The Implication of Modern Technology in Business Farming: Influence and Challenges

The Implication of Modern Technology in Business Farming: Influence and Challenges

Charelle P. Tecson

Bukidnon State University Kadingilan Campus

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.906000251

Received: 03 June 2025; Accepted: 06 June 2025; Published: 10 July 2025

ABSTRACT

The beginning of modern technology has significantly transformed various sectors worldwide, including agriculture. This transformation, often called the “Third Green Revolution” or “AgTech,” has introduced innovative technologies into farming practices to increase productivity, efficiency, and sustainability. This study investigated the influence of modern technology on farming efficiency, productivity, and sustainability, as well as the challenges faced in adopting it. It was grounded in the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) by Davis (1986) and the Resource- Based View (RBV) by Barney (1991). These frameworks guided the investigation into farmers’ acceptance and use of modern technology in agribusiness. The study employed a quantitative descriptive research design and used a researcher-made questionnaire validated by experts. The respondents of the study were primarily the 100 farmers located in Barangay Tugaya, Guinoyuran, and Dagat-Kidavao in Valencia City, Bukidnon. The findings reveal that the respondents had a balanced sex distribution and a wide range of ages, farming experience, educational attainment, and sources of income. The physical resources available to these farmers, such as modern technological tools, played a crucial role in their farming practices and overall productivity. Modern technology has significantly improved farming practices, enhancing efficiency, increasing productivity, and promoting sustainable practices. There was no significant difference in the level of influence of the technological tools and the level of modern technology challenges, suggesting that factors in farming productivity, efficiency, and sustainability play a significant role in farming. The results recommend to various government agencies continuous research and development support, fund technology adoption programs, and facilitate partnerships between technology providers and farmers.

Keywords: technological tools, farming efficiency, productivity, sustainability

INTRODUCTION

The advent of modern technology has significantly transformed various sectors worldwide, including agriculture. This transformation, often called the “Third Green Revolution” or “AgTech,” has introduced innovative technologies into farming practices to increase productivity, efficiency, and sustainability. These technologies range from precision farming, drones, and intelligent irrigation systems to advanced software for farm management. However, the adoption and influence of these technologies vary significantly, especially among small to medium-scale farmers who constitute a considerable portion of the agricultural sector.

Modern technology has emerged as a pivotal factor in agribusiness’s continued growth and sustainability. Numerous studies have documented the transformative impact of technological innovations. For instance, research has shown that precision agriculture techniques utilizing remote sensing and satellite imagery (Smith et al., 2018) have significantly improved crop yields and resource efficiency. Additionally, intelligent irrigation systems (Brown & Green, 2020) have proven instrumental in conserving water and reducing waste.

Moreover, technology-driven supply chain management systems (Johnson & White, 2017) have expanded market access for farmers, allowing them to connect with a broader consumer base and gain better pricing for their produce. These advancements, alongside others, are bolstering productivity and profitability and enhancing environmental sustainability (Garcia et al., 2019) and resilience to climate change (Roberts & Clark, 2022). The dissemination of knowledge and best practices through digital platforms (Davis & Hall, 2016) further supports agribusiness growth by equipping farmers with the latest insights. Collectively, the evidence suggests that integrating modern technology is indispensable for promoting agribusiness’s growth and long-term sustainability.

This study focused on understanding the implications of modern technology in business farming, its influence, and its challenges. Farmers may need help in adopting these technologies despite their potential benefits due to various factors, such as a lack of knowledge, resources, or support. By exploring these dynamics, the study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the practical implications of modern technology in agribusiness.

This research delved into the types of technologies farmers use, assessed their influence on farming, and identified the challenges they face in adopting these technologies. This study’s findings will contribute to the existing body of knowledge and provide insights for policymakers, agricultural stakeholders, and technology developers to devise strategies that promote technology use in agribusiness and overcome the identified challenges.

Statement of the Problem

This study aimed to explore the impact of modern technology on farming from the perspective of farmers. The research sought to answer the following questions:

What is the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of:

Age

Sex

Years of farming experience

Educational Attainment

Training/Seminars attended

Source of Income

What is the physical resources of the respondents in terms of:

Technological tools used

Crops Available

Area per hectare

What is the level of influence of the technological tools on Business farming in terms of:

Farming Efficiency

Productivity

Sustainability

What is the level of the modern technology challenges in relations to business farming in terms of:

Natural Calamity

Availability of Modern Technological tools

Availability of Financial Support

Marketing strategies

Was there a significant difference in the level of influence of the technological tools and the level of modern technology challenges?

Hypothesis

There was no significant difference in the level of influence of the technological tools and the level of modern technology challenges.

METHODOLOGY

This chapter outlines the methodology used in the study, detailing the research design, locale, respondents, instrument, validity of the instrument, data gathering, scoring procedure, and statistical treatment.

Research Design

The study employed a descriptive-comparative quantitative research design to collect, analyze, and interpret data. This approach was suitable for describing and validating the relationship between the level of influence of the technological tools and the level of modern technology challenges of selected farmers. A structured questionnaire served as the primary tool for data collection to inform decision- making regarding the modern technology in business farming.

Research Locale

The study was conducted in Valencia City, Bukidnon, focusing on selected farmers in Barangay Tugaya, Guinoyuran, and Dagat-Kidavao.

Research Respondents

The respondents included farmers in the specified barangays, with a target sample size of 100. Respondents were chosen using convenience sampling based on a list of farmers from the Department of Agriculture Office of the City of Valencia for the calendar year 2024.

Research Instrument

The study utilized a researchers-made questionnaire, divided into three sections. The first section collected demographic data, including age, sex, years of farming experience, educational attainment, trainings/seminars attended and sources of income. The second section collected data on the physical resources of the respondents including the technological tools used, crops available and the total area in hectares. The third section used a five-point Likert scale to assess the level of influence of the technological tools. The fourth section used a five-point Likert scale to evaluate the level of the modern technology challenges. The instrument was reviewed by experts and conducted pilot-tested for validity and reliability.

Validity of the Instrument

The researchers-made questionnaire underwent a pilot test with 30 farmers in Malaybalay City, Bukidnon. A Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.987 indicated high reliability. The validation process ensured the tool’s credibility in assessing the study’s constructs.

Data Gathering Procedure

Permission to conduct the study was obtained from relevant authorities of the institution. The researcher coordinated with the farmers through the barangay captains in the specified barangays and distributed the survey to selected farmers. Data confidentiality was strictly maintained throughout the process. Once completed, the data were collected, tabulated, and statistically analyzed.

Scoring Procedure

The following scale was used to interpret the level of influence of the technological tools:

The following scale was used to interpret the level of the modern technology challenges:

Statistical Treatment

The following statistical tools were used to analyze the data:

Frequency and Percentage – to describe the demographic profile of respondents regarding age, sex, years of farming experience, educational attainment, trainings/seminars attended and sources of income. Also, to determine the physical resources of the respondents regarding the technological tools used, crops available and the total area in hectares.

Mean and Standard Deviation – to assess the level of influence of the technological tools and the level of the modern technology challenges.

ANOVA – to determine significant differences in the influence of the technological tools and the modern technology challenges.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

What is the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of:

Age

Sex

Years of farming experience

Educational Attainment

Training/Seminars attended

Source of Income

Table 1 shows the demographic distribution of farmers in Valencia City in terms of age, sex, years of farming experience, educational attainment, training/seminars attended and source of income. Most farmers ages 40-47 years old (27 or 27.0%), indicating mostly in the middle-aged adults. Farmers who are male (52 or 52.0%) was also notable contributors to the sample compared to female. Farmers who are in 7-10 years farming experience (46 or 46.0%) indicating established into farming. Mostly of the farmers are elementary graduate (30 or 30.0%) and no training/ seminars attended (51 or 51.0%) were also notable contributors to the sample. While, mostly farmers are business owners and the primary source of income (45 or 45.0%).

Table 1 Demographic Profile of Respondents in Terms of Age, Sex, Years of Farming Experience, Educational Attainment, Training/Seminars Attended and Source of Income

In terms of age, most farmers fall within the 40-49 age group (27 or 27.0%), followed by 30-39 years old (26 or 26.0%). This significant representation of middle-aged individuals suggests a strong presence of experienced individuals in business farming. Farmers in the 18-29 age group (6 or 6.0%) reflecting of younger individuals indicates a potential lack of interest or involvement in business farming among the younger demographic.

For sex, farmers are mostly male (52 or 52.0%) and female (48 or 48.0%). This distribution reflects a relatively balanced representation of both sexes in the respondent group.

For the number of years in experience, majority of the farmers have 7 to 10 years of experience (46 or 46.0%), indicating a strong presence of seasoned farmers. While, some farmers have within the 4-6 years’ experience (18 or 18.0%), suggesting a notable proportion of moderately experienced farmers.

In terms of educational attainment, most farmers are in the elementary level (30 or 30.0%), followed by high school level (25 or 25.0%). This significant representation of farmers needs more formal education beyond the secondary level, posing challenges for adopting modern technology in agriculture. Farmers who are college graduate (5 or 5.0%) reflecting the involvement in business farming among the professional demographic.

Based on the training/ seminar participation, farmers have not attended any training or seminars (51 or 51.0%), followed who have participated in local-level events (47 or 47.0%), while very few farmers have attended regional-level activities (2 or 2.0%). Interestingly, none of the respondents reported attending training or seminars at the national or international levels. The difference in training participation suggests potential limited access to professional development opportunities within the agricultural sector, particularly at higher organizational levels.

In the sources of income of farmers, farmers derive their income from self- employment as business owners (45 or 45.0%), while some farmers rely on retirement benefits or pensions as their primary source of income (10 or 10.0%). This suggests a significant entrepreneurial presence within the sample farmers, with a notable percentage also transitioning into retirement. The difference between these two categories highlights the diversity of income sources and the importance of understanding the respondents’ varying economic activities.

This study is supported by Patlolla and Doodipala (2018), which emphasizes the significance of diversity in organizational studies, highlighted that diverse demographic representation leads to more comprehensive and accurate research findings. A nearly equal representation of males and females ensures that the data reflects a wide range of experiences and opinions. Vasumathi (2022) suggests that younger individuals may be less attracted to traditional farming roles, possibly due to a preference for urban careers or other high-tech industries. Additionally, Sharma (2019) highlights the importance of mentorship programs in integrating new farmers into the sector, emphasizing the need for efforts to promote knowledge transfer and mentorship opportunities for continued growth and sustainability.

Furthermore, Kalaw (2019) stressed the education’s role in empowering farmers to embrace innovative practices, while Laguador (2021) emphasized the importance of continuous learning and skills development in improving farm productivity and resilience. In the study of Dagdagan, C. (2022), which highlights the importance of understanding the distinctions of income diversity and its implications for technology adoption and agricultural development.

What is the physical resources of the respondents in terms of:

Technological tools used

Crops Available

Area per hectare

Table 2 presents the physical resources of farmers in relation to the technological tools used, crops available and the number of areas per hectare.

Table 2 Physical Resources of Respondents in Terms of Technological Tools Used, Crops Available and Area per Hectare

In terms of technological tools used, farmers used the modern sprayer (47 or 47.0%). This significant representation and widespread adoption in contemporary agricultural practices. The automatic seeder as the lowest tool used (1 or 1.0%) reflecting the minimal adoption suggests limited utilization or availability of automatic seeder technology among respondents, signifying potential challenges in its adoption within the agricultural sector.

Based on the crops available, rice is the majority crops available of the farmers (18 or 18.0%), followed by cassava crops (15 or 15.0%), while the sugarcane crop has the very least among farmers (1 or 1.0%). Various combinations of these crops are also present, each with frequencies ranging from 1% to 9%, reflecting agricultural diversity influenced by regional practices, environmental factors, and market demands.

In the land area of farmers, majority possesses 1-2 hectares (49 or 49.0%), signifies of small to medium sized landholdings. While, 7-8 hectares was possessed by few farmers (3 or 3.0%), highlighting a lack of medium to large-scale landholdings.

The result is supported by Avanzado L (2024), which emphasizes the efficacy of modern sprayers in applying pesticides or fertilizers efficiently, leading to reduced wastage and enhanced crop yield. Moreover, the automation facilitated by modern sprayers contributes to labour savings and ensures precise application, improving operational efficiency. This also aligns with Borbon N. (2020), which highlights various barriers to adopting automatic seeders, including higher initial costs, the requirement for technical expertise, and crop-specific limitations.

The result on rice as top crop available among farmers signifies as a staple food crop, prioritized for food security and livelihoods, as highlighted by Manida (2020).

Ganeshan (2021) stresses the importance of crop diversity for agricultural resilience and sustainability, suggesting that the low number of sugarcane crop may indicate challenges or limitations in its production, such as environmental constraints or market demand. Addressing these barriers and promoting crop diversity could enhance agricultural resilience and sustainability in the region. Moreover, Aithal (2023) suggests potential barriers to land access for farmers in the land area of farmers. Addressing these challenges could promote a more diverse and inclusive agricultural landscape, contributing to farm productivity and livelihoods.

What is the level of influence of the technological tools on business farming in terms of:

Farming Efficiency

Productivity

Sustainability

Table 3 presents the results of the assessment of the influence of the technological tools in business farming among farmers, highlighting the average mean and standard deviation for three dimensions: farming efficiency, productivity and sustainability.

The overall influence of the technological tools rating, with an average mean of 47 (SD = 0.98), indicates that farmers technological tools used influenced farmers in the business farming. The above average influenced of technological tools in business farming indicates the continuous access to training, technology and support for farmers to maximize the benefits of these tools.

Table 3 Results on the Level of Influence of the Technological Tools in Business Farming

Legend

4.51–5.00Highly Influenced

3.51–4.50Influenced

2.51–3.50Moderately Influenced

1.51–2.50Partially Influenced

1.00–1.50Not Influenced at all

In terms of farming efficiency, emerged in the total mean score of 4.43 (SD = 0.73), indicating that technological tools have an influential impact on farming efficiency. This underscores the significant role of technological tools in enhancing farming efficiency, as recognized by most respondents. This also implies that the integration of modern technology has improved the accuracy and precision of the farming activities of the farmers.

Based on the productivity dimension, the total mean score of 4.48 (SD = 0.72). This indicates the above average influenced of technological tools in business farming. It signifies that the impact on productivity is the implementation of technological tools, which has led to an increase in the overall productivity of farms. Technological advancements have also positively impacted crop yield or output in business farming.

Sustainability emerged as the highest dimension, with a mean score 4.50 (SD = 0.63). This highlights the positive influence in enhancing the overall sustainability of farming practices and facilitated the implementation of environmentally friendly practice. These tools have streamlined processes, improved accuracy, enhanced productivity, and promoted environmentally friendly practices, contributing to farming operations’ overall efficiency and sustainability.

The findings suggest the accuracy and precision of farming activities as supported in the study of Johnson’s (2019) on autonomous machinery further supports streamlining processes and saving time in various farming operations, contributing to improved farming efficiency. This also aligns with the study of Revathi (2019) emphasizes the transformative impact of modern technology on agricultural practices, providing further support for the utilization of technological tools.

Kim and Park (2020) support the finding of the study by discussing how machine learning algorithms predict crop yield more accurately, optimizing farming practices. Additionally, Ganeshan (2021) underscores the importance of workforce efficiency in farming operations, highlighting potential areas for improvement in integrating technological tools to optimize labour utilization. This is also highlighted in the study of Santos (2019), who indirectly supports the idea of better planning and management by using UAVs for real-time data in precision agriculture.

The study’s finding on the sustainability dimension is supported by Brown (2019), who discusses how sensor technologies in water management promote environmentally friendly farming practices, optimizing water use and minimizing wastage. In the study of Patel and Kumar (2020) explores how controlled environment agriculture technologies contribute to resource efficiency, aligning with the notion that modern technology enhances conservation efforts. Moreover, Rodriguez (2022) emphasized in their focus on the socio-economic sustainability of precision agriculture adoption by small-scale farmers.

What is the level of the modern technology challenges in relations to business farming in terms of:

Natural Calamity

Availability of Modern Technological tools

Availability of Financial Support

Marketing strategies

Table 4 presents the results on the level of the modern technology challenges in business farming among farmers, highlighting the average mean and standard deviation for four dimensions: natural calamity, availability of modern technological tools, availability of financial support and marketing strategies.

The overall modern technology challenges rating, with an average mean of 3.97 (SD = 1.47), indicates a consensus that significant challenges persist in integrating modern technology into business farming. The above average modern technology challenges in business farming interpretation across all categories underscores the need for comprehensive strategies to address various barriers.

Table 4 Results on the Level of Modern Technology Challenges in Business Farming

Legend:

4.51–5.00Highly Challenged

3.51–4.50Challenged

2.51–3.50Moderately Challenged

1.51–2.50Partially Challenged

1.00–1.50Not Challenged at all

Based on the modern technology challenges in terms of natural calamity, a total mean score of 3.99 (SD = 0.83), indicates that natural disasters pose a significant challenge to the adoption and effectiveness of modern technology in farming. It also emphasized that farmers face challenges in utilizing modern technology to predict and prepare for natural calamities. Furthermore, modern technology has faced challenges in protecting crops and livestock during such events and have difficulties in leveraging technology to enhance long-term resilience against natural disasters.

On the availability of modern technology tools as challenges has a mean score of 4.08 (SD = 0.76), reflecting that while these tools are recognized as important, their accessibility remains a significant hurdle. Additionally, the need for more active pursuit and adoption of new knowledge related to technological advancements within farming communities implies challenges in fostering a culture of innovation and learning with the technology tools.

The availability of financial support shows a mean score of 3.32 (SD = 1.08), highlighting those financial constraints are a notable barrier to adopting modern farming technologies. Farmers reported that regarding on the availability of financial support for integrating modern technology in agriculture is the perceived inadequacy of support from government agencies, which emphasize the importance and role of government incentives and subsidies to farmers. This also indicates that while farmers encounter obstacles in accessing financial support, there’s also variability in their experiences. Despite challenges, ongoing collaboration between farmers and technology providers suggests potential avenues for improvement in support systems, underscoring the importance of fostering partnerships to address farmers’ needs effectively.

With a mean score of 4.48 (SD = 0.67), marketing strategies are perceived as the most significant challenge on the modern technology, emphasizing the need for effective marketing campaigns to promote technology adoption among farmers. The farmers strongly agreeing that modern technology helps them better understand customer needs and preferences, suggests that farmers find modern technology highly beneficial in providing valuable insights into customer preferences, enabling them to tailor their marketing strategies more effectively.

Garcia et al. (2020) and Santos et al. (2019) support the findings has only partially reduced negative impact of natural calamities on farms, highlighting the partial success of modern technology in mitigating the effects of natural calamities. This aligns also with the discussions by Brown and Green (2019) on the limitations faced by farmers in adopting technologies like intelligent irrigation systems.

In the study of Hernandez (2019) and Johnson (2018) emphasized the importance of cultural shifts in innovation and learning as farmers are having difficulty on in equipping their farms with the availability of modern technology. This is also supported in the study of Garcia et al. (2020) that suggests that financial constraints and infrastructure limitations hinder technology adoption.

In the availability of financial support, Roberts and Clark (2021), emphasize the essential role of government incentives and subsidies in facilitating technology adoption among farmers. The study highlights those farmers will face struggle to overcome financial barriers and technology integration into without the strong governmental support. Furthermore, Davis and Hall (2017), suggests various level of collaboration partnerships in technology adoption, indicating that ongoing collaboration efforts may contribute to addressing challenges faced by farmers.

On the marketing strategies, the study of Gupta and Patel (2022) emphasize on the role of data analytics in informing market insights and strategic decision- making in agriculture. Understanding customer needs is crucial for farmers to stay competitive and meet market demands efficiently. Moreover, Chen and Wu (2021) emphasize on digital tools’ role in improving farmers’ market access and also supported by Mrema et al. (2018) study on farmers’ barriers to technology adoption, including limited access to resources and technical support. To address these challenges in marketing strtegies requires enhanced support systems, including better access to financial resources, technical assistance, and educational programs to leverage modern technology’s potential in agricultural marketing fully.

Was there a significant difference in the level of influence of the technological tools and the level of modern technology challenges?

Table 5 presents the findings of the investigation on the significant difference in the overall level of influence of the technological tools and the level of modern technology challenges among the respondents. The table shows that the F values and significance levels (p-values) for the influence of the technological tools and the level of modern technology challenges.

These results suggest that none of the challenges in modern technology have a statistically significant effect on the overall level of influence of the technological tools as perceived by the respondents. All p-values exceed the 0.05 threshold, indicating that there is no significant difference in the influence and the challenges of modern technology.

Table 5 The respondents mean significant difference in the overall level of influence and challenges in modern technology

The analysis reveals that respondents’ perceptions on the level of technological tools are not significantly influenced by the level of modern technology challenges. This suggests that the influenced on technological tools used in business farming examined in the study do not play a major role in the modern technology challenges. While factors such as the availability of technological tools used and marketing strategies has low level result, it is still typically considered important for operational effectiveness in farming, the findings imply that they do not directly correlate with what is the influence to the challenges in this case.

The implications of these findings suggest that the level of influence in the farmers studied is not determined by their modern technology challenges in business farming. This supports the hypothesis that other factors, such as political influence and limited technological tools, may have a greater impact on the adaptation of modern technology than the challenges alone. Kuo et al. (2017) found that political affiliation, while marketing aspect, do not always directly influence the challenges in the used technology. Similarly, Heskett et al. (1994) emphasized that farmers decline on the used of technology often have a more significant effect on the challenges in the availability of tools and financial support. These findings highlight that while there are factors challenges the used of modern technology, it does not directly influence on the technological tools used of the farmers in business farming.

Since the p-values for all the demographic factors are above the 0.05 level of significance, the null hypothesis (H01) is accepted, confirming that there is no significant difference in the level of influence of technological tools and the level of modern technology challenges. This reinforces the idea that the farmers in Valencia City provide influenced on the acceptance and use of modern technology in agribusiness based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). This result is aligned with the findings of Wirtz and Lovelock (2018), who defined modern technology as a standard that consistently meets or exceeds farmers expectations, which is reflected in the exceptional influential ratings in the current study.

CONCLUSIONS

The study reveals that the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of sex is balanced, and the significant presence of experienced farmers highlights the potential for growth in this sector. The elementary levels of educational attainment and limited access to training emphasize the need for better academic and professional development opportunities. The prevalent use of modern sprayers and the cultivation of staple crops like rice and cassava indicate a reliance on specific technologies and crops. At the same time, the small to medium landholdings reflect the scale of operations. The positive influence of technological tools on efficiency, productivity, and sustainability underscores their importance. Yet, challenges such as natural calamities, lack of modern tools, insufficient financial support, and marketing difficulties remain significant barriers. The overall level of influence and challenges have no significant difference on modern technology.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To the Local Government Units (LGUs), it is suggested to allocate resources and provide financial support to farmers to adopt modern technology in this modern day. It is also recommended to collaborate with relevant agencies and organizations to develop and implement training programs, provide infrastructure support, and create policies that promote the use of modern technology in agriculture.

To the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), it is recommended to focus on supporting farmers regarding land access and land tenure security. They also suggest to assist in land consolidation, land distribution, and promoting sustainable farming practices among deserving farmers in the community.

To the Department of Agriculture (DA), it is encouraged to provide technical expertise, research and development support, and funding opportunities for farmers to adopt modern farming technology.

To the Farmers, it is encouraged that they provide feedback and suggestions to government agencies for the continued support in relation to modern technology in business farming.

To the Students, it is recommended that they participate in research to assess the influence and challenges of modern technology in business farming and compare the various perspectives to enhance their knowledge.

To Future Researchers, it is suggested that they explore additional factors not covered in this study and propose factors to further progress the modern technology in business farming.

REFERENCES

1. Aithal, P. S. (2023). Promoting Inclusive Agricultural Development: Addressing Land Access Challenges. Farming Sustainability Review,5(1), 45-57.
2. Bakshi, M. P. S., Wadhwa, M., & Makkar, H. P. S. (2018). Feeding strategies during natural calamities. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition, 35(1), 1-21.
3. Bongomin, O. C., Ntayi, J. M., Munene, J. C., & Malinga, C. A. (2021). Mobile money and financial inclusion in Sub-Saharan Africa: the moderating role of social networks. Journal of African Business, 22(1), 37-60.
4. Brown, C., & Green, L. (2019). “Water Conservation and Environmental Benefits of Smart Irrigation Systems in Agribusiness.” Environmental Sustainability Review, 20(3), 315-328.
5. Brown, L. A. (2019). “Sensor Technologies for Sustainable Water Management in Agriculture: A Review.” Sensors, 19(8), 1801.
6. Chen, W., & Wu, J. (2021). “Sustainability of Autonomous Electric Tractors in Agriculture: A Review.” Sustainability, 13(5), 2453.
7. Chen, X. (2021). “Data Analytics in Precision Agriculture: A Review.” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 184, 106026.
8. Davis, E., & Hall, D. (2017). “Application of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) in Agribusiness: Perceptions and Adoption.” Agricultural Innovation Journal, 22(4), 402-417.
9. Feder, G., Just, R. E., & Zilberman, D. (2021). Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 33(2), 255-298.
10. Fernandez, L., Santos, A., & Cruz, R. (2018). “Sustainable Practices in the Philippine Coconut Industry: Challenges and Opportunities.” International Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 14(3), 201-215.
11. Ganeshan. M. (2021). Advancements in Agricultural Sustainability: Challenges and Opportunities. Sustainable Farming Press. DOI: 10.5678/sf.2021.001
12. Garcia, E. S. (2022). “Advanced Breeding Technologies for Crop Improvement: A Review.” Frontiers in Plant Science, 12, 731306.
13. Gupta, A., & Patel, R. (2022). “IoT in Agriculture: Enhancing Equipment Maintenance Efficiency.” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture,191, 106151.
14. Hernandez, L. R. (2019). “The Impact of Agricultural Technology Adoption on the Empowerment of Filipino Farmers.” Philippine Journal of Development, 46(1), 1-20.
15. Johnson, K. S. (2019). “Autonomous Machinery in Agriculture: A Comprehensive Review.” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 162, 123-133.
16. Kalaw, J. F. (2019). Advancements in Agricultural Education: Empowering Farmers for Innovation. Farming Publications. DOI: 10.1234/farm.2019.001
17. Kamilaris, A., Kartakoullis, A., & Prenafeta-Boldύ, F. X. (2020). A review on the practice of big data analysis in agriculture. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 143, 105702.
18. Kim, H., & Park, S. (2020). “Machine Learning Applications in Agriculture: A Review.” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 176, 105583.
19. Laguador, J. (2021). Advancements in Agricultural Training and Seminars: Empowering Farmers for Innovation. Farming Publications. DOI: 10.1234/farm.2021.001
20. Martinez, L. M. (2020). “Smart Irrigation Systems: Enhancing Water Use Efficiency in Agriculture.” Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 146(6), 04020029.
21. Malhotra, P, and Priyanka R. “Influence of Demographic Profile of Employees on the Perception of Employees Retention Strategy.” International journal of economic perspectives 17, no. 1 (2023): 160-172.
22. Patel, N., & Lee, K. (2015). “Cost-Benefit Analysis of Modern Technology Adoption in Agribusiness.” Economic Perspectives on Agriculture,25(2), 125-138.
23. Rodriguez,M. B. (2022).”Socio-Economic Sustainability of Small-Scale Farmers Adopting Precision Agriculture: A Review.” Sustainability, 14(2), 569.
24. Revathi, R. (2019). Small-Scale Farming Practices: Challenges and Opportunities. Agricultural Journal, 10(2), 123-135.
25. Santos, J. M., & Reyes, J. E. (2020). “Sustainable Agriculture through Precision Farming: A Case Study in the Philippines.” Sustainability, 12(15), 6240.
26. Smith, A., & Johnson, B. (2018). “Enhancing Agribusiness Productivity through Precision Agriculture: A Case Study.” Journal of Agricultural Science, 45(2), 187-202.
27. Tham-Agyekum, E. K., Kyei, F., Bakang, J. E. A., Tuffour, H. O., Mensah, W., & Assan, E. (2024). Finding the nexus between associative mechanisms and cocoa Farmer resilience against natural hazards in Ghana. Sustainable Environment, 10(1), 2321686.
28. Uddin, M. T., Dhar, A. R., & Hossain, N. (2018). A socioeconomic study on farming practices and livelihood status of haor farmers in Kishoreganj district: natural calamities perspective. Bangladesh Journal of Extension Education ISSN, 1011, 3916.
29. Zhang, C., & Kovacs, J. M. (2018). The application of small unmanned aerial systems for precision agriculture: a review. Precision Agriculture, 13(6), 693-712.
30. Zilberman, D., Zhao, J., & Heiman, A. (2018). Adoption versus adaptation, with emphasis on climate change. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 10, 173-196.