Acting like an algorithm: digital farming platforms and the trajectories they (need not) lock-in

Carolan, Michael

doi:10.1007/s10460-020-10032-w

Cited by 49 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, Syngenta is using the data it collects to optimize its products and gain an advantage over its competitors. Simultaneously, it is creating further lock-in effects for farmers, such as when Syngenta inputs no longer work without the platform and vice-versa, or when platforms provide strong incentives to grow a particular crop to which the technology is best adapted (see also Carolan 2020 ).…”

Section: Digital Technologies Along the Food Commodity Chainmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The John Deere Operation Center, for example, offers a detailed machine location history, semi-standardized communication with operators and detailed ‘performance’ analysis, including live performance tracking of different fields, which allow for the comprehensive surveillance of farm machinery operators as well as a further standardization of their tasks. Furthermore, farm management platforms offer several services that might lead to a deskilling of both farm workers and farmers themselves, such as decision-support systems and agronomic advice (see also Carolan 2020 ), as well as guidance and steering systems that automate many of the processes and decisions that farm machinery operators previously made autonomously. We found several start-ups offering agronomic advice, such as pest diagnosis and phenotyping, targeted at small-scale farmers via low-tech ICT such as mobile phones and simple apps.…”

Section: Digital Technologies Along the Food Commodity Chainmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Digitalization and the third food regime

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article asks how the application of digital technologies is changing the organization of the agri-food system in the context of the third food regime. The academic debate on digitalization and food largely focuses on the input and farm level. Yet, based on the analysis of 280 digital services and products, we show that digital technologies are now being used along the entire food commodity chain. We argue that digital technologies in the third food regime serve on the one hand as a continuation of established information and communication technologies, thus deepening certain features of the existing food regime such as the retail sector’s control over global commodity chains. On the other hand, digital technologies also introduce new forms of control and value extraction based on the use of data and pave the way for large tech companies to take over market shares in the agri-food sector. Finally, we find that multinational agri-food companies are starting to take on the business models of leading digital tech companies, for instance by developing digital platforms throughout the agri-food system. We argue that this shows that the broader economic restructuring of neoliberal capitalism towards digital capitalism is also making its way into the agri-food system.

show abstract

Section: Digital Technologies Along the Food Commodity Chainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Digital Technologies Along the Food Commodity Chainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digitalization and the third food regime

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most of the academic literature revolves around the adoption, uses, and adaptation of digital technologies on the farm (Klerkx et al 2019 ), and as we show below, discussion of these issues is also clear in popular discourse. There have been many studies that approach ag tech adoption and use from perspectives grounded in economics, sociology, and innovation studies (Tey and Brindal 2012 ; Barnes et al 2019 ; Erickson and Lowenberg-DeBoer 2020 ; Mitchell et al 2018 ), though there have been fewer that use STS as a conceptual framework (but see, for instance, Schewe and Stuart 2015 , Higgins et al 2017 , and Carolan 2020 , who all draw on STS concepts). The second and third thematic clusters identified by Klerkx et al ( 2019 ) are the effects of digitalization on farmer identity, farmer skills, and farm work (Lioutas et al 2019 ; Vik et al 2019 ; Rotz et al 2019b ), as well as on agricultural knowledge and innovation systems (Fielke et al 2019 ; Eastwood et al 2019 ).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To develop this point, we analyze popular and trade media framings of PA. These often expect PA to be “innovative” and “revolutionary” and see it as a novel and necessary solution to solve agricultural challenges such as the need for sustainable intensification (Miles 2019 ; Carolan 2020 ; Fairbairn and Guthman 2020 ). 7 Rather than debunk the rhetoric that frames PA as new and emergent, we prioritize asking what does this framing achieve ?…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

New but for whom? Discourses of innovation in precision agriculture

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…leveraging private investments, intellectual property, and/or government subsidies (Baker et al 2017 ). If concerned stakeholders do not proactively engage with these developments, the deployment of digital technologies can potentially “lock-in” institutional arrangements and build path dependencies (Carolan 2020a ).…”

Section: The 4th Industrial Revolution and Cellular Agriculture In Political-economic Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Democratizing ownership and participation in the 4th Industrial Revolution: challenges and opportunities in cellular agriculture

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The emergence of the “4th Industrial Revolution,” i.e. the convergence of artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, advanced materials, and bioengineering technologies, could accelerate socioeconomic insecurities and anxieties or provide beneficial alternatives to the status quo. In the post-Covid-19 era, the entities that are best positioned to capitalize on these innovations are large firms, which use digital platforms and big data to orchestrate vast ecosystems of users and extract market share across industry sectors. Nonetheless, these technologies also have the potential to democratize ownership, broaden political-economic participation, and reduce environmental harms. We articulate the potential sociotechnical pathways in this high-stakes crossroads by analyzing cellular agriculture, an exemplary 4th Industrial Revolution technology that synergizes computer science, biopharma, tissue engineering, and food science to grow cultured meat, dairy, and egg products from cultured cells and/or genetically modified yeast. Our exploration of this space involved multi-sited ethnographic research in both (a) the cellular agriculture community and (b) alternative economic organizations devoted to open source licensing, member-owned cooperatives, social financing, and platform business models. Upon discussing how these latter approaches could potentially facilitate alternative sociotechnical pathways in cellular agriculture, we reflect upon the broader implications of this work with respect to the 4th Industrial Revolution and the enduring need for public policy reform.

show abstract

Acting like an algorithm: digital farming platforms and the trajectories they (need not) lock-in

Cited by 49 publications

References 52 publications

Digitalization and the third food regime

Digitalization and the third food regime

New but for whom? Discourses of innovation in precision agriculture

Democratizing ownership and participation in the 4th Industrial Revolution: challenges and opportunities in cellular agriculture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About