Empirical analysis reveals enhanced adoption of digital technologies in beef cattle farmers, suggesting strategies for sustainable production.
Purpose This paper aims to explore factors influencing adoption and intensity of adoption of digital technologies that promote more efficient use of resources by beef cattle farmers in Brazil. Design/methodology/approach The empirical analysis was based on primary data obtained from a sample of 185 beef cattle feedlots across all Brazilian regions. Three groups of feedlots were identified using multiple correspondence analysis: (1) non-adopters of digital technologies, (2) adopters of management software and (3) adopters of management software and automation technologies. A multinomial logit model was then applied to test hypotheses on factors influencing adoption and intensity of adoption of digital technologies. Findings The econometric results show that the high scale of production, specialization in livestock, higher farmer education, young age and access to consultants increased the probability of adoption and the intensity in use of digital technologies by beef cattle farmers. These results indicate that barriers of scale, access to information and qualification might be hindering the digital transition in Brazilian beef cattle production. Research limitations/implications The results are relevant for strategies and policies that aim to overcome barriers and accelerate the diffusion of digital technologies in Brazilian livestock. These technologies have been associated with more efficient use of resources, which is crucial to increase the sustainability in Brazilian beef cattle production. Originality/value The article investigates the twin transition in Brazilian beef cattle production using previously unpublished farm-level data and a mixed econometric approach that accounts for digital technologies at varying stages of diffusion, thereby offering a novel contribution to the literature on technological and sustainable agricultural transformation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vinholis et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: