We describe how the set of tools, practices, and social relations known as "precision agriculture" is defined, promoted, and debated. To do so, we perform a critical discourse analysis of popular and trade press websites. Promoters of precision agriculture champion how big data analytics, automated equipment, and decision-support software will optimize yields in the face of narrow margins and public concern about farming's environmental impacts. At its core, however, the idea of farmers leveraging digital infrastructure in their operations is not new, as agronomic research in this vein has existed for over 30 years. Contemporary discourse in precision ag tends to favour emerging digital technologies themselves over their embeddedness in longstanding precision management approaches. Following several strands of science and technology studies (STS) research, we explore what rhetorical emphasis on technical innovation achieves, and argue that this discourse of novelty is a reinvention of precision agriculture in the context of the growing "smart" agricultural economy. We overview six tensions that remain unresolved in this promotional rhetoric, concerning the definitions, history, goals, adoption, uses, and impacts of precision agriculture. We then synthesize these in a discussion of the extent to which digital tools are believed to displace farmer decision-making and whether digital agriculture addresses the biophysical heterogeneity of farm landscapes or land itself has become an "experimental technology"-a way to advance the general development of artificial intelligence. This discussion ultimately helps us name a larger dilemma: that the smart agricultural economy is perhaps less about supporting land and its stewards than promising future tech and profits.
The application of technologies such as artificial intelligence, robotics, blockchain, cellular agriculture, and big data analytics to food systems has been described as a digital agricultural revolution with the potential to increase food security and reduce agriculture’s environmental footprint. Yet, the scientific evidence informing how these technologies may impact or enhance ecosystem services has not been comprehensively reviewed. In this scoping review, we examine how digital agricultural technologies may enhance agriculture’s support of ecosystem services. Keyword searches in academic databases resulted in 2337 records, of which 74 records met review criteria and were coded. We identify three clusters of digital agricultural technologies including those that make farm management more precise, increase connectivity, and create novel foods. We then examine modelling and empirical evidence gaps in research linking these technologies to ecosystem services. Finally, we overview barriers to implementing digital agricultural technologies for better ecosystem services management in the Canadian context including economic and political systems; lack of policies on data management, governance, and cybersecurity; and limited training and human resources that prevents producers from fully utilizing these technologies.
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted a series of concatenating problems in the global production and distribution of food. Trade barriers, seasonal labor shortages, food loss and waste, and food safety concerns combine to engender vulnerabilities in food systems. A variety of actors—from academics to policy-makers, community organizers, farmers, and homesteaders—are considering the undertaking of creating more resilient food systems. Conventional approaches include fine-tuning existing value chains, consolidating national food distribution systems and bolstering inventory and storage. This paper highlights three alternative strategies for securing a more resilient food system, namely: (i.) leveraging underutilized, often urban, spaces for food production; (ii.) rethinking food waste as a resource; and (iii.) constructing production-distribution-waste networks, as opposed to chains. Various food systems actors have pursued these strategies for decades. Yet, we argue that the COVID-19 pandemic forces us to urgently consider such novel assemblages of actors, institutions, and technologies as key levers in achieving longer term food system resilience. These strategies are often centered around principles of redistribution and reciprocity, and focus on smaller scales, from individual households to communities. We highlight examples that have emerged in the spring-summer of 2020 of household and community efforts to reconstruct a more resilient food system. We also undertake a policy analysis to sketch how government supports can facilitate the emergence of these efforts and mobilization beyond the immediate confines of the pandemic.
Agriculture e-commerce technologies are transforming how small and medium-scale farmers distribute food, consumers access local food, and market vendors negotiate sales. However, most of the social scientific literature exploring digital agriculture concentrates on big data analytics in the context of commodity farming systems and conventional supply chains. In this paper we review the social scientific literature on agriculture e-commerce technologies and situate this literature within broader debates over digital agriculture and its uneven social and economic dynamics. We find that most social scientific literature does not include agriculture e-commerce in its definition of digital agriculture, instead defining it predominantly in terms of production (e.g., variable-rate technology) or verification (e.g., blockchain) technologies. We contextualize this review with results from a series of focus groups exploring the challenges faced by Ontario's “digital farmgate sector”—the suite of agriculture e-commerce platforms that organize local food sales for hubs, farmers' markets, and small- and medium-scale farmers—related to lack of platform interoperability. We find that local food systems actors are increasingly adopting e-commerce platforms, particularly in the context of the pandemic, and observing substantial business-related benefits to their adoption. Yet, there are common frustrations with digital tools due to market fragmentation and lack of platform interoperability. We recommend the collaborative development of an open standard for e-commerce platforms that allows for the cross-platform sale of local food and farming products.
Chinese development priorities have, since 2012, been formally framed under the slogan “Ecological Civilization” (EC). Simultaneously, urban agriculture (UA) has emerged as a potential strategy to contribute to urban food security in China, in wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this paper, we interrogate EC as an approach to urban and agricultural development in China and explore how EC manifests in practical terms, through a case study of urban agriculture. Over four months, we conducted on-site interviews and surveys with UA practitioners in four Chinese cities to understand how their experiences are negotiated with the state, in the context of EC. We find through our case study that capital-intensive and peri-urban approaches to UA are favoured in the context of EC, while small-scale intra-urban initiatives are actively discouraged in policy but passively accepted in practice and enforcement. This is despite all forms of UA promoting key goals for EC, including beautifying urban areas, increasing the quality of life for urban residents, and reconnecting individuals with food growing culture. Despite novel developments in innovative agricultural practices in both rural and urban contexts, the EC pathway risks overlooking grassroots initiatives and meeting local residents’ needs.
No abstract
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.