Exploring the Adoption of Sustainable agriculture Practices in Kentucky using Negative Binomial Regression

5. 5

6. 6

7. 7
Figure 1: Agriculture Districts of Kentucky. (Source: USDA Website)

8. 8

9. 9

10. 10

11. 11

12. Variables Description
Relation with
DV
Types
Sustainable Agriculture Practices Number of Sustainable Agriculture Practices (SAPs) adopted by farmers DV Count Variable
Crops Row crop farmers. 1 = Yes, 0 = No/Missing. +Ve Binomial
Veggies Vegetable farmers. 1 = Yes, 0 = No/Missing. +Ve Binomial
Livestock Livestock farmers. 1 = Yes, 0 =No/Missing. -Ve Binomial
TBP Participation in Tobacco Buyout Program. 1 = Yes, 0 = No/Missing. +Ve Binomial
Diverse Farmers in favor of diversification. 1 = Yes, 0 = No/Missing. +Ve Binomial
Inadequate Knowledge A barrier for adoption of SAPs. 1= Yes, 0 = No/Missing -Ve Dummy, Binomial
Irrigation Farmer with irrigation facility in Farm. 1 = Yes, 0 = No/Missing. +Ve Binomial
Work Off Farm Farmers working off Farm. 1 = Yes, 0 = No/Missing. +Ve Binomial
Sole Proprietorship Farmers with sole ownership of farm land. 1 = Yes, 0 = No/Others +Ve Dummy, Binomial
Agro-tourism Income Farmers drawing income from agro-tourism. 1 = Yes, 0 = No/Missing +Ve Binomial
Land Operated Total land operated (Acres) +Ve Continuous
Age Age of Farmers (Years) -Ve Continuous
Education Level
Formal education level of farmers. 1= less than high school, 2 = high school degree,
3 = some college education, 4 = college degree, 5 = professional or graduate degree.
+Ve
Used as
Continuous
Gross Annual income from farming. 1 = < $10,000, 2 = $10,000 to $49,999, 3 =

13. 13
Number of
Practices Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Percent
0 (Not Adopted) 150 65.32 65.3
1 to 7 51 22.37 87.7
8 to 14 22 9.39 97.1
15 to 21 5 2.27 99.3
22 to 28 2 0.65 100.0
Total (N) 230 100.0
Figure: Identified Sustainable Agriculture Practices
in Kentucky. Larger the Word, higher the Frequency.
Figure: Frequency distribution of Total Number of Sustainable
Agriculture Practices adopted by individual Farmers.

14. 14
74
71
70
65
51
45
43
41
34
33
0 20 40 60 80
Manure Distribution as Fertilizer
Reduced Chemical Pesticide Use
Controlled Grazing
Reduced Chemical Fertilizer Use
Cover Cropping Or Green Manuring
Crop Rotation
Farm Machinery Adjustment for Erosion Control
Sprayer Calibration and Spraying Accuracy
Improved Water Management
Animal For Land Reclamation
Number of Farmeres
SustainableAgriculturePractices
17
17
16
12
12
9
7
6
5
4
0 5 10 15 20
Crop and Livestock Production System Integration
Multi-species Grazing
Biological Pest Control
Precision Agriculture and Computer Use
Mulching
Poly Culture Farming
Reforestration
Ridge Till
Fallow Management
Alley Cropping
Number Of Farmers
SustainableAgriculturePractices
Figure: Ten Highly adopted Identified Sustainable
Agriculture Practices among Kentucky Farmers
Figure: Ten least adopted Identified Sustainable Agriculture
Practices among Kentucky Farmers.

15. Variables β Std. Error Wald Chi-Square Sig. Exp. (β)
Constant -0.305 0.9138 0.111 0.739 0.737
Crops*** 1.067 0.2388 19.967 0.000*** 2.907
Veggies** 0.555 0.2816 3.892 0.049** 1.743
Livestock 0.363 0.3386 1.147 0.284 1.437
TBP 0.181 0.2152 0.705 0.401 1.198
Diverse*** 0.778 0.2100 13.730 0.000*** 2.178
Inadequate Knowledge -0.254 0.2706 0.882 0.348 0.776
Irrigation** 0.948 0.4261 4.954 0.026** 2.582
Work Off Farm 0.109 0.2632 0.172 0.679 1.115
Sole Proprietorship -0.070 0.2717 0.067 0.796 0.932
Agro-tourism Income* 0.927 0.5187 3.193 0.074* 2.526
Land Operated* 0.001 0.0004 3.620 0.057* 1.001
Age* -0.022 0.0118 3.611 0.057* 0.978
Education Level*** 0.305 0.0822 13.771 0.000*** 1.357
Value/df Deviance 1.891 Pearson Chi-squared 1.891
N = 205. Significance Level: *** = 99% CI/ 0.001 SL; ** = 95% CI or 0.05 SL; and * = 90% CI or 0.10 SL.

16. Variables
Model I Model II Model III Model IV
β Sig. β Sig. β Sig. β Sig.
Constant -0.234 0.798 -0.163 0.857 -0.305 0.739 -0.282 0.760
Crops 1.069 0.000*** 1.097 0.000*** 1.067 0.000*** 1.078 0.000***
Veggies 0.517 0.069* 0.490 0.079* 0.555 0.049** 0.547 0.056*
Livestock 0.320 0.341 0.325 0.333 0.363 0.284 0.365 0.281
TBP 0.180 0.403 0.194 0.365 0.181 0.401 0.185 0.392
Diverse 0.759 0.000*** 0.770 0.000*** 0.778 0.000*** 0.782 0.000***
Inadequate Knowledge -0.240 0.373 -0.233 0.389 -0.254 0.348 -0.252 0.352
Irrigation 0.946 0.025** 0.941 0.026** 0.948 0.026** 0.947 0.026**
Work Off Farm 0.066 0.802 0.040 0.877 0.109 0.679 0.100 0.707
Sole Proprietorship -0.038 0.888 -0.039 0.883 -0.070 0.796 -0.071 0.795
Agro-tourism Income 1.110 0.029** 1.075 0.033** 0.927 0.074* 0.915 0.080*
Land Operated 0.000 0.522 0.000 0.304 0.001 0.057* 0.001 0.087*
Age of Farmer -0.022 0.056* -0.023 0.048** -0.022 0.057* -0.023 0.056*
Education level of farmers 0.291 0.000*** 0.302 0.000*** 0.305 0.000*** 0.309 0.000***
Income From Farming 0.053 0.611 -0.020 0.850
N 215 215 205 205
Log Likelihood -407.466 -407.596 -404.668 -404.650
Model Conditions With income and with outliers Without income and with outliers
Without income and without
outliers
With income and without outliers

17. 35
12
8 8 7 4 3
7
99
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
InadequateKnowledge
PerceivedDifficultyofImplementation
LackofAdequateMarketforAlternative
Product
NegativeAttitudeAboutTechnologies
LackofAppropriateTechnologies
PressuretoIncreaseProductivity
LackofConsumerAcceptancefor
AlternativeProduct
Others
HappyWithWhatIamDoing
NumberofFarmers
Barriers for the Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture Practices
Figure: Adoption Barriers of Sustainable Agriculture Practices in Kentucky

18. 18

20. 20

21. .