A combination of personal experience and external influences shapes producer decisions.
Technology is in every aspect of our lives these days, including in the swine barn, where it can do everything from monitoring a room’s temperature or how full a feed bin is to counting pigs or evaluating their weight to determine when hogs are ready for market. Most of this technology can be accessed on our phones, and almost all of it provides information, including alerts, in real-time. On a recent trip to the World Pork Expo, a leading industry event where producers can explore the latest technological solutions, producers had an array of options to consider. Some innovative technology on offer focuses on monitoring and managing the pigs themselves, falling into a category often described as precision livestock farming (PLF), which collects real-time information from pigs to provide continuous information. In some cases, the producer can use the information to make decisions; in other situations, the technology may carry out management actions to address problems or achieve targets related to production or health. How do producers decide what PLF technology to bring to their farm when faced with many choices?
In asking swine producers how they feel about PLF, we learned that what drives their interest in bringing technology to their farms is complicated. Some of it is based on what experiences they’ve had personally. About a third of the swine producers we surveyed had already adopted some PLF technology. Most said they planned to bring more to their farms. A continued willingness to invest in PLF suggests that it is doing something producers find valuable. But even without experience, about half of producers without PLF said they plan to get some. This indicates that external factors, like conversations with PLF-owning producers or others in the swine industry, have some influence on PLF adoption.
Capability predicts ownership of PLF
To understand how producers’ thoughts about PLF were reflected in their current ownership of PLF or their intention to get PLF, we used their knowledge, experience and confidence in using PLF to measure their capability. In this context, capability refers to the producer’s understanding and comfort with using PLF on their farm. We then looked at how this capability predicted ownership of PLF or intention to get some. If producers felt they were knowledgeable, experienced and confident about using PLF on their farm, then they were more likely to own it and were more likely to get PLF in the future.
Conflicting findings between current PLF ownership and perceived benefits to pigs
Producers with PLF on their farms did not feel that PLF improved their pigs’ performance, health and welfare. Before feeling too negative about this, it’s important to remember that electronic sow feeders (ESFs) were the most common type of PLF producers they said they owned. ESFs may have more to do with complying with legislation or standards related to group housing of sows than with producers’ preferences for what PLF technology they wanted to invest in first. Most producers with some PLF on their farms still plan to invest in more, and producers with ESFs plan to invest next in sensors, cameras, cough meters, pig counters, pig flow systems and automated weigh scales.
Producers planning to buy PLF see more positive benefits
Producers who did not yet have PLF on their swine farms were more optimistic about PLF benefits. They believed that technology could significantly enhance their pigs’ performance, health, and welfare, which could fuel their motivation to adopt PLF. These first-time PLF buyers expressed a strong interest in sensor-based PLF, with sound and automated scale technologies topping their list. Other technologies they were keen on included PLF for preventing piglet crushing, temperature monitoring, and camera systems.
Do external influences shape future PLF decisions?
Producers’ interest in bringing technology to their farms is based on something other than their current ownership of or personal experience with PLF. About half of the surveyed producers without PLF technology said they plan to invest in some. This suggests that external influences play a role in convincing them to take the plunge.
The role of the swine vet in PLF adoption
In a separate survey, we asked swine veterinarians about their clients’ use of PLF on their farms to understand what external influences might affect producers’ decisions to adopt PLF. Over half of the vets we asked reported that swine producers they serve use PLF on their farms, and 75% of these vets said they would recommend the use of PLF to their clients. This underscores the significant and influential role of swine veterinarians in the adoption of PLF. Even vets without such experiences recognize PLF’s potential and are willing to suggest it to their clients.
Other external influences?
Other external influences that could have a bearing on a producer’s decision to invest in PLF include learning from the experiences of fellow producers or receiving recommendations (or not) from consultants working for nutrition, equipment or other allied industry companies. Seeing PLF demonstrations at trade shows, extension events or fairs can also increase their comfort with new technologies by letting them see how they work before they commit, fostering a culture of learning and growth in the industry.
A complicated story is behind producers’ decisions to bring PLF to the farm or to decide to invest in more. A producer’s ability to work with technology was the single strongest predictor of whether they already had PLF or planned to get some. About half of producers who still need PLF intend to get some because they felt it was worth the time and labor to install, operate, and maintain due to perceived benefits to their pigs. Producers without personal experience using PLF are getting information from others to help them choose PLF. Swine veterinarians advise producers on various issues, and most reported that they recommend PLF to their clients.
