Note: *other articles only appear once but in separate journals.
The included studies encompassed a diverse range of countries, with notable concentrations in India, Uganda, Benin, and the U.S.A. Overall, research were conducted in 17 different countries. India accounted for 29.63% (n = 16) of the studies, while Uganda represented 16.67% (n = 9). Both Benin and the U.S.A. had five studies (9.25%) conducted in each country. Kenya accounted for 7.40% (n = 4) of the studies, while Mali, Ethiopia, and Bangladesh each had two studies (3.70%) conducted in each of these countries. The other 16.67% (n = 9) of the studies were conducted in Nigeria, Mozambique, Malawi, Bolivia, Ghana, France, Senegal, China, and Burkina Faso, with one study in each country respectively. The prevalence of studies conducted in the predominantly developing countries (excluding USA), is indicative of the high number of farm families in these regions compared to extension services. Technology therefore plays a crucial role in bridging the gap in effectively reaching a large population of farmers in these areas within a short period [ 52 – 54 ].
The research primarily focused on the regions of Africa, Asia, and North America. Out of 54 studies analyzed, 28 studies (51.85%) were conducted in Africa, while 19 studies (35.19%) were carried out in Asia. Additionally, five studies (9.26%) were conducted in North America, only one study (1.85%) was conducted in South America, and one study (1.85%) was conducted in Europe. Notably, no studies specifically targeted Antarctica or Australia/Oceania. These findings highlight the active contributions of Africa, Asia, and North America to research in the field of educational technology in agricultural extension. However, the dearth of research from Australia/Oceania and Europe in our included studies suggests a need for further investigation in these regions. For instance, Australia/Oceania, renowned for its expertise in animal husbandry due to the combination of large land areas, a substantial livestock population but relatively limited investment in infrastructure and human resources [ 55 ], presents a particularly interesting area for future researchers to explore.
The majority of the included studies exhibited a strong focus on agronomy. As shown in Fig 3 , 43 studies (79.63%) were centered around agronomy. Additionally, six studies (11.11%) pertained to animal husbandry, three studies (5.56%) involved a mixed focus, and two studies (3.70%) were related to agricultural economics. The imbalance in the distribution of studies suggests a potential opportunity to explore and utilize educational technology in fields such as animal husbandry, agricultural economics and engineering, and other mixed areas. By expanding the application of technology to these underrepresented domains, a more comprehensive and inclusive approach can be adopted within the agricultural extension.
Research methods.
The analysis of the research methods employed in the included studies indicated a predominant use of the quantitative research method. Thirty-seven studies (68.52%) utilized the quantitative method, while 14 studies (25.93%) employed a mixed-method approach. Only three studies (5.55%) used the qualitative method. These findings align with a scoping review (authors, under review) on educational technology in agricultural education, which also observed a prevalence of quantitative and mixed methods research as the commonly adopted approaches in this field. The rationale behind the prevalent use quantitative research methods may stem from several factors. Firstly, researchers may have already recognized the importance and advantages of educational technology in the agricultural extension field, largely owing to the extensive body of research on the of educational technology in general education. Consequently, their inclination might have been to substantiate their existing hypotheses within the extension field. It is worth noting that quantitative research often leans towards a confirmatory and deductive approach, in contrast to the more exploratory nature often associated qualitative research [ 56 ]. Additionally, another possible reason for favoring quantitative methods could be attributed to the inherent limitations of qualitative methods. Qualitative findings are typically context-specific and may not readily generalize to a broader population [ 56 ].
We recommended that researchers employ more mixed methods research designs, which combine both quantitative and qualitative approaches, because it offers additional advantages in social science research [ 57 ]. For example, mixed methods research allows researchers to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of complex social phenomena by integrating numerical data with in-depth qualitative insights. The predominant use of mixed research methods in social sciences research is driven by the need for empirical evidence, objectivity, generalizability, and the ability to establish causal relationships and test theories [ 57 , 58 ].
The analysis of data collection approaches revealed that mixed approaches were the most utilized among the included studies. Out of the 54 studies, 19 studies (35.19%) used mixed approaches, 13 studies (24.07%) relied on assessments as their primary data collection approach, and 11 studies (20.37%) utilized surveys. Additionally, eight studies (14.81%) used interviews, two studies (3.70%) employed questionnaires, and one study (1.86%) did not specify the data collection method used. This diversity in data collection methods highlights the importance of employing a range of approaches to gather comprehensive and nuanced information within the field of educational technology in agricultural extension.
The analysis of inferential statistics showed that a majority of the studies included employed this statistical approach. Among the 54 included studies, 70.37% ( n = 38) of the studies utilized inferential statistics to analyze their data. On the other hand, 29.63% ( n = 16) of the studies did not use inferential statistics in their data analysis. The prevalent use of inferential statistics reflects the researchers’ intention to make inferences and draw broader conclusions about the relationship between educational technology and agricultural extension based on their data.
The included studies employed a variety of units for reporting sample size, with individuals being the most prevalent sample size unit. Out of the 54 included studies, 41 studies (75.94%) used individuals as the sample size unit. Additionally, six studies (11.11%) used households, four studies (7.40%) employed mixed units, one study (1.85%) used villages, and two studies (3.70%) did not report the sample size unit. The diversity in sample size units may be attributed to the specific characteristics of the agricultural field and the grouping involved, such as considering households or villages as a whole when studying agricultural practices. In future research endeavors, it would be beneficial to adopt a diverse array of sample size units, given the intricacy and distinctiveness of the agricultural extension field. Furthermore, there is room for investigation into the effectiveness of employing various sample size units. It is worth considering that social interaction within the households, villages, or communities within the group might be a significant factor contributing to the learning outcomes, in addition to individual interactions with technology. To gain a deeper understanding of this aspect, both quantitative or qualitative research approaches can be employed to explore the dynamics of human interaction within a shared learning community in the context of agricultural extension.
Among the 41 studies that employed individuals as the sample size unit, we adhered to the commonly used quantitative research guidelines: studies with less than 100 participants were considered small samples, studies between 100–250 participants were classified as medium samples, and studies with over 250 participants were considered large samples [ 59 , 60 ]. The sample size for studies using individuals as the unit ranged from 6 to 58872 participants. Among these studies, 58.54% ( n = 24) of the studies had a medium sample size, 24.39% ( n = 10) of the studies had a small sample size, and 17.07% ( n = 7) of the studies had a large sample size. Our findings suggest that most studies used a medium sample size when using individuals as the sample size unit. However, specific studies focusing on ET in educational settings suggested a prevalence of small sample size studies (60). This divergence could be attributed to contextual variations, particularly since agricultural extension studies typically involve a larger number of participants.
Educational technology.
In our review of 54 studies, we discovered the utilization of various ET in agricultural extension. As shown in Fig 4 , multimedia emerged as the most frequently used ( n = 27, 50.00%), followed by studies that incorporated multiple types ( n = 15, 27.78%). Additionally, mobile apps/smartphones were used in nine studies (16.67%), online/web-based applications in two studies (3.70%), and digital games/simulations in only one study (1.85%).
These findings differ from a similar review conducted on the use of ET in agricultural education by Xu et al. [ 61 ] Among the 83 included studies in their review, they found that the most used ET was online/distance education, followed by simulation/digital games and then, multimedia and traditional technology. This stark contrast may be attributable to the different contexts or settings in which agricultural education and agricultural extension are practiced. Agricultural education primarily takes place within formal educational institutions, involving students, academics, and professionals with higher levels of academic qualifications. On the other hand, agricultural extension often occurs in non-formal settings, predominantly involving farmers who may have varying levels of academic attainment. This is further supported by Mwololo et al.’s [ 62 ] finding that socio-economic factors such as age, education, and gender influenced farmers’ preference for agricultural extension methods, specifically farmers’ field schools (FFS), farmer to farmer (F2F), or mass media. In addition, the role and characteristic of multimedia contributed to the most frequent use as ET for farmers in the extension field. Multimedia plays an important role in agricultural extension serving as the most powerful opinion maker in this information era, and can help transfer agricultural information [ 63 ]. Multimedia is simple, direct, and intuitive in nature thereby making it very comprehensive for farmers who have limited educational level and technology literacy to attain knowledge and skills competency. The majority of our included studies were conducted in Africa and Asia with representative countries like India and Nigeria. In developing countries, farmers’ educational level and current technology literacy remains limited due to the lag of development of the whole country economically, socially and technology and limited funding opportunities/resources for further improvement. Simple and cost-effective ET like multimedia would be preferred compared to complex ones.
Among the various forms of ET used in agricultural extension, video or video-mediated extension emerged as the most prominent. Horner et al. [ 64 ] conducted an experimental study in Ethiopia to assess the effectiveness of video-based extension. They compared traditional agricultural extension methods with the incorporation of videos and found that the latter was more effective in increasing farmers’ knowledge and adoption of complex agricultural technologies such as composting, blended fertilizer, improved seeds, line seeding, and lime. Chowdhury et al. [ 65 ] conducted a study in Bangladesh focusing on enhancing farmers’ capacity for botanical pesticide innovation through video-mediated learning. They observed a significant increase in knowledge about botanical pesticides in both male and female farmers who participated in the video-mediated group. Several other studies [ 38 , 66 – 70 ] have also incorporated video-based multimedia in their agricultural extension programs.
The prevalence of video-mediated extension in agricultural extension programs underscores its effectiveness in delivering information and promoting knowledge acquisition among farmers. By utilizing videos, extension practitioners can visually demonstrate agricultural techniques, showcase best practices, and present success stories, thereby enhancing farmers’ understanding and motivation to adopt agricultural practices. This multimedia approach is particularly beneficial in non-formal settings where farmers may have varying levels of education and diverse learning preferences.
In our analysis of 54 articles exploring the use of educational technology for transmitting agricultural technology/innovation to farmers, we identified multiple themes in the types of agricultural technologies. Most of the articles ( n = 21, 38.89%) discussed a combination of agricultural technologies, indicating a mixed approach. Pest/disease control technology was the next most used agricultural technology ( n = 11, 20.37%). Another 10 articles (18.52%) focused on crop cultivation/harvesting practices, six articles (11.11%) covered product processing technology, and the remaining six articles (11.11%) focused on knowledge/skill/general agricultural education.
The agricultural technology and innovations covered in our included studies varied. Some studies incorporated a combination of technologies like row planting, precise seeding rates, and urea dressing [ 68 ]; tillage and sowing machinery [ 71 ], planting methods, weeding and fertilizer application [ 72 , 73 ]; identifying growth stages and improving yield predictions [ 74 ]; and seed selection, storage and handling [ 67 ].
Several studies also examined technologies and innovations for controlling pests and diseases. For instance, Chowdhry et al. [ 65 ] explored the use of botanical pesticides, Bentley et al. [ 75 ] investigated methods for controlling bacterial wilt (BW) in potatoes, and Dione et al. [ 76 ] focused on biosecurity messages for managing African swine fever. Other studies have been conducted on crop cultivation and harvesting practices. Dechamma et al. [ 77 ] studied the production practices of tomato crops, and Ding et al. [ 78 ] focused on nitrogen management practices in crop production. Additionally, Bello-Bravo et al. [ 79 ] and Sidam et al. [ 80 ] researched technologies related to product processing, such as storing beans in jerry cans and making raisins.
The last category of studies included those that focused on knowledge and skills/general agricultural education such as knowledge and awareness about agricultural credit [ 31 ], climate information [ 81 ], information about cattle handling [ 82 ], and backyard poultry farming [ 83 ].
We classified the duration of the technology intervention, the intensity of the intervention, and the interval between the intervention and the measurement of its effect. Regarding the duration of the technology intervention, nine studies (16.68%) did not provide information on the duration. Eight studies (14.81%) implemented interventions that lasted less than a week, while seven studies (12.96%) had interventions that ranged from one week to 12 weeks (3 months). Eleven studies (20.37%) reported interventions lasting between 13 weeks to 24 weeks (6 months), while eight studies (14.81%) had interventions lasting between 25 weeks to 48 weeks (1 year). Furthermore, eleven studies (20.37%) documented interventions lasting from 48 weeks (1 year) to 192 weeks (4 years).
As for the intensity of the intervention, 64.81% ( n = 35) of the studies did not provide information on the intensity, while 35.19% ( n = 19) did include details on the intensity. Out of the 19 studies that reported the intensity of the intervention, six (31.58%) specified the frequency of the intervention, such as two sessions per week or two messages per week. Thirteen studies (68.42%) provided precise information on the exact time of each session or video of the intervention, which varied from two minutes to as long as two days. These findings indicate that a significant majority of studies should have included more detailed information on the intensity and duration of the intervention. As the intensity and duration are crucial components of an intervention, they play a significant role in interventions’ effectiveness. Future research should place greater emphasis on exploring intensity and duration in greater depth and on detailed reporting of intervention components.
Regarding the interval between the intervention and the measurement of its effect, researchers exhibited a preference for measuring immediate effects, followed by long-term effects, short-term effects, and a mixed approach. Among the reviewed studies, 22 studies (40.74%) measured the immediate effect, 16 studies (29.64%) focused on the long-term effects (more than three months), seven studies (12.96%) assessed the short-term effects (within three months), two studies (3.70%) used a mixed interval between the intervention and the measurement of its effect, and seven studies (12.96%) did not specify the interval between the intervention and the measurement of its effects.
The effect or impact of using technologies in agricultural extension showed diverse outcomes across the 54 studies. Among those studies, 35 articles (64.82%) recorded positive outcomes, while 15 articles (27.78%) documented mixed outcomes, suggesting a combination of positive and potentially less favorable results. Two articles (3.70%) reported non-significant outcomes, indicating that the technologies did not have a statistically significant impact on agricultural extension. Finally, the last two articles (3.70%) did not specify the outcomes achieved.
In one study with mixed outcomes, Bentley et al. [ 75 ] compared three agricultural extension methods (FFS, community workshops, and radio) for their effectiveness in teaching Bolivian farmers about BW of potato. Their findings found that while radio listeners received information about topics like diagnosing BW, crop sanitation practices, use of healthy seed, crop rotation, and incorporation of manure first from the radio, they never took any concrete action that led to the actual adoption of those agricultural technologies when compared to the FFS groups and the workshop attendees. So, while radio increased awareness about the AT, it fell short in the actual adoption.
Another study that reported mixed outcomes was that of Ding et al. [ 78 ] where ICT-based agricultural advisory services were used for nitrogen management in wheat production in China. The study sought to examine the effects of ICT-based extension services on the adoption of sustainable farming practices like nitrogen control in wheat production and found that while there was no reduction in the use of N-fertilizer for wheat production, the ICT-based services prompted farmers to adopt N-fertilizer use towards site-specific management. So, whereas the educational technology fell short of convincing the farmers to reduce their N-fertilizer usage in wheat production, it achieved the unintended goal of making the farmers adopt some site-specific management practices of N-usage.
In addition, we conducted cross-tabulation analyses and employed Chi-square tests to assess the associations between different types of educational technology, agricultural technology, and the resulting effects or impacts of the implemented technology interventions. Among the 54 articles, two articles did not specify the intervention effect.
Based on the findings presented in Table 3 , a significant relationship was observed between the type of educational technology utilized and the resulting effect or impact of the intervention. The statistical analysis revealed a significant result of χ2 (8, n = 52) = 28.67, p < .001, indicating that the type of educational technology employed influenced the outcomes of the interventions. Interestingly, articles that predominantly utilized multimedia and a combination of multiple ET ( n = 30) recorded more positive intervention outcomes. Research studies, such as those conducted by Chowdhury et al. [ 65 ] in Bangladesh, which used video-mediated learning to improve farmers’ understanding of botanical pesticide usage, and by Bello-Bravo et al. [ 79 ], which found an 89% adoption rate when animated agricultural videos was used for the dissemination of postharvest bean storage, clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of multimedia as a reliable tool for promoting the adoption of agricultural technologies. Several studies have examined the effectiveness of mobile apps and smartphones, and four of them reported positive results. One such study was conducted by Dione et al. [ 76 ], where the use of interactive voice response (IVR) was found to significantly enhance the knowledge gains of 408 smallholder pig farmers who received biosecurity messages. While the results of the other four were mixed, one study conducted using digital games/simulation also reported a positive outcome which was the study by Dernat et al. [ 84 ] where a game-based methodology was found to be very effective in facilitating farmers’ collective decision making and continued engagement. Notably, the only article that did not report a positive outcome was a single study that used online/web-based applications. The implications of these findings are that stakeholders in the field of agriculture can collaboratively work together to design a targeted, cost-effective and guaranteed communication channels that could yield greater positive results in the nearest future.
Educational Technology | Effect/Impact of Intervention | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Positive | Non-significant | Mixed | χ | |
Multimedia | 20 | 1 | 6 | 28.67 |
Mixed | 10 | 0 | 5 | |
Mobile Apps/Smartphones | 4 | 0 | 4 | |
Digital games/simulation | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
Online/web-based applications | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Note *** = p < .001.
In contrast to the analysis on educational technology, the cross-tabulation and Chi-square analysis examining the relationship between the type of agricultural technology provided to farmers and the resulting impact of the intervention did not yield a statistically significant result χ2 (8, n = 52) = 7.52 ( p = .482), as shown in Table 4 . Despite the lack of statistical significance, patterns can still be observed between the two variables. Out of the 52 articles, 35 reported a positive outcome, while 15 reported mixed results, regardless of the specific agricultural technology/innovation utilized. These findings suggest that, in the context of agricultural extension, the method of communication or transmission of agricultural information through educational technology may play a more crucial role in determining the overall success of the interventions than the specific agricultural technology employed.
Agricultural Technology | Effect/Impact of Intervention | χ | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Positive | Non-Significant | Mixed | ||
Mixed | 13 | 0 | 8 | 7.52 |
Pest and disease control | 8 | 0 | 3 | |
Crop cultivation/harvesting | 6 | 1 | 1 | |
Product processing | 4 | 0 | 2 | |
Knowledge/skill/general agricultural education | 4 | 1 | 1 |
Note: χ 2 (8, n = 52) = 7.52, p = .482.
The previous research (44) focused on explaining the process of transferring and adoption of agricultural technology while our study focused on the application/usage of the AT. This study found that simple technology like multimedia served as the most frequently used and video/video-mediated extension served as the most prominent, which is consistent with the previous research [ 43 ] stating that technologies that are more complex to comprehend and use have lower rates of adoption. Previous review [ 44 ] focused on how one specific type of ET (ICT) affects AT adoption in developing countries while our study investigated diverse kinds of educational technology. Our findings suggested that the use of multimedia as an ET might be due to the characteristics of limited educational level and economic level of farmers in developing countries. It is consistent with previous review [ 44 ] indicating that farmers have limited access to resources and infrastructure investments remain low in many developing countries. While these reviews concentrated on measuring the impact of ICT-based agriculture extension programs, our study focused on summarizing the effect/impact of using technologies in agricultural extension with most studies reporting positive outcomes.
In conclusion, this scoping review underscores the critical role of TA in agricultural extension, presenting valuable insights into technology’s potential to enhance extension programs and stimulate future research. Maunder’s [ 8 ] definition of agricultural extension guided this scoping review, emphasizing the characteristics of the service and its potential impact on improving and educating farmers. As explained by Rivera et al. [ 7 ], agricultural extension serves as a vital link to increase productivity and efficiency among farmers and researchers, facilitating the sharing of innovations. Technological applications within agricultural extension have the power to transform farming practices [ 12 , 13 , 16 ].
Through our comprehensive coding, we categorized the TA within agricultural extension into two domains: use of technology/innovation as a factor of production and as an ET. While our study included various agricultural fields, such as agricultural economics, agricultural engineering, animal husbandry, and agronomy, it should be noted that some studies lacked detailed information that could have provided valuable insights into the impact of technology applications on farmers through agricultural extension programs.
Furthermore, this research establishes a foundation for future studies, innovation, and informed practices by identifying areas that warrant further exploration and discovery. The significant increase in research activity in technology applications, particularly after 2016, highlights its growing importance. Advancing the application of technology in agricultural extension contributes to improved agricultural outcomes and sustainable development in farming communities worldwide. Future research on technology applications in agricultural extension should address limitations that may be inherent in the research designs, data collection instruments and the units for the measurement of the intervention outcomes. Future studies should also identify technological effectiveness, delve into mechanisms and contextual factors related to positive outcomes, and aim to support farmers and farm households more effectively.
Funding statement.
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
14 Aug 2023
PONE-D-23-20077A scoping review on technology applications in agricultural extensionPLOS ONE
Dear Dr. Xu,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.
Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 28 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at gro.solp@enosolp . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.
Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.
If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .
We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.
Kind regards,
Mojtaba Kordrostami, Ph.D.
Academic Editor
Journal requirements:
When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.
1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf
2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.
3. Please amend your authorship list in your manuscript file to include authors Zhihong Xu, Anjorin Ezekiel Adeyemi, Emily Catalan, Shuai Ma, Ashlyn Kogut and Cristina Guzman.
4. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files.
Additional Editor Comments:
Dear Authors,
I hope this letter finds you well. I would like to extend my gratitude to you for submitting your article to the PLOS ONE journal. Your work has been reviewed by two experts in the field, and I have taken their comments into consideration for the following decision.
Your article presents a compelling exploration of the role of technology in agricultural extension programs. Based on the feedback from the reviewers, the consensus is that your paper is of considerable value to the academic community. The depth of your research, the rigor of your methodology, and the clarity of your writing have been particularly appreciated.
However, both reviewers have pointed out specific areas that could benefit from further clarity, elaboration, or adjustment. These comments are aimed at refining your manuscript to ensure that it provides the most significant value to our readers and the broader academic community.
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 1 was quite impressed with your manuscript and recommends its acceptance in its current form. They particularly commended the depth of your research, the clarity of writing, and the logical flow of your arguments.
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 2 provided a detailed breakdown of suggestions and potential areas of improvement. Their feedback spans across several sections of your manuscript, including:
Abstract: Emphasizing the significance of your focus, justifying database choices, providing more context on regional mentions, clarifying the distinction between research methods, and expanding on the impacts and limitations.
Introduction: Incorporating a historical perspective, giving examples of technological integrations, ensuring accurate references, and refining the presentation of objectives.
Literature Review: Streamlining definitions, elaborating on technological impacts, and refining the presentation to avoid redundancy.
Research Questions: Enhancing the specificity of your questions and ensuring that the breadth is maintained throughout the manuscript.
Research Method: Expanding on the search strategy, clarifying methodological choices, incorporating a PRISMA flow diagram, and reflecting on challenges faced during research.
Results and Discussion: Providing insights on publication platforms, discussing regional research discrepancies, interpreting statistical results, and drawing comparisons with other literature.
In light of the above, I am returning your manuscript with a decision of "Revise". I believe that by addressing the reviewers' comments, your manuscript can be further enhanced, making it an even more valuable contribution to our journal and the field at large.
Please ensure that you address each point raised by the reviewers. Upon resubmission, kindly include a detailed point-by-point response indicating how you have addressed the reviewers' comments or provide a rationale if certain suggestions were not incorporated.
We appreciate the time and effort you have put into your research and manuscript. I hope you find the reviewers' feedback constructive. I am looking forward to receiving your revised manuscript.
Warm regards,
Mojtaba Kordrostami
PLOS ONE Journal
[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer's Responses to Questions
Comments to the Author
1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?
The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: Yes
2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
Reviewer #2: No
3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?
The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.
4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?
PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.
5. Review Comments to the Author
Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)
Reviewer #1: This is a very interesting article. The author has delved deep into the subject matter, presenting well-researched insights and thoughtful arguments. The clarity of writing and logical flow make it an engaging read. The article effectively captures the reader's attention from the beginning till the end. The supporting evidence and references add credibility to the claims made. Overall, it's a valuable contribution to the field. I highly recommend accepting it in the current form. Great work!
Reviewer #2: Dear Editor
Please find my comment below:
General Comments
The abstract presented offers an in-depth scoping review of technology's role in agricultural extension programs. The approach is comprehensive, and the narrative effectively captures the integration of both agricultural and educational technologies. The use of multiple databases for sourcing articles provides a robust foundation for the findings. The structured presentation of findings is also commendable.
However, certain aspects of the abstract would benefit from added clarity or additional information. Specific details and clearer articulation in some areas would enhance the reader's understanding and make the abstract even more impactful.
Specific Comments
1. The abstract briefly touches upon the lack of previous reviews on the impact of technology in agricultural extension. It would be beneficial if the authors briefly indicate why this particular focus is of significance.
2. Justifying the choice of the five databases, or mentioning if these are the most prominent databases in this field, would enhance the credibility of the study.
3. The mention of India and Africa requires more context. It would be useful to know if this observation indicates a trend or if it merely represents the scope of available literature.
4. The distinction between the quantitative research method being the most employed and the mixed methods being the most used data collection approach might be confusing. It would be helpful if the authors could provide a brief explanation or example of this distinction.
5. While the most widely used educational technology is mentioned, the abstract could benefit from highlighting a few of the most common agricultural technologies that appeared in the reviewed studies.
6. The statement that the impacts were "mostly mixed" requires further specificity. Providing a brief example or elaborating on what areas showed positive or negative impacts would be beneficial.
7. It's commendable to acknowledge potential limitations. A brief mention of one or two key limitations would be insightful.
8. The abstract concludes with an emphasis on gaps in the literature. Mentioning one or two primary gaps or areas for future research would provide readers with a clear takeaway.
Introduction
The introduction offers a clear context and rationale for the importance of integrating technology into agricultural extension programs. The progression from the significance of technology in enhancing extension programs to the purpose of the scoping review is logical. The emphasis on the potential benefits for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners provides a broad perspective on the review's relevance.
However, some areas could benefit from further elaboration, and the structure might be enhanced to offer a more concise and direct presentation of the main points.
1. The introduction starts strongly by emphasizing the importance of agricultural extension programs. However, it could benefit from a brief mention of the historical or traditional methods of agricultural extension for context.
2. While the importance of technology in agricultural extension is emphasized, it would be beneficial to provide examples or categories of such technologies. This would offer readers a clearer picture of what technological integrations are being discussed.
3. The references (1) and (2) are placeholders. In the final manuscript, it would be crucial to ensure that these references are accurately representing the claims made.
4. The statement about shedding light on the "current state of research" and mapping the field is clear. However, distinguishing between the broader goals of the review and the specific objectives could provide more clarity.
5. The mention of policymakers, researchers, and practitioners is appropriate. Still, it might be enhanced by briefly discussing the specific challenges or questions each of these groups faces that the review can address.
6. The final part of the introduction discusses the research's aims to lay a foundation for future studies. While this is a strong ending, it might be enhanced by presenting a more concise summary of the intended contributions and outcomes of the review.
Literature Review
General Comment
The literature review offers a comprehensive overview of the integration of technology in agricultural extension programs. The authors have meticulously categorized the research into the historical perspectives of agricultural extension, the role of technology in agriculture, and the intersection of both. The reference to prior studies and the identification of gaps in existing literature lend robustness to the review.
However, some areas could benefit from further clarity, and the structure might be enhanced to offer a more concise presentation of the main points.
1. Agricultural Extension Definitions: The various definitions of agricultural extension provided are comprehensive. However, the transition to the definition that the review aligns with could be smoother. Perhaps a brief rationale for choosing Maunder’s definition would be beneficial.
2. Technological Integration: The distinction between agricultural technology as a component of production and as an educational tool is clear. Yet, more explicit connections between the tools and their practical impacts would enhance understanding. For instance, how do drones or IoT directly influence agricultural extension?
3. Previous Studies and Research Gap: While the section thoroughly identifies gaps in existing research, it could benefit from a more streamlined presentation. The repeated mention of "technology application in agricultural extension" and the emphasis on the review's unique approach can be condensed to avoid redundancy.
4. Citation and Referencing: The placeholders for references are well-placed, providing a strong foundation for the claims made. In the final manuscript, ensuring that these references are comprehensive and up-to-date will be critical.
5. Relevance of Previous Studies: The review does well to distinguish itself from the works of Altalb et al. and Aker. However, a brief mention of why these studies are particularly relevant or how they shaped the current review's approach might provide more context.
6. The literature review concludes with a forward-looking statement about enhancing productivity and bridging divides. This is effective but could be enhanced with a brief mention of the expected outcomes or implications of the scoping review.
Research Questions
The research questions section offers a structured breakdown of the areas that the scoping review aims to address. The categorization into substantive features, methodological features, and characteristics of technology application provides a clear roadmap of the study's approach. The questions themselves are well-formulated and adequately detailed, promising a comprehensive exploration of the topic.
However, certain areas could benefit from further specificity or clarity to ensure that the subsequent sections of the manuscript align seamlessly with these guiding questions.
1. While the query about publication information is clear, it might be helpful to specify what particular publication information is of interest (e.g., publisher, year, journal name). Additionally, the inclusion of "agricultural field" is relevant, but the term might benefit from elaboration or examples for clarity.
2. The question is comprehensive in covering research methods, data collection approaches, and sample size. However, it might be enhanced by adding inquiries about potential research biases, limitations, or challenges identified in the included studies.
3. The distinction between educational technology and agricultural technology is clear and aligns with the literature review. Yet, the question might benefit from an exploration of the integration or interaction of these technologies. For instance, how does the use of educational technology influence the adoption or effectiveness of agricultural technology?
4. The query about the "overall effect of technology on agricultural extension" is broad. It would be beneficial to specify if this effect is being measured in terms of productivity, knowledge transfer, farmer satisfaction, or any other specific metrics.
5. The research questions set a broad scope for the review. Ensuring that this breadth is maintained throughout the manuscript will be crucial, especially in the results and discussion sections.
Research Method
The research method section is comprehensive, providing detailed insights into the procedures followed in the scoping review. The use of multiple databases, clearly defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a structured coding scheme reflects the systematic approach the authors have taken. The use of PRISMA flow and the description of inter-rater reliability further emphasize the rigor with which the study has been conducted.
While the overall methodology appears robust, certain areas could benefit from further clarity or elaboration to ensure the methodological choices are entirely transparent and replicable.
o It is commendable that the authors have provided the date of the search to ensure the recency of the data.
o While the Appendix A contains the full search strategy for CAB Abstracts, the modifications made to fit other databases would be useful for replication. It would be beneficial to briefly describe or provide these modified strategies in an additional appendix.
o The criteria are well-defined and comprehensive. However, the delineation between what qualifies as an educational technology versus agricultural technology might benefit from additional examples or elaboration.
o It would be helpful to know why the authors chose the specific date range of January 1, 2000, to November 1, 2022. While technological advancements since 2000 are mentioned, a brief rationale for this specific range could enhance clarity.
o The coding scheme is extensive and well-structured. However, the categorization of agricultural field/enterprise could benefit from a more exhaustive list or examples, given that only a few are mentioned.
o Under the section on methodological features, while the grouping of research methods is clear, a brief rationale for these groupings (especially what constitutes mixed methods) would be useful.
o The distinction between educational technology and agricultural technology/innovation is clear. However, the list of technologies and their sub-categories might benefit from further examples or references to ensure clarity.
o The PRISMA flow diagram, while mentioned, is not provided within the section. If feasible, it would be helpful to include this diagram directly within the manuscript or provide a clearer direction to its location.
o The inter-rater reliability is commendably high, but a brief discussion on how discrepancies were resolved (other than the first author acting as arbiter) would provide additional transparency.
o It might be helpful to provide a brief overview of the descriptive statistical analyses planned or executed to address the research questions.
o The section could benefit from a brief discussion or reflection on any anticipated or encountered challenges during the research method, especially during data collection or coding.
Results and Discussion
The Results and Discussion section is extensively detailed, covering a wide range of aspects concerning the substantive features, methodological features, and characteristics of educational technology in agricultural extension. The use of figures, tables, and statistical analyses enhances the rigor and depth of the presented findings. The section is well-organized, with clear sub-sections that aid in understanding the progression of results.
However, there are areas that could benefit from further elaboration or explanation to ensure clarity and completeness.
o The graphical representation of publication distribution (Fig 2) and the breakdown of journals, conferences, and policy papers (Table 2) provide a clear overview of the landscape of research in the field. It would be beneficial to include comments or insights on the top journals or platforms publishing in this area.
o The distribution by country and region paints a clear picture of where the research is focused. Some insight into the potential reasons behind the lack of research from certain regions, like Europe or Australia/Oceania, beyond what is provided, might enhance the discussion.
o The breakdown of research methods, data collection approaches, inferential statistics, and sample size units are comprehensive. It would be interesting to see a further discussion on the implications or reasons behind the prevalent use of quantitative methods over qualitative ones.
o The discussion on sample size units and the categorization based on the number of participants adds depth to the results. However, a brief discussion on the implications of these findings for future research would enhance this section.
o The breakdown of different types of educational technologies and agricultural technologies is detailed and clear. It would be helpful to delve deeper into the reasons behind the prevalent use of certain technologies over others.
o The findings on the intervention characteristics of technology are insightful. The relationship between the duration, intensity, and outcomes of interventions could benefit from further exploration.
o The cross-tabulation analyses and the Chi-square tests add depth to the results, providing a clear understanding of the relationships between variables. However, some additional interpretation of these results in the context of the broader research landscape would be useful.
o The section might benefit from a summarization of the main findings and their implications for both researchers and practitioners in the field.
o While the section is quite detailed, it would be beneficial to see more connections or comparisons with other studies or literature in the field, providing a broader context for the presented findings.
6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.
If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.
Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .
Reviewer #1: Yes: Cristiano Matos
[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]
While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at gro.solp@serugif . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
28 Sep 2023
Dear reviewers,
We are delighted to revise our manuscript based on the excellent feedback from the reviewers and you. We believe the suggestions and corresponding revisions have significantly improved our research, findings, and manuscript. We responded to the comments one by one and highlighted what we revised in the manuscript. We also created a comments and response table to explain how we addressed all of the comments. We will be happy to receive any additional comments and make revisions if necessary. Thanks again for the opportunity to revise and resubmit.
Detailed information can be found in our Comments and Response table and the revised manuscript.
Submitted filename: comments and response table.docx
PONE-D-23-20077R1
We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.
Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.
An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ , click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at gro.solp@gnillibrohtua .
If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .
Additional Editor Comments (optional):
The manuscript can be accepted now.
1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.
Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed
2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?
3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?
5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?
6. Review Comments to the Author
Reviewer #2: DEAR EDITOR
THE MANUSCRIPT IS IMPROVED SIGNIFICANTLY AND CAN BE ACCEPTED NOW.
It can be accepted now.
7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.
27 Oct 2023
Dear Dr. Xu:
I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.
If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .
If we can help with anything else, please email us at gro.solp@enosolp .
Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.
PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff
on behalf of
Dr. Mojtaba Kordrostami
Federal study found feeding beef cows kelp lowered their emissions by up to 15 per cent.
Cows are not known to have seafood in their diet, but a team of federal scientists in Nova Scotia started introducing some to seaweed in hopes it could help in the fight against climate change.
The focus? The cattle's burps.
The Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada project involved feeding 16 cows varying amounts of seaweed at a research farm in Nappan, N.S. It found that by replacing only one percent of the cows' regular feed with kelp, researchers discovered that it reduced the methane emissions from cow burps by as much as 15 percent.
"That's a fairly significant result," said John Duynisveld, the lead biologist.
He said when cows consume food, it enters the first stomach, called the rumen, where various microbes break down the food. That process results in methane, a greenhouse gas linked to global warming, which gets released through burps.
Bryanna Richardson, one of the researchers, said to measure the emissions, they put the cows in respiratory chambers connected to a computer system that tracked gases coming from the animals.
First the cows needed to get used to the chambers, which is why researchers left them in the room for a few hours at a time. Eventually they were left there for 24 hours straight so their daily methane emissions could be tracked.
"There's a vacuum pump that's attached to it [the chamber] and it pulls all the air that they're breathing out up into the computer system, which measures methane, carbon dioxide and oxygen," said Richardson.
Kelp contains bio-components such as tannins that Duynisveld said might be changing the composition of cow's burps. Meaning the cows he studied didn't belch less, but their burps were less potent .
Duynisveld said on average, a beef cow emits approximately 100 kilograms of methane annually, so this research aimed to make a small contribution toward addressing climate change.
Methane, which is produced by the agriculture industry, landfills and oil and gas activities, is responsible for about 14 per cent of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions
Shannon Arnold, with the marine program at the Ecology Action Centre in Halifax, said the study is different from others done internationally as it focuses on using locally sourced kelp species that could be farmed with a reduced ecological impact.
Duynisveld's study used kelp that comes from the North Shore of Prince Edward Island and some areas of Nova Scotia, commonly known as shore weed.
Arnold said shore weed can be easily farmed locally with little land-use disruption, and she'd like to see more collaboration between cattle farms and local kelp growers.
She said the cultivation of kelp is relatively simple, as it can be grown in small spaces, with the potential to harvest around 10 kilograms of kelp per meter. Growing it could have the added benefit of being a substitute for some more environmentally burdensome crops and fertilizers, she said.
"There's lots of interest [in kelp] from new farmers and small farmers and folks all around our coastal areas," Arnold said. "This would be a great opportunity."
Giuliana is a journalist originally from Lima, Peru. She arrived in Canada in 2022 to study journalism at St. Thomas University and was selected as one of the Donaldson Scholars in 2024. If you have any story tips, you can reach her at [email protected].
Add some “good” to your morning and evening.
Get the latest top stories from across Nova Scotia in your inbox every weekday.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Google Terms of Service apply.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Agriculture is the cultivation of plants, animals, and some other organisms, such as fungi, for the production of food, fibre, fuel, and medicines used by society. An integrated assessment study ...
1. Introduction. Agriculture has been performed by our species for approximately 10,000 years [], and practices have been altered according to human needs and preferences.The agricultural industrialization of the 20th century dramatically changed agricultural activities and relations between agriculture and our culture; for example, agriculture now focuses largely on the maximization of both ...
The technology level was considered to be complementary to the other assessment levels of research and comprises studies with a strong focus on specific agricultural machinery or other agricultural innovation such as new crops or crop rotations, fertilizer applications, pest control, or tillage practices, irrespective of the agricultural system ...
The " USDA Science and Research Strategy, 2023-2026: Cultivating Scientific Innovation (PDF, 21.4 MB)" presents a near-term vision for transforming U.S. agriculture through science and innovation, and outlines USDA's highest scientific priorities. The S&RS is a call to action for USDA partners, stakeholders, and customers to join the ...
The origins of regenerative agriculture. The adjective 'regenerative' has been associated with the nouns 'agriculture' and 'farming' since the late 1970s (Gabel, 1979), but the terms Regenerative Agriculture and Regenerative Farming came into wider circulation in the early 1980s when they were picked up by the US-based Rodale Institute.. Through its research and publications ...
PLOS' precision agriculture research explores and assesses the very latest agricultural technologies. Whether in controlled environments or directly in the field, our research highlights new methods and technologies for agricultural surveillance and intervention, such as sensors and chemical testing, or high-tech farm machinery and machine learning that measures, analyses, and improves crop ...
We decided to quantify the impacts of future climate on farmer's livelihood to study the complete agricultural system by adopting the comprehensive methodology of climate, crop, and economic modeling (RAPs) approaches and found the agricultural model inter-comparison and improvement project (AgMIP) as the best approach. ... Research progress on ...
Science Breakthroughs to Advance Food and Agricultural Research by 2030 identifies innovative, emerging scientific advances for making the U.S. food and agricultural system more efficient, resilient, and sustainable. This report explores the availability of relatively new scientific developments across all disciplines that could accelerate ...
Precision agriculture employs cutting-edge technologies to increase agricultural productivity while reducing adverse impacts on the environment. Precision agriculture is a farming approach that uses advanced technology and data analysis to maximize crop yields, cut waste, and increase productivity. It is a potential strategy for tackling some of the major issues confronting contemporary ...
Formal agricultural research in developing countries has been strongly influenced by western scientific thought and bears many of the characteristics of the physical and biological scientific tradition. ... The study of a system becomes easier with the use of mathematical models as it can be impractical or impossible to study the real system ...
Abstract. Restructuring farmer-researcher relationships and addressing complexity and uncertainty through joint exploration are at the heart of On-Farm Experimentation (OFE). OFE describes new ...
While the use of the adjective regenerative is expanding among activists, civil society groups and corporations as they call for renewal, transformation and revitalization of the global food system (Duncan et al., 2021), in this paper we explore the calls for Regenerative Agriculture from an agronomic perspective.By this we mean a perspective steeped in the use of plant, soil, ecological and ...
Agriculture is currently facing major challenges related to ensuring the food security of a rising population and climate change with extreme weather patterns. At the same time, agriculture is a cause of environmental degradation, pollution and biodiversity loss. Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) is proposed as an approach that provides a roadmap to sustainable agricultural development. Despite ...
Marketplace Support. International +1.978.646.2600. US Toll Free +1.855.239.3415. E-mail: [email protected]. marketplace.copyright.com. To request permission to distribute a PDF, please contact our Customer Service Department at [email protected]. Stats. Loading stats for Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century ...
Introduction. Global food security has been significantly threatened by the Covid-19 Pandemic along with the prolonged drivers of food insecurity including climate change, shortage of agricultural resources, an energy crisis, an increase in population, and urbanisation (Oh et al., Citation 2021).Land/soil degradation is a particularly serious issue for global food security highly affecting the ...
Advances in agricultural productivity have led to abundant and affordable food and fiber throughout most of the developed world. Public and private agricultural research has been the foundation and basis for much of this growth and development. ERS data, research, and analyses quantify agricultural productivity improvements and the sources of improvement, in the U.S. and globally.
The research focus of these studies is limited to either explaining more generic technical aspects while paying attention to only one or few digital technologies, and/or enhancing agricultural supply chain performance, and/or developing agriculture 4.0 definition, and/or achieving sustainable agronomy through precision agriculture, and/or ...
J.Q. also acknowledges the US Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Research Capacity Fund (FLA-FTL-006277) and McIntire-Stennis (FLA-FTL-006371), and University ...
Agricultural Research is a multi-disciplinary journal covering all disciplines of agricultural sciences to promote global research. The official publication of the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS), India. Focuses on new and emerging fields and concepts in agricultural sciences. Provides a forum for Agricultural Scientists to ...
An example of conceptual use in agricultural research is the study of "agricultural sustainability or unsustainability" in a particular region. If the research results indicate that agriculture is not sustainable in the concerned region area and some modification of farmers' attitudes is required to make agriculture sustainable, then a ...
Agriculture & Food Security currently has two ongoing collections pointing at timely research that should be promoted in agricultural science. The Climate and Food Security collection will shape the debate on the climate-agriculture-food security nexus. The rationale behind the collection it straightforward. Being responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, food systems need to be reformed ...
However, the agriculture study is not only concerned with crop cultivation and planting trees but also with rearing livestock (Harris and Fuller Encycl Global Archaeol 12:104-113, 2014 ...
Research question 1: admissible study designs included randomised control trials and studies that use some formal methods for removing likely biases from non-random assignment of subsidy receipt. Such methods include regression studies using difference-in-differences (or fixed-effects models), instrumental variables regression, regression ...
To better guide farmers managing nitrogen in the soil, a team of Penn State agricultural scientists conducted a new study on dairy manure management strategies for ecosystem services in no-till crop systems. In findings recently published in Agronomy Journal, they report a new strategy that achieves multiple conservation goals while maintaining corn yield: injecting manure into a growing cover ...
Research studies, such as those conducted by Chowdhury et al. in Bangladesh, which used video-mediated learning to improve farmers' understanding of botanical pesticide usage, and by Bello-Bravo et al. , which found an 89% adoption rate when animated agricultural videos was used for the dissemination of postharvest bean storage, clearly ...
A team from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has been experimenting with adding kelp to cattle's diet in order to reduce methane from their burps. ... Federal study found feeding beef cows kelp ...