chapainawabganj Sadar Upazila, Chapainawabganj district. A total of 90 respondents (60 farmers and 30 extension officers) were randomly selected from the study area. The majority of farmers (75%) had a moderately positive view toward social media. According to the findings, all of the farmers were men, and 46.7% of them were in their middle years. The majority of the farmers (53.3%) were illiterate, the majority (38.3%) were small-group farmers based on land ownership, and only a small percentage (11.7%) used social media. The most popular social media platforms among them were Facebook and YouTube. Other respondents used social media at a rate of 93.3% for extension officers. About 46.7 percent of extension staff utilized both Facebook and YouTube to communicate with farmers, while 33.3% chose Facebook over other social media. They mainly used social media for agricultural information, amusement, personal reasons, and information sharing, but they did not find the use of social media solely for agricultural purposes to improve extended services agreeable. According to the extension officers, social media can assist farmers in receiving critical information and so bridge the gap between them and farmers. Farmers' lack of usage of social media is due to major issues such as lack of awareness, illiteracy, and lack of training, according to the study. As a result, it is proposed that researchers, extension officials, and the government take appropriate initiatives to encourage farmers to use social media.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

• Md. Kamruzzaman Suza, Shaikh Shamim Hasan, Mithun Kumar Ghosh, Md. Enamul Haque, Mursaleen Zebin Turin, Financial Security of Farmers through Homestead Vegetable Production in Barishal District, Bangladesh , European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences: Vol. 1 No. 4 (2021)

Farmers turn to social media to boost agriculture and business growth

Farmers are turning to social media to tell their stories, inform the public, and expand their companies in a fast-changing environment where technology has become even more important. From Facebook to TikTok, these sites have evolved into indispensable tools for those in agriculture to interact with industry leaders, other farmers, and consumers.

Tyler Tobald of Glasco, Kansas, is one farmer embracing this trend. Tobald has used social media along with his wife, Ashley, and son, Cooper, to help others grasp the reality of farming and reach a larger audience.

“I chose to start using social media to become more of a helping hand to others rather than a preacher,” Tobald said. “I wanted to show folks that I can be someone who helps rather than lectures and potentially grow my family’s income.”

Bridging the divide between table and farm

Consumers and the sources of their food are separating more and more. A recent study by the American Farm Bureau Federation found that 58% of Americans say they know nothing at all about ranching or farming. Social media provides a window into the daily life of farmers and the difficulties they encounter, providing a bridge to close that distance.

“The general public is so removed from agriculture,” Tobald said. “Many folks have absolutely no understanding of what is happening. One day I live-streamed us working cattle and had folks honestly believing we were killing the animals. Using social media helps us to expose our field, which will help agriculture going forward.”

Developing knowledge and community sharing

Platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and YouTube allow farmers to highlight farming methods, exchange ideas and techniques and interact with distant audiences.

Social media not only allows farmers to inform the public but also helps those working in the field to feel part of a community, Tobald said. Through several internet networks, farmers can encourage one another, trade ideas, and share experiences.

According to a Farm Journal Media 2023 poll, 45% of farmers who use social media feel it has helped their companies. Farmers are discovering fresh approaches to network and work through Facebook groups or Twitter chats.

“Social media has let me find new products, and people, and gives me opportunities I never thought I would have,” Tobald said. “It’s about developing relationships and finding a network that supports each other.”

Economic advantages and company expansion

Using social media in agriculture has financial advantages as well. According to a recent U.S. Department of Agriculture analysis, farmers who use social media to promote their goods saw a 15% average gain in sales. Farmers can directly access consumers by using these sites, therefore eliminating middlemen and improving their profit margins.

For Tobald, social media now forms a crucial component of his commercial plan.

“My ultimate goal is to make a steady enough income to be able and bring my wife home to stay rather than have her work,” he said. “Social media is offering fresh chances we hadn’t thought of before and is guiding us toward that goal.”

Overcoming obstacles and false information

Although social media has many advantages, it also creates problems, including the rapid spread of false information. From misunderstandings about genetically modified organism to worries about animal welfare, farmers frequently find themselves fighting preconceptions and false ideas about agriculture.

He experienced this personally while live streaming. Through providing clear information and the reasoning behind his farming methods, Tobald seeks to clear misconceptions. More farmers are joining the endeavor to offer correct information and promote understanding as his strategy is catching on.

“We can change impressions and establish confidence with consumers by being open and honest,” Tobald said. “Although it’s not always easy, it’s vital for the direction of agriculture.”

Social media’s future and agriculture

The panorama of agriculture is changing more farmers use social media. By supporting creation, cooperation, and education, platforms like TikTok and Instagram are not only instruments for marketing but also are helping to shape farming going forward.

By 2030, almost 90% of farmers will interact with consumers and industry colleagues using some kind of social media, according to a 2024 National Corn Growers Association projection. Increased transparency, more sustainable methods, and better farmer profitability are projected results from this movement.

Social media can be an instrument for negotiating the difficulties of contemporary agriculture and creating a more sustainable and rich future.

Sign up for HPJ Insights

Our weekly newsletter delivers the latest news straight to your inbox including breaking news, our exclusive columns and much more.

Using social media in agriculture is a transforming movement changing the sector, not only a trend, advocates say. Tobald is using social media to not only expand his brand but also to encourage a better awareness and build respect for what farmers are doing to feed the world.

Madelyn Murphy can be reached at [email protected] .

PHOTO: Hand of young business using smartphone, Social media concept (iStock – Thx4Stock)

Related Articles

Moran introduces Col. LaGrange AgVets Act

RAFI to accept 2024 RAFI grant applications

USDA Rural Development invests $500,000 to help rural business owners with energy grants

Farm income reports adds to urgency for Congress

Jump to navigation

Search form

Social Media for Agriculture

• Introduction

• Case Study - Slide Show

• Contact Details

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

The importance of measures undertaken to improve the quality of life in the problem areas: a case study in warmia and mazury region in poland.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. study area, 2.2. methods and data.

• Construction, repairs and conversion of residential and commercial buildings, technical infrastructure facilities and other real property transferred without prior restoration to a proper technical condition;
• Construction, repairs or conversion of energy, water supply and sewerage, heating and telecommunication devices, facilities or systems transferred prior to their restoration to a proper technical condition;
• Educational, cultural and tourist projects carried out in rural areas.

3.1. The Role of State Institutions in the Development of Problem Areas

3.2. non-repayable financial support provided by the nsca branch olsztyn, 3.3. survey research, 4. discussion, 5. conclusions, supplementary materials, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Murawska, A. Zmiany w poziomie i jakości życia ludności na obszarach wiejskich w Polsce. J. Agribus. Rural. Dev. 2012 , 3 , 169–180. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kud, K.; Woźniak, M. Percepcja środowiskowych czynników jakości życia na obszarach wiejskich w województwie podkarpackim. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2013 , 18 , 63–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stanaszek, O. Badanie jakości życia w Polsce. Pr. Nauk. Uniw. Ekon. Wrocławiu 2015 , 392 , 99–108. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Diener, E.; Suh, E.M.; Lucas, R.E.; Smith, H.L. Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychol. Bull. 1999 , 125 , 276–302. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Available online: https://nursesoncall.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/quality-of-life.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2024).
• Felce, D.; Perry, J. Quality of life: Its definition and measurement. Res. Dev. Disabil. 1995 , 16 , 51–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Campbell, A.; Converse, P.E.; Rogers, W.L. The Quality of American Life: Perceptions, Evaluations and Satisfaction ; Russell-Sage: Troy, NY, USA, 1976. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farquhar, M. Definitions of quality of life: A taxonomy. J. Adv. Nurs. 1995 , 22 , 502–508. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Fallowfield, L. What is quality of life. Health Econ. 2009 , 1 , 1–8. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cai, T.; Verze, P.; Bjerklund Johansen, T.E. The quality of life definition: Where are we going? Uro 2021 , 1 , 14–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Babuchowska, K.; Marks-Bielska, R. Znaczenie działań podejmowanych przez Agencję Nieruchomości Rolnych dla poprawy jakości życia mieszkańców gmin na przykładzie województwa warmińsko-mazurskiego. In Przekształcenia Własnościowe w Rolnictwie—25 Lat Historii i Doświadczeń ; Niedzielski, E., Kisiel, R., Eds.; Wydawnictwo Towarzystwo Naukowe Współczesnego Zarządzania: Kraków, Poland, 2017; pp. 75–93. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mickiewicz, A.; Wawrzyniak, B.M. Znaczenie infrastruktury technicznej dla kształtowania obszarów wiejskich. Pr. Nauk. Uniw. Ekon. Wrocławiu Polityka Ekon. 2011 , 166 , 470–482. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gawroński, H. (Ed.) Zarządzanie Strategiczne w Samorządach Lokalnych ; Wolters Kluwer: Kraków, Poland, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewandowski, M. Public managers’ perception of performance information: The evidence from polish local governments. Public Manag. Rev. 2019 , 21 , 988–1010. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mayer, H.; Knox, P. Slow cities: Sustainable places in a fast world. J. Urban Aff. 2006 , 28 , 321–334. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Glaeser, E.L.; Ponzetto, G.A.M.; Zou, Y. Urban networks: Connecting markets, people, and ideas. Natl. Bureau Econ. Res. Work. Pap. 2015 , 95 , 17–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Melcher, K.; Stiefel, B.; Faurest, K. (Eds.) Community-Built: Art, Construction, Preservation, and Place ; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Milczarek-Andrzejewska, D.; Zawalińska, K.; Czarnecki, A. Land-use conflicts and the Common Agricultural Policy: Evidence from Poland. Land Use Policy 2016 , 73 , 423–433. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marks-Bielska, R.; Kurowska, K. Institutional efficiency of communes in Poland in respect of space management. In Proceedings of the International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference: SGEM, Albena, Bulgaria, 29 June–5 July 2017; Volume 17, pp. 521–528. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stanny, M. Przestrzenne Zróżnicowanie Rozwoju Obszarów Wiejskich w Polsce ; IRWiR, PAN: Warszawa, Poland, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Godlewska, M.; Morawska, S. Development of local and regional entrepre-neurship–which institutions matter? Evidence from Poland. Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraz. 2020 , 33 , 1017–1019. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gibas, P.; Heffner, K. Koncentracja zabudowy na obszarach wiejskich. Wieś Rol. 2018 , 2 , 189–207. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Marks-Bielska, R.; Wojarska, M.; Lizińska, W.; Babuchowska, K. Local Economic Development in the Context of the Institutional Efficiency of Local Governments. Eng. Econ. 2020 , 31 , 323–333. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guzal-Dec, D.; Zbucki, Ł.; Kuś, A. Good governance in strategic planning of local development in rural and urban-rural gminas of the eastern peripheral voivodeships of Poland. Bull. Geogr. Socio-Econ. Ser. 2020 , 50 , 101–112. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kukliński, A. Diagnoza Gospodarki Przestrzennej Polski ; Wstępne wyniki badań, PWN: Warszawa, Polnad, 1983. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bański, J.; Degórski, M.; Komornicki, T.; Śleszyński, P. The delimitation of areas of strategic intervention in Poland: A methodological trial and its results. Morav. Geogr. Rep. 2018 , 26 , 84–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Niewiadomski, K. Evolution of criteria for selecting agricultural backward areas. An example of Podlaskie voivodesihip. Zagadnienia Ekon. Rolnej 2006 , 4 , 15–34. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krisztian, R. Possibilities of Local Economic Development (Led) in Lagging Rural Areas. Acta Carolus Robertus 2014 , 4 , 101–107. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Filipiak, K.; Jadczyszyn, J. Kryteria wyboru i ocena obszarów problemowych rolnictwa w Polsce. Stud. Rap. IUNG-PIB 2008 , 12 , 103–111. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jadczyszyn, J. Ocena warunków przyrodniczo-ekonomicznych na obszarach zagrożonych erozją wodną w Polsce. Stud. Rap. IUNG-PIB 2008 , 12 , 155–164. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bański, J. (Ed.) Analiza zróżnicowania i perspektyw rozwoju obszarów wiejskich w Polsce do 2015 roku. In Studia Obszarów Wiejskich, XVI ; Instytut Geografii i Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania PAN: Warszawa, Poland, 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leszczyńska, M. System wspomagania decyzji optymalizujących rozwój marginalnych obszarów wiejskich. Acta Sci. Pol. Geod. Descr. Terrarum 2010 , 9 , 37–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brodzinski, Z. Obszary problemowe w rolnictwie na przykładzie województwa warmińsko-mazurskiego. Fragm. Agron. 2002 , 19 , 201–212. [ Google Scholar ]
• Prus, B. Wybrane przykłady zastosowania informacji przestrzennej na potrzeby identyfikacji obszarów problemowych. Infrastrukt. I Ekol. Teren. Wiej. 2014 , I/1 , 49–60. [ Google Scholar ]
• Łojewski, S.; Skinder, Z. Uwarunkowania ekonomiczno-przestrzenne rozwoju obszarów wiejskich. In Regionalne Uwarunkowania Ekonomicznego Rozwoju Rolnictwa i Obszarów Wiejskich ; Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego: Rzeszów, Poland, 2003; pp. 157–165. [ Google Scholar ]
• Niedzielski, E. Marginalizacja środowiska popegeerowskiego–przejściowe zjawisko czy trwały proces. In Środowisko Popegeerowskie–Diagnoza Sanu ; Niedzielski, E., Kisiel, R., Eds.; Wydawnictwo UWM: Olszyn, Poland, 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kroczak, H. Od wyuczonej bezradności do uaktywnionej zaradności–determinanty aktywizowania i ”przełamywania” syndromu kultury ubóstwa. Studium przypadku popegeerowskiej wsi Kubanki. In Więzi Społeczne, Sieci Społeczne w Perspektywie Procesów Inkluzji i Wykluczenia Społecznego ; Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego: Łódź, Poland, 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bieś-Srokosz, P. Agencje Rządowe Jako Szczególne Podmioty Administracji Publicznej ; seria Monografie Prawnicze; Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck: Warszawa, Poland, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grucza, B.; Kapuściński, A. The use of stakeholder concept in project practice. Res. Enterp. Mod. Econ. Theory Pract. 2018 , 3 , 21–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kryszk, H.; Kurowska, K.; Marks-Bielska, R. Legal and socio-economic conditions underlying the shaping of the agricultural system in Poland. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 13174. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Niewiadomski, A. Status prawny Krajowego Ośrodka Wsparcia Rolnictwa. Stud. Iurid. 2018 , 72 , 279–293. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Annual Reports on the Activities of KOWR. Available online: https://www.gov.pl/web/kowr/sprawozdania (accessed on 15 June 2024).
• Kłodziński, M.; Dzun, W. Aktywizacja Wiejskich Obszarów Problemowych ; Instytut Rozwoju Wsi i Rolnictwa Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Katedra Rozwoju Obszarów Wiejskich i Organizacji Gospodarki Żywnościowej WEiOGŻ Akademii Rolniczej w Szczecinie: Warszawa, Poland, 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cegielska, K.; Noszczyk, T.; Kukulska, A.; Szylar, M.; Hernik, J.; Dixon-Gough, R.; Jombach, S.; Valánszki, I.; Kovács, K.F. Land use and land cover changes in post-socialist countries: Some observations from Hungary and Poland. Land Use Policy 2018 , 78 , 1–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kurowska, K.; Podciborski, T.; Kryszk, H.; Konieczny, D.; Kowalczyk, C.; Kaźmierczak, R.; Kil, J. Znaczenie Bezzwrotnej Pomocy Finansowej Realizowanej Przez KRAJOWY Ośrodek Wsparcia Rolnictwa na Obszarach Wiejskich Województwa Warmińsko-Mazurskiego ; Wydawnictwo Naukowe Tygiel: Lublin, Poland, 2023. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ross, H.L. The local community: A survey approach. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1962 , 27 , 75–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cella, D.F. Quality of life: Concepts and definition. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 1994 , 9 , 186–192. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Fredriksson, A.; Oliveira, G.M.D. Impact evaluation using Difference-in-Differences. RAUSP Manag. J. 2019 , 54 , 519–532. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stuart, E.A.; Huskamp, H.A.; Duckworth, K.; Simmons, J.; Song, Z.; Chernew, M.E.; Barry, C.L. Using propensity scores in difference-in-differences models to estimate the effects of a policy change. Health Serv. Outcomes Res. Methodol. 2014 , 14 , 166–182. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zhou, H.; Taber, C.; Arcona, S.; Li, Y. Difference-in-differences method in comparative effectiveness research: Utility with unbalanced groups. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 2016 , 14 , 419–429. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cantarelli, P.; Belle, N.; Hall, J.L. Information use in public administration and policy decision-making: A research synthesis. Public Adm. Rev. 2023 , 83 , 1667–1686. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Glasser, M.; Holt, N.; Hall, K.; Mueller, B.; Norem, J.; Pickering, J.; Brown, K.; Peters, K. Meeting the needs of rural populations through interdisciplinary partnerships. Fam. Community Health 2003 , 26 , 230–245. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vanleerberghe, P.; De Witte, N.; Claes, C.; Schalock, R.L.; Verté, D. The quality of life of older people aging in place: A literature review. Qual. Life Res. 2017 , 26 , 2899–2907. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Śleszyński, P.; Bański, J.; Degórski, M.; Komornicki, T. Delimitation of problem areas in Poland. Geogr. Pol. 2017 , 90 , 131–138. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Śleszyński, T.; Herbst, M.; Komornicki, T.W.; Wiśniewski, R.; Bański, J.; Biedka, W.; Wojnar, K. Studia Nad Obszarami Problemowymi w Polsce ; Polska Akademia Nauk: Warszawa, Poland, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Kryszk, H.; Kurowska, K.; Marks-Bielska, R. The Importance of Measures Undertaken to Improve the Quality of Life in the Problem Areas: A Case Study in Warmia and Mazury Region in Poland. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 6786. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166786

Kryszk H, Kurowska K, Marks-Bielska R. The Importance of Measures Undertaken to Improve the Quality of Life in the Problem Areas: A Case Study in Warmia and Mazury Region in Poland. Sustainability . 2024; 16(16):6786. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166786

Kryszk, Hubert, Krystyna Kurowska, and Renata Marks-Bielska. 2024. "The Importance of Measures Undertaken to Improve the Quality of Life in the Problem Areas: A Case Study in Warmia and Mazury Region in Poland" Sustainability 16, no. 16: 6786. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166786

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, supplementary material.

ZIP-Document (ZIP, 142 KiB)

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

The Ohio State University

• BuckeyeLink
• Find People
• Search Ohio State

CFAES COVID-19 Resources:    Safe and Healthy Buckeyes   |   COVID-19 Hub   |   CFAES Calendar

College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences

Search form

Ohio commercial pesticide applicator license study guides, breadcrumb menu, about these study materials.

T o qualify for a commercial pesticide applicator license in Ohio, you must: (1) pass the Core exam, (2) pass at least one category exam, (3) submit the application, and (4) pay the license fee. These study guides are designed to help applicants prepare for the exams.

For additional information or help in deciding which pesticide-use category you need for licensure, call the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s Pesticide & Fertilizer Regulation Section at 614-728-6987. For information on optional training courses for new applicators and recertification opportunities, call Ohio State University Extension Pesticide Safety Education Program at 614-292-4070 or visit pested.osu.edu . To register for a seat at a pesticide exam session or to find recertification credit class opportunities, please go to  agri.ohio.gov/divisions/plant-health/pesticides  and click the “Online Tools” tab near the top-center of the page.

Study materials are available through local Ohio State University Extension offices and online at extensionpubs.osu.edu . Ohio residents get the best price when they order and pick up their purchases through local Extension offices. Find your county’s Extension office at extension.osu.edu/lao . Please call ahead for availability.

Available study materials are described below.  Download a printable catalog here.

To request an accessible format of any publication, visit cfaes.osu.edu/accessibility .

Category List

  core manual bundle (required for all licensees).

• Required for all commercial pesticide applicators.
• Designed to teach and encourage all areas of proper pesticide use.
• Describes pest identification and provides instructions on reading the pesticide label.
• Includes information on dry and liquid formulations, application of pesticides, environmental issues and contamination prevention, the harmful effects of pesticides on humans, emergency response, handling, cleanup, and storage instructions.
• Sample test included in the back of each chapter.

Also required (included with purchase)

• Focuses on safety training for trained servicepersons who are non-licensed commercial or private users of pesticides and who work under the direct supervision of a licensed applicator. NOTE:  Spanish language version available upon request. ( Nota: Versión en español disponible a petición.) Email [email protected] .
• Includes general Ohio laws and rules on the use and distribution of pesticides, as well as safety procedures and equipment.

Purchase the Core Manual Bundle . | PDF

  Category 1—Aerial Pest Control

• Published by the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Research Foundation (NASDARF), with support from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Purchase Category 1—Aerial Applicator's Manual . | PDF

  Category 2a—Agronomic Pest Control

• Designed to help commercial agronomic pest control pesticide applicators prepare for the state exam in the Agronomic Pest Control category (Category 2a) and meet the certification requirements listed in the federal guidelines.

Purchase Category 2a—A Study Guide for Commercial Agronomic Pest Control Applicators . | PDF

  Category 2b—Horticultural Pest Control

Purchase Category 2b—Horticulture Pest Control: A Study Guide for Commercial Applicators . | PDF

  Category 2c—Agricultural Weed Control

• Explains the importance of weed control and gives suggestions on herbicide management strategies for corn, soybeans, small grains, and forages.
• Includes special sections on control of problem weeds, managing marestail in no-till soybeans, and herbicide programs for non-GMO soybeans.
• Index to all tables regarding herbicides listed on the back cover for easy navigation and quick referencing.

Purchase Category 2c—2023 Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri Weed Control Guide . | PDF

  Category 2d—Seed Treatment

• Includes information on labeling and inspection fee requirements, coloration of seed or grain definitions, poisonous seed treatment material standards, coloring and dyeing of grain and seed treatment material, and labeling, among other topics.

Purchase Category 2d—Seed Treatment: A Study Guide for Commercial Applicators . | PDF

  Category 2e—Tobacco Sucker Control

Excerpt: Removing the tops of tobacco plants also removes the dominant influence of the terminal shoot over lateral shoots, or "suckers." If left unchecked, suckers can severely reduce tobacco yield and quality. Manual control of suckers, however, is increasingly handled by less expensive and more efficient chemical control.

  Category 2f—Soil Fumigation

Purchase Category 2f—Soil Fumigation Manual . | PDF

  Category 3a—Aquatic Pest Control

Purchase Category 3a—Aquatic Pest Control: A Study Guide for Commercial Applicators . | PDF

  Category 3b—Boat Anti-Foulant

• Prepared by members of the National Paint & Coatings Association.

Purchase  Category 3b—Certification Training for Safe Handling and Use of Antifouling Paint (TBT) . | PDF

  Category 3c—Sewer Root Control

Purchase Category 3c—Sewer Root Control: A Study Guide for Commercial Applicators . | PDF

  Category 4a—Forest Pest Control

Purchase Category 4a—A Study Guide for Commercial Forest Pest Control Applicators . | PDF

  Category 4b—Wood Preservation

Purchase Category 4b—Wood Preservation: A Study Guide for Commercial Applicators . | PDF

  Category 5—Industrial Vegetation Control

• NOTE: This category is permitted to make Category 6c applications.

Ohio's Noxious Weeds Supplemental Guide  

• Category 5 supplemental guide.

Purchase Category 5—Ohio Pesticide Applicator Training: A Study Guide for Commercial Industrial Vegetation Applicators . | PDF

  Category 6a—Ornamental Pest Control

Purchase Category 6a—A Study Guide for Commercial Ornamental Applicators . | PDF

  Category 6b—Interior Plantscape Pest Control

Purchase Category 6b—Interior Plantscape Pest Control: A Study Guide for Commercial Applicators . | PDF

  Category 6c—Ornamental Weed Pest Control

Purchase Category 6c—A Study Guide for Commercial Ornamental Weed Applicators . | PDF

  Category 6d—Greenhouse Pest Control

Purchase Category 6d—Greenhouse Pest Control: A Study Guide for Commercial Applicators . | PDF

  Category 7—Vertebrate Animal Control

• NOTE: Moles and Canada geese included.

COMING SOON!  Sign up to be notified via email when Category 7—Vertebrate Pest Management: A Study Guide for Commercial Applicators becomes available. The 2008 edition is available as a PDF download .

  Category 8—Turf Pest Control

Purchase Category 8—A Study Guide for Commercial Turfgrass Applicators . | PDF

  Category 9—Animal Pest Control

Purchase Category 9—Animal Pest Control: A Study Guide for Commercial Applicators . | PDF

  Category 10a—General Pest Control

• Includes Color Supplement.
• NOTE: Category 10a is permitted to make applications to turf to control pests of the structure, but they must provide customer information, post the lawn, and keep non-structural application records.

Purchase Category 10a—General Pest Control (Includes Color Supplement): A Study Guide for Commercial Applicators . | PDF

  Category 10b—Termite Control

Purchase Category 10b—Termite Control: A Study Guide for Commercial Applicators . | PDF

  Category 10c—Fumigation

Purchase Category 10c—Fumigation: A Study Guide for Commercial Applicators . | PDF

  Category 10d—Vector Control

• NOTE: This does not include uses covered by Category 7.

Purchase Category 10d—Mosquito, House Fly, and Vector Control Study Guide: A Study Guide for Commercial Applicators . | PDF

  Category 11—Specialized Pest Control (USDA employees only)

No study materials currently are available. For additional information, call the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s Pesticide & Fertilizer Regulation Section at 614-728-6987.

  Category 12—Wood-Destroying Insect Diagnostic Inspection (WDI)

• NOTE:  Other requirements with this category—completion of a WDI training program.

Purchase Category 12—Wood-Destroying Insect Diagnostic Inspection: A Study Guide for Commercial Applicators . | PDF

  Fertilizer Certification

• Can be used as a self-study guide for exam preparation or as a reference for in-person training to meet the requirements needed to receive an agricultural fertilizer applicator certificate issued by the Ohio Department of Agriculture.

Purchase Training Manual: Ohio Agricultural Fertilizer Applicator Certification . | PDF

For the love of farming, the biggest job on Earth

Watch our video

Oilseed Shatter Matters

How a little seam makes the difference in preventing food loss, your phone, your car, your onion, why patents on seeds make sense, goodbye food loss, how the right seed helps growers to overcome a tomato virus, basf agricultural solutions – global website.

• Read the full interview here

Customer Areas

• 1 Digital Farming
• 2 Field Crops Seeds & Traits
• 3 Vegetable Seeds
• 4 Crop Protection
• 5 Public Health
• 6 Professional & Specialty Solutions

Investigating the Impact of Social Media Applications on Promoting EFL Learners' Oral Communication Skills: A Case Study of Saudi Universities

• Somia Ali Mohammed Idries Qassim University
• Mohammed AbdAlgane Qassim University
• Asjad Ahmed Saeed Balla Qassim University
• Awwad Othman Abdelaziz Ahmed Taif University

Social media platforms exert a substantial influence on the improvement of learners' spoken communication abilities. The objective of this study is to investigate the effects of incorporating social media platforms on enhancing the development of oral communication abilities among English as Foreign Language (EFL) learners enrolled in the English Department at Qassim University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). This study aims to examine the correlation between the utilization of social media applications and the enhancement of oral communication abilities among EFL learners, to determine the impact of social media on oral communication skills. The present study employed a descriptive-analytical methodology to explore the effects of utilizing social media applications on enhancing students' proficiency in oral communication abilities. To get adequate data for this study, a survey was conducted among a sample of 40 participants. The purpose of the questionnaire is to gather data regarding the learners' perspectives on their attitudes toward utilizing social media as a means of enhancing their oral communication abilities. The questionnaire comprises a total of ten items. The survey instrument employed in this study utilizes a close-ended question format, wherein participants are instructed to select the most suitable response option by marking it. The Likert Scale questionnaire was utilized to gather statistical data. The results of the study indicated that the utilization of social media platforms among EFL learners majoring in English at universities in Saudi Arabia yielded favorable results, leading to improvements in their spoken communication abilities.

Author Biographies

Somia ali mohammed idries, qassim university.

Department of English Language & Literature, College of Languages & Humanities

Mohammed AbdAlgane, Qassim University

Asjad ahmed saeed balla, qassim university, awwad othman abdelaziz ahmed, taif university.

Department of Foreign Languages, College of Arts

Abdalgane, M. (2022). The EFL Learning Process: An Examination of the Potential of Social Media. World J. Engl. Lang, 12, 69-75.

Aforo, A. A. (2014). Impact of social media on academic reading: A study at Kwame. Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana. Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Studies, 2(1), 92-99.

Ahmed, M. A. (2016). Using Facebook to develop grammar discussion and writing skills in English as a foreign language for university students. Sino-US English Teaching, 13(12), 932-952.

Albahiri, M. H., & Alhaj, A. A. M. (2020). Role of visual element in spoken English discourse: implications for YouTube technology in EFL classrooms. The Electronic Library. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-07-2019-0172

Al Harbi, W. N. (2021). The Role of Social Media (YouTube and Snapchat) in Enhancing Saudi EFL Learners' Listening Comprehension Skills. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/tpfxk

Ali, & Bin-Hady, W. (2019). A study of EFL students' attitudes, motivation and anxiety towards WhatsApp as a language learning tool. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Special Issue on CALL, (5).

Allam, M., Elyas, T., Bajnaid, A., & Rajab, H. (2017). Using Twitter as an ELT tool in the Saudi EFL context. International Journal of Linguistics, 9(5), 41-63. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v9i5.11813

Almogheerah, A. (2021). Exploring the effect of using WhatsApp on Saudi female EFL students' idiom-learning. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 11. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3764287

Alshalan, K. (2019). Investigating EFL Saudi students’ vocabulary improvement in micro-blogging on Twitter at Imam University. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 2(2), 290245.

Alshammari, R., Parkes, M., & Adlington, R. (2017). Using WhatsApp in EFL instruction with Saudi Arabian university students. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 8. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol8no4.5

Alsharidi, N. K. (2018). The use of Twitter amongst female Saudi EFL learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7(4), 198-205. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.7n.4p.198

Bensalem, E. (2018). The impact of WhatsApp on EFL students' vocabulary learning. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume, 9. Ahmed, M. A. (2016). Using Facebook to develop grammar discussion and writing skills in English as a foreign language for university students. Sino-US English Teaching, 13(12), 932-952. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v9i5.11813

Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer‐mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.

Bygate, M. (2002). Speaking. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (pp. 14–20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eren, Ö. (2012). Students’ Attitudes towards Using Social Networking in Foreign [3]. Language Classes: A Facebook Example. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 288-294.

Ghoneim, N.M.M. and Abdelsalam, H.E. (2016). Using Voice Thread to develop EFL preservice teachers’ speaking skills. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 4(6), 13–31.

Hosseini, E. Z., Nasri, M., & Afghari, A. (2017). Looking beyond teachers’ classroom behavior: novice and experienced EFL teachers’ practice of pedagogical Knowledge to Improve Learners’ Motivational Strategies. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 4(8), 183-200.

Khan, R. M. I., Radzuan, N. R. M., Farooqi, S. U. H., Shahbaz, M., & Khan, M. S. (2021). Learners' Perceptions on WhatsApp Integration as a Learning Tool to Develop EFL Vocabulary for Speaking Skill. International Journal of Language Education, 5(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v5i2.15787

Lau, R. Y. (2012). An empirical study of online social networking for enhancing counseling and related fields. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJEEEE.2012.V2.158

Manning, J. (2014). Social media, definition, and classes of social media. In book: Encyclopedia of Social Media and Politics (pp. 1158-1162). Sage Publications. Editors: Kerric Harvey.

Mao, J. (2014). Social media for learning: A mixed methods study on high school students' technology affordances and perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 213-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.002

Marleni, Lusi. and Asilestari, Putri. (2018). The effect of using social media: WhatsApp toward the students’ speaking skill. Journal of English Language and Education, 3(2), 1-16.

Namaziandost, E., Abdi Saray, A., & Rahimi Esfahani, F. (2018). The effect of writing practice on improving speaking skill among pre-intermediate EFL learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8(1), 1690-1697.

Namaziandost, Ehsan. and Nasri, Mehdi. (2019). The impact of social media on EFL learners’ speaking skill: A survey study involving EFL teachers and students. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 6(3), 199-215.

Nilayon, N., & Brahmakasikara, L. (2018). Using Social Network Sites for Language Learning and Video Conferencing Technology to Improve English Speaking Skills: A Case Study of Thai Undergraduate Students. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 11(1), 47-63.

Omar, H. (2015). The impact of using YouTube in EFL classroom on enhancing EFL students' content learning. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 12(2), 121-126.

Rahmah, R.E. (2018). Sharing photographs on Instagram boosts students’ self-confidence in speaking English. Pedagogy: Journal of English Language Teaching, 6(2), 148–158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32332/pedagogy.v6i2.1335 .

Schaffer, N. (2013). Maximize your social: A one-stop guide to building a social media strategy for marketing and business success. John Wiley & Sons.

Sevy-Biloon, J. and Chroman, T. (2019). Authentic use of technology to improve EFL communication and motivation through international language exchange video chat. Teaching English with Technology, 19(2), 44-58.

Top, E. (2012). Blogging as a social medium in undergraduate courses: Sense of community best predictor of perceived learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 24-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.02.001 .

Zaitun, Z.; Hadi, M.S. and Indriani, E.D. (2021). Tik Tok as a media to enhancing the speaking skills of EFL students. Jurnal Studi Guru Dan Pembelajaran, 4(1), 89-94.

Copyright © 2015-2024 ACADEMY PUBLICATION — All Rights Reserved

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts

Breaking’s Olympic Debut

A sport’s journey from the streets of new york all the way to the paris games..

Hosted by Sabrina Tavernise

Featuring Jonathan Abrams

Produced by Sydney Harper Luke Vander Ploeg Shannon M. Lin and Will Reid

Edited by Lexie Diao MJ Davis Lin and Ben Calhoun

Original music by Dan Powell Marion Lozano and Diane Wong

Engineered by Alyssa Moxley

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube

More than 50 years after its inception, “breaking” — not “break dancing,” a term coined by the media and disdained by practitioners — will debut as an Olympic sport.

Jonathan Abrams, who writes about the intersection of sports and culture, explains how breaking’s big moment came about.

On today’s episode

Jonathan Abrams , a Times reporter covering national culture news.

Background reading

The Olympic battles in breaking will be a watershed moment for a dance form conceived and cultivated by Black and Hispanic youth in the Bronx during the 1970s.

Breakers are grappling with hip-hop’s Olympic moment. Will their art translate into sport?

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Michael Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson, Nina Lassam and Nick Pitman.

Jonathan Abrams writes about the intersections of sports and culture and the changing cultural scenes in the South. More about Jonathan Abrams

Advertisement