To read this content please select one of the options below:

Adoption of labor-enhancing technologies by specialty crop producers: The case of the Washington apple industry

R. Karina Gallardo (School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University, Puyallup, Washington, United States.)
Michael P. Brady (School of Economic Sciences, University of Washington, Pullman, Washington, United States.)

Agricultural Finance Review

ISSN: 0002-1466

Article publication date: 2 November 2015

582

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is twofold, first: to define the profile of adopters of labor-enhancing technologies (e.g. platforms) identifying factors – such as operations size, mix of fruits grown, apple operation location, principal operators socio-demographics – and second: to estimate the efficiency threshold for platform adoption during apple harvesting to be financially feasible considering future increases in farm labor wages.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors conducted a mixed-mode survey in January-February 2010. Data were analyzed using a bivariate probit model, considering that the decision to adopt platforms was related with the orchard planting system. The authors conducted simulation scenarios to estimate the efficiencies – harvest – platforms must achieve in order to be economically feasible.

Findings

In total, 11 percent of the 316 apple operations covered by the survey used platforms. Orchard operations most likely to invest in planar structures are relatively large, produce high-value varieties, use organic systems, and have relatively young and educated operators. Similarly, operations producing high-value fruit such as “Honeycrisp” and controlled or patented varieties and relatively large operations are more likely to invest in platforms. The results of the comparison of the cost of harvesting apples using platforms vs ladders under several production assumptions indicate that platforms must increase labor productivity by at least 13 percent in order to be adopted by the industry.

Research limitations/implications

This study caveat is the lack of inclusion of production and marketing uncertainties in the estimation of future apple harvest costs. Further research to deeper analyze these issues is needed.

Practical implications

The authors present information on the profile of mechanization adopters, so extension educators and engineers could concentrate efforts on them to increase adoption levels. In addition the authors provide a threshold of efficiencies for harvest platforms associated with cost savings compared to manual harvest.

Social implications

Enabling the adoption of mechanization technologies by specialty crop industries would decrease the dependence on labor, decreasing labor uncertainties and facilitating the production of high quality produce to satisfy the needs of consumers. Second, it will end an era of importing poverty, given that the specialty crop industry has long benefited from seasonal migrant workers. It will improve rural American communities to shorten pools of farm workers, giving them access to permanent jobs with higher salaries.

Originality/value

The contribution of this study is to improve understanding of the degree of mechanization, financial feasibility of current existing technologies, and barriers to greater mechanization by the Washington apple industry. Given the similar labor challenges faced, in general, by the US specialty crop agriculture, results could be applicable to the entire industry.

Keywords

Acknowledgements

This project has been funded by the Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission – Technology Review and the Washington State University School of Economic Sciences IMPACT Center. Sincere gratitude to Dr Mykel Taylor who led the design and implementation of the survey and Dr Jared Woolstenhulme who conducted preliminary analysis of the survey data.

Citation

Gallardo, R.K. and Brady, M.P. (2015), "Adoption of labor-enhancing technologies by specialty crop producers: The case of the Washington apple industry", Agricultural Finance Review, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 514-532. https://doi.org/10.1108/AFR-05-2015-0022

Publisher

:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2015, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Related articles