Digital agriculture

Digital agriculture refers to tools that digitally collect, store, analyze, and share electronic data and/or information along the
agricultural value chain. Other definitions, such as those from the United Nations Project Breakthrough,[1] Cornell University,[2]
and Purdue University,[3] also emphasize the role of digital technology in the optimization of food systems.

Sometimes known as “smart farming” or “e-agriculture,”[4] digital agriculture includes (but is not limited to) precision
agriculture. Unlike precision agriculture, digital agriculture impacts the entire agri-food value chain — before, during, and after
on-farm production.[5] Therefore, on-farm technologies, like yield mapping, GPS guidance systems, and variable-rate application,
fall under the domain of precision agriculture and digital agriculture. On the other hand, digital technologies involved in e-
commerce platforms, e-extension services, warehouse receipt systems, blockchain-enabled food traceability systems, tractor
rental apps, etc. fall under the umbrella of digital agriculture but not precision agriculture.

Contents
Historical context
Technology
Effects of digital agriculture adoption
Efficiency
On-farm efficiency
Off-farm/market efficiency
Equity
Financial inclusion
Market inclusion
Potential inequities resulting from digital agriculture
Environment
Enabling environment
Digital infrastructure
Agriculture's role in the economy
Human capital
Policy and regulatory environment
Sustainable Development Goals
References

Historical context
Emerging digital technologies have the potential to change farming beyond recognition.[6] The Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations has referred to this change as a revolution: “a ‘digital agricultural revolution’ will be the
newest shift which could help ensure agriculture meets the needs of the global population into the future.”[7] Other sources label
the change as “Agriculture 4.0,” indicating its role as the fourth major agricultural revolution.[8] Precise dates of the newest
agricultural revolution are unclear. Frankelius considers 2015 as the starting point of the Fourth Agricultural Revolution.[9]
Lombardo et al. date the starting point back to 1997, when the first European conference on precision agriculture took place.[10]
The World Economic Forum announced that the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” (which includes agriculture) will unfold
throughout the 21st century, so perhaps 2000 or shortly thereafter marks the beginning of Agriculture 4.0.[11][12]
Agricultural revolutions denote periods of technological transformation and increased farm productivity.[13] Agricultural
revolutions include the First Agricultural Revolution, the Arab Agricultural Revolution, the British/Second Agricultural
Revolution, the Scottish Agricultural Revolution, and the Green Revolution/Third Agricultural Revolution. Despite boosting
agricultural productivity, past agricultural revolutions left many problems unsolved. For example, the Green Revolution had
unintended consequences, like inequality and environmental damage. First, the Green Revolution exacerbated inter-farm and
interregional inequality,[14] typically biased toward large farmers with the capital to invest in new technologies.[15] Second,
critics say its policies promoted heavy input use and dependence on agrochemicals, which led to adverse environmental effects
like soil degradation and chemical runoff.[16][17] Digital agriculture technologies have the potential to address negative side
effects of the Green Revolution.

In some ways, the Digital Agriculture Revolution follows patterns of previous agricultural revolutions. Scholars forecast a further
shift away from labor, a slight shift away from capital, and intensified use of human capital — continuing the trend the British
Agricultural Revolution started.[18][19] Also, many predict that social backlash — possibly around the use of artificial
intelligence or robots — will arise with the fourth revolution.[20][21][22][23] Since controversy accompanies every societal
transformation, the Digital Agricultural Revolution isn't new in that respect.

In other ways, the Digital Agriculture Revolution is distinct from its predecessors. First, digital technologies will affect all parts
of the agricultural value chain, including off-farm segments.[6][24] This differs from the first three agricultural revolutions, which
primarily impacted production techniques and on-farm technologies. Second, a farmer's role will require more data analytics
skills and less physical interaction with livestock/fields.[25][26][24][27] Third, although farming has always relied on empirical
evidence, the volume of data and the methods of analysis will undergo drastic changes in the digital revolution.[19][28] Finally,
increased reliance on big data may increase the power differential between farmers and information service providers,[6][29] or
between farmers and large value chain actors (like supermarkets).[6]

Technology
Digital agriculture encompasses a wide range of technologies, most of which have multiple applications along the agricultural
value chain. These technologies include, but are not limited to:

Cloud computing/big data analysis tools

Artificial intelligence (AI)
Machine learning
Distributed ledger technologies, including blockchain and smart contracts
The Internet of Things, a principle developed by Kevin Ashton that explains how simple mechanical objects can
be combined into a network to broaden understanding of that object.[30]
Digital communications technologies, like mobile phones
Digital platforms, such as e-commerce platforms, agro-advisory apps, or e-extension websites
Precision agriculture technologies, including

Sensors, including food sensors and soil sensors (https://cropwatch.unl.edu/ssm/sensing)

Guidance and tracking systems (often enabled by GPS, GNSS, RFID, IoT)
Variable-rate input technologies
Automatic section control
Advanced imaging[31] technologies, including satellite and drone imagery, to look at temperature gradients,
fertility gradients, moisture gradients, and anomalies in a field
Automated machinery and agricultural robots

Effects of digital agriculture adoption

The FAO estimates the world will need to produce 56% more food (as compared to 2010, under “business as usual” growth) to
feed over 9 billion in 2050.[32][33] Furthermore, the world faces intersecting challenges like malnutrition, climate change, food
waste, and changing diets.[34] To produce a “sustainable food future,” the world must increase food production while cutting
GHG emissions and maintaining (or reducing) the land used in agriculture.[35] Digital agriculture could address these challenges
by making the agricultural value chain more efficient, equitable, and environmentally sustainable.

Efficiency
Digital technology changes economic activity by lowering the costs of replicating, transporting, tracking, verifying, and searching
for data.[36] Due to these falling costs, digital technology will improve efficiency throughout the agricultural value chain.

On-farm efficiency
On-farm, precision agriculture technologies can minimize inputs required for a given yield. For example, variable-rate application
(VRA) technologies can apply precise amounts of water, fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide, etc. A number of empirical studies find
that VRA improves input use efficiency.[37][38][39] Using VRA alongside geo-spatial mapping, farmers can apply inputs to hyper-
localized regions of their farm — sometimes down to the individual plant level. Reducing input use lowers costs and lessens
negative environmental impacts. Furthermore, empirical evidence indicates precision agriculture technologies can increase
yields.[40] On U.S. peanut farms, guidance systems are associated with a 9% increase in yield, and soil maps are associated with a
13% increase in yield.[41][42] One study in Argentina found that a precision agriculture approach based on crop physiological
principles could result in 54% higher farm output.[43]

Digital agriculture can improve the allocative efficiency of physical capital within and between farms. Often touted as “Uber for
tractors,” equipment-sharing platforms like Hello Tractor,[44][45] WeFarmUp,[46][47] MachineryLink Solutions,[48] TroTro
Tractor, and Tringo[49] facilitate farmer rental of expensive machinery. By facilitating a market for equipment sharing, digital
technology ensures fewer tractors sit idle and allows owners to make extra income. Furthermore, farmers without the resources to
make big investments can better access equipment to improve their productivity.

Digital agriculture improves labor productivity through improved farmer knowledge. E-extension (electronic provision of
traditional agricultural extension services) allows for farming knowledge and skills to diffuse at low cost. For example, the
company Digital Green works with local farmers to create and disseminate videos about agricultural best practices in more than
50 languages.[50][51] E-extension services can also improve farm productivity via decision-support services on mobile apps or
other digital platforms. Using many sources of information — weather data, GIS spatial mapping, soil sensor data, satellite/drone
pictures, etc. — e-extension platforms can provide real-time recommendations to farmers. For example, the machine-learning-
enabled mobile app PLANTIX diagnoses crops’ diseases, pests, and nutrient deficiencies based on a smartphone photo.[52] In a
randomized control trial, Casaburi et al. (2014) found that sugarcane growers who received agricultural advice via SMS messages
increased yields by 11.5% relative to the control group.[53]

Finally, digital agriculture improves labor productivity through decreased labor requirements. Automation inherent in precision
agriculture — from “milking robots on dairy farms to greenhouses with automated climate control”[54] — can make crop and
livestock management more efficient by reducing required labor.[55][56]

Off-farm/market efficiency
Besides streamlining farm production, digital agriculture technologies can make agricultural markets more efficient. Mobile
phones, online ICTs, e-commerce platforms, digital payment systems, and other digital agriculture technologies can mitigate
market failures and reduce transaction costs throughout the value chain.

Reducing information asymmetry: Price information affects competitive markets’ efficiency because it impacts
price dispersion, arbitrage, and farmer and consumer welfare. Since the marginal cost of digitally delivering
 information approaches zero, digital agriculture has the potential to spread price information. Aker and
Fafchamps find that the introduction of mobile phone coverage in Niger reduced spatial price dispersion for agri-
food products, especially for remote markets and perishable goods.[57] Similarly, price information provided by
Internet kiosks (“e-choupals”) in India led to an increase in farmers’ net profits as traders lost monopsony
power.[58] Other examples of digital platforms for price information include MFarm[59] and Esoko.[60]
Matching buyers and sellers: E-commerce lowers the search costs of matching buyers and sellers, potentially
shortening the value chain.[52] Rather than go through dozens of intermediaries, farmers can sell directly to
consumers.[61][62] Market access services can also solve the matching problem without necessarily hosting
online transactions. For example, Esoko sends market information (prices for specific commodities, market
locations, etc.) to agents and farmers, connecting them to commodity buyers.[63][60] All of these matching
platforms help smallholders coordinate with buyers and enter both regional and global value chains.[64] Finally,
it's important to note that digital technologies can also facilitate matching in financial and input markets, not just
producer-to-consumer output sales.
Lowering transaction costs in commercial markets: Digital payments — whether integrated in e-commerce
platforms or in mobile money accounts, e-wallets, etc. — reduce transactions costs within agricultural markets.
The need for safe, rapid monetary transactions is particularly apparent in rural areas. Plus, digital payments can
provide a gateway to bank accounts, insurance, and credit.[65] Using distributed ledger technologies or smart
contracts is another way to reduce trust-related transaction costs in commercial markets.[66][64] Many retail and
food companies have partnered with IBM to develop blockchain pilots related to food safety and traceability, and
Alibaba is testing blockchain to reduce fraud in agri-food e-commerce between China and Australia/New
Zealand.[64]
Lowering transaction costs in government services: Digital payments can also streamline government
delivery of agricultural subsidies. In 2011, the Nigerian Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
started delivering fertilizer subsidy vouchers to e-wallets on mobile phones; by 2013, they had reached 4.3 million
smallholders nationwide.[67] Compared to the previous program, the e-vouchers cut costs — from 2011 to 2013,
the cost per smallholder farmer receiving fertilizer went from US$225–300 to US$22. The e-vouchers also
reached more smallholders, increasing from between 600,000-800,000 in 2011 to 4.3 million in 2013.[67] In the
second phase of the program, the Nigerian government developed the Nigerian Agricultural Payment Initiative
(NAPI), which distributed PIN-enabled ID cards that hold subsidy information and provide access to loans and
grants.[68] Other e-wallet/e-voucher systems for agricultural subsidies exist or have been piloted in
Colombia,[69][70] Rwanda,[67] Zambia,[71] Mali, Guinea, and Niger.[72] Besides reducing subsidy costs,
governments can harness digital technology to save time. When Estonia implemented their e-ID and X-Road
system, time spent applying for agricultural subsidies decreased from 300 minutes to 45 minutes per person.[73]
Rarely does one single digital agriculture technology solve one discrete market failure. Rather, systems of digital agriculture
technologies work together to solve multifaceted problems. For example, e-commerce solves two efficiency issues: difficulty
matching buyers and sellers, especially in rural areas, and the high transaction costs associated with in-person, cash-based trade.

Equity
Digital agriculture shows promise for creating a more equitable agri-food value chain. Because digital technologies reduce
transaction costs and information asymmetries, they can improve smallholder farmers’ market access in a number of ways:

Financial inclusion
Digital agriculture technologies can expand farmers’ access to credit, insurance, and bank accounts for a number of reasons. First,
digital technology helps alleviate the information asymmetry that exists between farmers and financial institutions. When lenders
decide a farmer's credit ceiling or insurance premium, they're usually uncertain about what risks the farmer presents. Digital
technology reduces the costs of verifying farmers’ expected riskiness. The Kenyan company M-Shwari uses customers’ phone
and mobile money records to assess creditworthiness.[74] Organizations like FarmDrive and Apollo Agriculture incorporate
satellite imagery, weather forecasts, and remote sensor data when calculating farmers’ loan eligibility.[75][76] Drone imagery can
confirm a farmer's physical assets or land use[77] and RFID technology allows stakeholders to monitor livestock,[78] making it
easier for insurers to understand farmers’ riskiness. In all instances, low-cost digital verification reduces lenders’ uncertainty: the
questions “will this farmer repay the loan?” and “what risks does this farmer face?” become clearer.
Second, digital technology facilitates trust between farmers and financial institutions. A range of tools create trust, including real-
time digital communication platforms and blockchain/distributed ledger technology/smart contracts. In Senegal, a digitalized,
supply-chain-tracking system allows farmers to collateralize their rice to obtain the credit necessary for planting. Lenders accept
rice as collateral because real-time, digital tracking assures them the product wasn't lost or damaged in the post-harvest
process.[79]

Market inclusion
Middlemen often extract exorbitant rents from farmers when purchasing their harvest or livestock. Why? First, smallholders in
remote areas may be unaware of fair market prices. As a result, middlemen (who typically have better information about market
conditions and prices) accrue significant market power and profits.[80] A study conducted in the central highlands of Peru found
that farmers who received market price information via mobile phone SMS increased their sales prices by 13-14% relative to
farmers without access to the information.[81] Second, smallholders produce tiny harvests compared to large producers, so they
lack bargaining power with middlemen. If smallholders can aggregate or form a cooperative to sell their products together, they
have more leverage. Online platforms and mobile phones can facilitate aggregation, such as Digital Green’s Loop app.[82] Third,
connecting producers with final consumers can eliminate intermediaries’ monopsony power, thereby raising producer profits.[58]
As mentioned above in the efficiency section, e-commerce or other market linkage platforms can connect a small farmer directly
to consumers around the world.

Potential inequities resulting from digital agriculture

Though digital technologies can facilitate market access and information flow, there's no guarantee they won't exacerbate existing
inequalities. Should constraints prevent a range of farmers from adopting digital agriculture, it's possible that the benefits will
only accrue to the powerful.

Large farms: When a digital agriculture technology requires lots of upfront investment, only large farms with
sufficient assets and credit access will adopt it.[52] For example, large farms are most likely to adopt precision
agriculture technologies because of high costs.[83] Increasingly however, automated mechanization is focusing
on more but smaller autonomous machines, instead of fewer but larger machines such as observed with
machines that still require human control. [84] This trend enables smaller farms to participate in digital agriculture
more evenly with larger farms, as the upfront investment becomes more equal relative to the size of the farm.
Digital divide: The uneven access to information and communication technologies (ICTs) may lead to uneven
adoption of — and thereby uneven gains from — digital agriculture. When digital technologies require specific
skills, benefits may accrue to digitally literate farmers positioned to take advantage of such
opportunities.[85][86][87]
Gender: Given gender-based disparities in ICT access[88][50] and the gender gap in agribusiness value
chains,[89] men seem more likely to adopt digital agriculture.[52] Therefore, digital technologies could perpetuate
gender inequalities in the agricultural sector.[90]
Unskilled labor: Advances in on-farm productivity, particularly through digitized automation and precision
agriculture, may threaten low-skilled jobs.[14] According to the OECD, agriculture will be one of the sectors most
affected by automation[91] and McKinsey Global Institute projects that automation will displace 15% of
agricultural workers in Mexico and 30% in Germany.[92]
Agribusinesses and service providers: Increased reliance on big data may increase the power differential
between agribusinesses/information service providers and farmers.[6][29] If smallholders lack access to and/or
control of their data, they may lose bargaining power vis-à-vis large value chain actors (like supermarkets) and
data collectors.[93]

Environment
Boosting natural resource efficiency is the “single most important need for a sustainable food future,” according to the World
Resource Institute.[35] As mentioned in the on-farm efficiency section, precision farming — including variable rate nutrient
application, variable rate irrigation, machine guidance, and variable rate planting/seeding — could minimize use of agricultural
inputs for a given yield.[94][95] This could mitigate resource waste and negative environmental externalities,[96] like greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions,[95] soil erosion,[97] and fertilizer runoff.[40] For example, Katalin et al. 2014 estimate that switching to
precision weed management could save up to 30,000 tons of pesticide in the EU-25 countries.[98] González-Dugo et al. 2013
found that precision irrigation of a citrus orchard could reduce water use by 25 percent while maintaining a constant yield.[99]
Basso et al. 2012 demonstrated that variable-rate application of fertilizer can reduce nitrogen application and leaching without
affecting yield and net return.[100]

However, precision agriculture could also accelerate farms’ depletion of natural resources because of a rebound effect; increasing
input efficiency does not necessarily lead to resource conservation.[101] Also, by changing economic incentives, precision
agriculture may hinder environmental policies’ effectiveness: “Precision agriculture can lead to higher marginal abatement costs
in the form of forgone profits, decreasing producers' responsiveness to those policies."[101] In other words, holding pollution
constant, precision agriculture allows a farmer to produce more output — thus, abatement becomes more expensive.

Off-farm, digital agriculture has the potential to improve environmental monitoring and food system traceability. The monitoring
costs of certifying compliance with environmental, health, or waste standards are falling because of digital technology.[102] For
example, satellite and drone imagery can track land use and/or forest cover; distributed ledger technologies can enable trusted
transactions and exchange of data; food sensors can monitor temperatures to minimize contamination during storage and
transport.[52] Together, technologies like these can form digital agriculture traceability systems, which allow stakeholders to track
agri-food products in near-real-time. Digital traceability yields a number of benefits, environmental and otherwise:

Reduced food waste: Of all the food calories produced in a year, 25% are wasted between on-farm production
and consumers.[35] Traceability systems facilitate better identification of supply-side weaknesses — where is
food lost downstream of the farm, and how much is wasted?[103] Emerging digital innovations, such as milk
cartons that track milk from “farm to fridge,”[104] can address demand-side waste by providing consumers with
more accurate expiration dates.
Consumer trust: Ensuring food safety, quality, and authenticity has become an important regulatory requirement
in high-income countries. Use of RFID tags and blockchain technologies to certify agri-food products’
characteristics could provide near-real-time quality signals to consumers.[64]
Improved producer welfare: Producers who can leverage environmental certification could sell their products at
a premium,[40][105] because blockchain technologies could enable greater trust in labels like “sustainable,”
“organic” or “fair trade.”[64]

Enabling environment
According to the McKinsey Industry Digitization Index, the agricultural sector is the slowest adopter of digital technologies in the
United States.[106] Farm-level adoption of digital agriculture varies within and between countries, and uptake differs by
technology. Some characterize precision agriculture uptake as rather slow.[107] In the United States in 2010-2012, precision
agriculture technologies were used on 30-50% of corn and soybean acreage.[83] Others point out that uptake varies by technology
— farmer use of GNSS guidance has grown rapidly, but variable-rate technology adoption rarely exceeds 20% of farms.[108]
Furthermore, digital agriculture is not limited to on-farm precision tools, and these innovations typically require less upfront
investment. Growing access to ICTs in agriculture and a booming e-commerce market all bode well for increased adoption of
digital agriculture downstream of the farm.[52]

Individual farmers’ perceptions about usefulness, ease of use, and cost-effectiveness impact the spread of digital agriculture.[109]
In addition, a number of broader factors enable the spread of digital agriculture, including:

Digital infrastructure
Although a few digital technologies can operate in areas with limited mobile phone coverage and internet connectivity, rural
network coverage plays an important role in digital agriculture's success.[52] A wide gap exists between developed and
developing countries’ 3G and 4G cellular coverage, and issues like dropped calls, delays, weak signals, etc. hamper
telecommunications efficacy in rural areas.[110] Even when countries overcome infrastructural challenges, the price of network
connectivity can exclude smallholders, poor farmers, and those in remote areas. Similar accessibility and affordability issues exist
for digital devices and digital accounts. According to a 2016 GSMA report, of the 750 million-plus farmers in the 69 surveyed
countries, about 295 million had a mobile phone; only 13 million had both a mobile phone and a mobile money account.[111]
Despite lingering gaps in network coverage, ICT access has skyrocketed in recent years. In 2007, only 1% of people in
developing countries used Internet, but by 2015, 40% did. Mobile-broadband subscriptions, which increased thirty-fold between
2005 and 2015, drove much of this growth.[112] As a key enabler of agricultural change, digital infrastructure requires further
development, but growing ICT access indicates progress.

Agriculture's role in the economy

The significance and structure of a country's agricultural sector will affect digital agriculture adoption. For example, a grain-based
economy needs difference technologies than a major vegetable producer. Automated, digitally-enabled harvesting systems might
make sense for grains, pulses and cotton, but only a few specialty crops generate enough value to justify large investments in
mechanized or automated harvesting.[56] Farm size also affects technology choices, as economies of scale make large investments
possible[110] (e.g., adoption of precision agriculture is more likely on larger farms).[83] On the other hand, digital agriculture
solutions focused on ICTs and e-commerce would benefit an economy dominated by smallholders. In China, where the average
farm size is less than 1 ha,[113] Alibaba's customer-to-customer e-commerce platform called Rural Taobao has helped melon
growers in Bachu County market their produce all over the country.[110] Other structural factors, such as percent of the
population employed in agriculture, farm density, farm mechanization rates, etc. also impact how difference regions adopt digital
agriculture.

Human capital
In order to benefit from the advent of digital agriculture, farmers must develop new skills. As Bronson (2018) notes, “training a
rural work-force in Internet technology skills (e.g., coding) is obviously a key part of agricultural “modernization.”[19] Integration
into the digital economy requires basic literacy (ability to read) and digital literacy (ability to use digital devices to improve
welfare). In many instances, benefiting from digital content also requires English literacy or familiarity with another widely
spoken language.[114] Digital agriculture developers have designed ways around these barriers, such as ICTs with audio
messages[50] and extension videos in local languages.[51] However, more investment in human capital development is needed to
ensure all farmers can benefit from digital agriculture.

Fostering human capital in the form of innovation also matters for the spread of digital agriculture.[52] Some characterize digital
agriculture innovation, a knowledge- and skills-intensive process, as concentrated in “Big Ag” companies and research
universities.[115] However, others describe small-scale entrepreneurs as the “heart of the action.”[6] In 2018, ag-tech innovation
attracted $1.9 billion in venture capital, and the sector has grown significantly in the last 10 years.[116] Although digital
agriculture may be concentrated in a few developed countries because of “structure, institutional, and economic barriers,”[115] ag-
tech startups have experienced significant growth in Africa,[117][118][119] the Caribbean and Pacific,[120] Asia,[110] and Latin
America as well.

Policy and regulatory environment

In order for digital agriculture to spread, national governments, multilateral organizations, and other policymakers must provide a
clear regulatory framework so that stakeholders feel confident investing in digital agriculture solutions. Policy designed for the
pre-Internet era prevents the advancement of “smart agriculture,”[121] as does regulatory ambiguity.[5] Furthermore, a blurry line
between personal and business data when discussing family farms complicates data regulation.[122] Unanswered regulatory
questions mostly concern big data, and they include:
 How to ensure data privacy and security? Farmers have concerns about who can access their data.[123][124]
Their concerns extend to government use of data; German farmers reported a “lack of data security and
excessive transparency vis-à-vis the public authorities.”[125] Scholars have issued repeated calls for
policymakers to address agricultural data privacy and security.[126]
How to address data ownership? According to the European Parliamentary Research Service, “it is clear that the
farmer owns the data generated on his fields.”[127] The German Agricultural Society and others concur.[125]
However, in practice, farmers lack control over data about themselves and their farms.[124]
Besides establishing regulations to boost stakeholder confidence, policymakers can harness digital agriculture for the provision of
public goods. First, the United Nations’ Global Open Data for Agriculture and Nutrition (GODAN) calls for open access to
agricultural data as a basic right.[128] Rather than stakeholders operating in “data silos” — where no one shares information for
fear of competition — open data sources (when appropriately anonymized) can foster collaboration and innovation.[6] Open-
sourced data can rebalance the power asymmetry between farmers and large agribusinesses who collect data.[29] Second,
governments can finance research and development of digital agriculture. For big data analytics tools “to enter the public domain,
work for the common good and not just for corporate interests, they need to be funded and developed by public
organizations.”[29][19] The United Kingdom,[129] Greece,[130] and other national governments have already announced large
investments in digital agriculture. Governments can also engage in private-public R&D partnerships to foster smallholder-
oriented digital agriculture projects in developing countries.[112] Lastly, digital agriculture technologies — particularly
traceability systems — can improve monitoring of environmental compliance, evaluation of subsidy eligibility, etc.[52]

Finally, when governments and international undertake complementary investments, they can strengthen the enabling
environment for digital agriculture. By improving digital infrastructure, choosing digital agriculture technologies appropriate for
the regional context, and investing in human capital/digital skills development, policymakers could support digital agriculture.[52]

Sustainable Development Goals

According to Project Breakthrough, digital agriculture can help advance the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals by
providing farmers with more real-time information about their farms, allowing them to make better decisions. Technology allows
for improved crop production by understanding soil health. It allows farmers to use fewer pesticides on their crops. Soil and
weather monitoring reduces water waste. Digital agriculture ideally leads to economic growth by allowing farmers to get the most
production out of their land. The loss of agricultural jobs can be offset by new job opportunities in manufacturing and
maintaining the necessary technology for the work. Digital agriculture also enables individual farmers to work in concert,
collecting and sharing data using technology.[131]

References
1. "Digital Agriculture: feeding the future" (http://breakthrough.unglobalcompact.org/disruptive-technologies/digital-a
griculture/). Project Breakthrough. Retrieved 2019-07-25.
2. "Digital Agriculture | Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station" (https://cuaes.cals.cornell.edu/digital-agric
ulture/). cuaes.cals.cornell.edu. Retrieved 2019-07-25.
3. "Home" (https://ag.purdue.edu/digitalag). Purdue University Digital Agriculture. Retrieved 2019-07-25.
4. "Technology and digital in agriculture - OECD" (http://www.oecd.org/agriculture/topics/technology-and-digital-agri
culture/). www.oecd.org. Retrieved 2019-07-25.
5. Shepherd, Turner, Small, and Wheeler (2018). "Priorities for science to overcome hurdles thwarting the full
promise of the 'digital agriculture' revolution". Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture.
doi:10.1002/jsfa.9346 (https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fjsfa.9346). PMID 30191570 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub
med/30191570).
6. Wolfert, Sjaak; Ge, Lan; Verdouw, Cor; Bogaardt, Marc-Jeroen (2017-05-01). "Big Data in Smart Farming – A
review". Agricultural Systems. 153: 69–80. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.023 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.agsy.201
7.01.023). ISSN 0308-521X (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0308-521X).
 7. FAO 2019. “Digital technology in agriculture and rural areas: Briefing paper.” Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations: Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/ca4887en/ca4887en.pdf.
8. Rose and Chilvers (2018). "Agriculture 4.0: Responsible Innovation in an Era of Smart Farming". Frontiers in
Sustainable Food Systems. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2018.00087 (https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffsufs.2018.00087).
9. Frankelius, Per; Norrman, Charlotte; Johansen, Knut (2017). "Agricultural Innovation and the Role of Institutions:
Lessons from the Game of Drones" (http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-145379). Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics: 1–27. doi:10.1007/s10806-017-9703-6 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10806
-017-9703-6).
10. Lombardo, Sarri, Corvo, and Vieri 2017. "Approaching the Fourth Agricultural Revolution: Analysis of Needs for
the Profitable Introduction of Smart Farming in Rural Areas." Proceedings of the 8thInternational Conference on
Information and Communication Technologies in Agriculture, Food, and Environment (HAICTA 2017).Chiana,
Greece, 21–24 September 2017. https://flore.unifi.it/retrieve/handle/2158/1112565/296930/360.pdf.
11. Schwab, Karl (2018). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Crown Publishing Group.
12. Schwab 2018. The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-
Fourth-Industrial-Revolution-2119734.
13. Allen, Robert C. (1999). "Tracking the agricultural revolution in England". The Economic History Review. 52 (2):
209–235. doi:10.1111/1468-0289.00123 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1468-0289.00123).
14. Freebairn (1995). "Did the Green Revolution Concentrate Incomes? A Quantitative Study of Research Reports"
(https://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~kmacd/IDSC10/Readings/Readings/impact%20assessment/g-r.pdf.). World
Development. 23 (2): 265–279. doi:10.1016/0305-750X(94)00116-G (https://doi.org/10.1016%2F0305-750X%28
94%2900116-G).
15. Junankar, P. N. (1975). "Green Revolution and Inequality". Economic and Political Weekly. 10 (13): A15–A18.
ISSN 0012-9976 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0012-9976). JSTOR 4536986 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/45369
86).
16. Pingali, P. L. (2012). "Green Revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/a
rticles/PMC3411969). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 109
(31): 12302–12308. Bibcode:2012PNAS..10912302P (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PNAS..10912302
P). doi:10.1073/pnas.0912953109 (https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.0912953109). PMC 3411969 (https://www.nc
bi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3411969). PMID 22826253 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22826253).
17. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. "Crop breeding: the Green Revolution and the
preceding millennia" (http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/gmo2.htm). FAO Newsroom.
18. Struik and Kuyper (2017). "Sustainable intensification in agriculture: the richer shade of green. A review".
Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 37 (5): 37–39. doi:10.1007/s13593-017-0445-7 (https://doi.org/10.100
7%2Fs13593-017-0445-7).
19. Bronson (2018). "Smart Farming: Including Rights Holders for Responsible Agricultural Innovation". Technology
Innovation Management Review. 8 (2). doi:10.1007/s13593-017-0445-7 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs13593-017-
0445-7).
20. Rose, David Christian; Chilvers, Jason (2018). "Agriculture 4.0: Broadening Responsible Innovation in an Era of
Smart Farming". Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2018.00087 (https://doi.org/10.338
9%2Ffsufs.2018.00087).
21. MacNaghten, Phil (2015). "A Responsible Innovation Governance Framework for GM Crops". Governing
Agricultural Sustainability. pp. 225–239. doi:10.4324/9781315709468-19 (https://doi.org/10.4324%2F978131570
9468-19). ISBN 9781315709468.
22. MacNaghten, Phil; Chilvers, Jason (2014). "The Future of Science Governance: Publics, Policies, Practices".
Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy. 32 (3): 530–548. doi:10.1068/c1245j (https://doi.org/10.10
68%2Fc1245j).
23. Hartley, Sarah; Gillund, Frøydis; Van Hove, Lilian; Wickson, Fern (2016). "Essential Features of Responsible
Governance of Agricultural Biotechnology" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4856357). PLOS
Biology. 14 (5): e1002453. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002453 (https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1002453).
PMC 4856357 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4856357). PMID 27144921 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pubmed/27144921).
24. Eastwood, C.; Klerkx, L.; Ayre, M.; Dela Rue, B. (2017-12-26). "Managing Socio-Ethical Challenges in the
Development of Smart Farming: From a Fragmented to a Comprehensive Approach for Responsible Research
and Innovation". Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10806-017-9704-5 (https://doi.or
g/10.1007%2Fs10806-017-9704-5). ISSN 1187-7863 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1187-7863).
25. Carolan, Michael (2017). "Publicising Food: Big Data, Precision Agriculture, and Co-Experimental Techniques of
Addition: Publicising Food". Sociologia Ruralis. 57 (2): 135–154. doi:10.1111/soru.12120 (https://doi.org/10.111
1%2Fsoru.12120).
26. Driessen, Clemens; Heutinck, Leonie F. M. (2015). "Cows desiring to be milked? Milking robots and the co-
evolution of ethics and technology on Dutch dairy farms". Agriculture and Human Values. 32 (1): 3–20.
doi:10.1007/s10460-014-9515-5 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10460-014-9515-5). ISSN 0889-048X (https://www.
worldcat.org/issn/0889-048X).
27. Holloway, Lewis; Bear, Christopher (2017). "Bovine and human becomings in histories of dairy technologies:
robotic milking systems and remaking animal and human subjectivity" (http://orca.cf.ac.uk/98118/1/Holloway%20
and%20Bear%202017%20-%20Bovine%20and%20human%20becomings%20in%20histories%20of%20dairy%2
0technologies%20-%20BJHS%20Themes.pdf) (PDF). BJHS Themes. 2: 215–234. doi:10.1017/bjt.2017.2 (http
s://doi.org/10.1017%2Fbjt.2017.2). ISSN 2058-850X (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/2058-850X).
28. Wolf, S.A. and Wood, S.D. (1997). "Precision farming: environmental legitimation, commodification of
information, and industrial coordination". Rural Sociology. 62 (2): 180–206. doi:10.1111/j.1549-
0831.1997.tb00650.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1549-0831.1997.tb00650.x).
29. Carbonell (2016). "The ethics of big data in agriculture" (https://policyreview.info/node/405/pdf.). Internet Policy
Review: Journal on Internet Regulation. 5 (1).
30. Gabbai, Arik. "Kevin For example, Ashton Describes "The Internet of Things" " (https://www.smithsonianmag.co
m/innovation/kevin-ashton-describes-the-internet-of-things-180953749/). Smithsonian. Retrieved 2018-12-09.
31. Zhang, Chunhua; Kovacs, John M. (2012-07-31). "The application of small unmanned aerial systems for
precision agriculture: a review". Precision Agriculture. 13 (6): 693–712. doi:10.1007/s11119-012-9274-5 (https://d
oi.org/10.1007%2Fs11119-012-9274-5).
32. FAO 2017. The Future of Food and Agriculture: Trends and Challenges. Rome. Accessed July 11, 2019.
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6583e.pdf.
33. "Insights: WRI's Blog" (https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/12/how-sustainably-feed-10-billion-people-2050-21-charts.).
World Resources Institute. Retrieved 2019-07-26.
34. Godfray, Beddington, Crute, Haddad, Lawrence, Muir, Pretty, Robinson, Thomas, and Toulmin (2010). "Food
Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People". Science. 327 (5967): 812–818.
Bibcode:2010Sci...327..812G (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...327..812G).
doi:10.1126/science.1185383 (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1185383). PMID 20110467 (https://www.ncbi.n
lm.nih.gov/pubmed/20110467).
35. "Creating a Sustainable Food Future" (https://www.wri.org/publication/creating-sustainable-food-future-final-repor
t). World Resources Institute. 2019-07-19. Retrieved 2019-07-26.
36. Goldfarb and Tucker (2017). "Digital Economics" (http://www.nber.org/papers/w23684). National Bureau of
Economic Research. Working Paper No. 23684.
37. Stamatiadis (EU Project Manager) 2013. “HydroSense – Innovative precision technologies for optimized irrigation
and integrated crop management in a water-limited agrosystem.”
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?
fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3466&docType=pdf.
38. Tekin (2010). "Variable rate fertilizer application in Turkish wheat agriculture: Economic assessment". African
Journal of Agricultural Research. 5 (8): 647–652.
39. Biggar et al. 2013. “Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Options and Costs for Agricultural Land and Animal Production
within the United States (https://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_change/mitigation_technologies/GHG_Mitigation_Opt
ions.pdf.).” ICF International – Report for USDA.
40. Pedersen, Søren Marcus; Lind, Kim Martin, eds. (2017). "Precision Agriculture: Technology and Economic
Perspectives". Progress in Precision Agriculture. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-68715-5 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978
-3-319-68715-5). ISBN 978-3-319-68713-1. ISSN 2511-2260 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/2511-2260).
41. Saavoss, Monica (2018). "Productivity and profitability of precision agriculture technologies on peanut farms".
USDA Economic Research Service.
42. Ortiz, B. V.; Balkcom, K. B.; Duzy, L.; van Santen, E.; Hartzog, D. L. (2013-08-01). "Evaluation of agronomic and
economic benefits of using RTK-GPS-based auto-steer guidance systems for peanut digging operations".
Precision Agriculture. 14 (4): 357–375. doi:10.1007/s11119-012-9297-y (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11119-012-
9297-y). ISSN 1573-1618 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1573-1618).
43. Monzon, J. P.; Calviño, P. A.; Sadras, V. O.; Zubiaurre, J. B.; Andrade, F. H. (2018-09-01). "Precision agriculture
based on crop physiological principles improves whole-farm yield and profit: A case study". European Journal of
Agronomy. 99: 62–71. doi:10.1016/j.eja.2018.06.011 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.eja.2018.06.011). ISSN 1161-
0301 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1161-0301).
44. "Meet A Tractor That Can Plow Fields And Talk To The Cloud" (https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/
03/29/472129577/meet-a-tractor-that-can-plow-fields-and-talk-to-the-cloud). NPR.org. Retrieved 2019-07-26.
45. "Hello Tractor Site" (https://www.hellotractor.com/home). Hello Tractor. Retrieved 2019-07-26.
46. "Agriculture and food: the rise of digital platforms - Paris Innovation Review" (http://parisinnovationreview.com/arti
cles-en/agriculture-and-food-the-rise-of-digital-platforms). parisinnovationreview.com. Retrieved 2019-07-26.
47. "Location et Prestation de matériels agricoles - WeFarmUp" (https://www.wefarmup.com/fr/). www.wefarmup.com
(in French). Retrieved 2019-07-26.
48. Zuckerman, Jake. "Machinery Link: Where Uber meets agriculture" (https://www.nvdaily.com/news/local-news/ma
chinery-link-where-uber-meets-agriculture/article_ee46cbb7-0ddc-512c-a128-e80d661ee08a.html). The Northern
Virginia Daily. Retrieved 2019-07-26.
49. Vota, Wayan (2017-05-31). "Uber for Tractors is Really a Thing in Developing Countries" (https://www.ictworks.or
g/uber-for-tractors-is-really-a-thing-in-developing-countries/). ICTworks. Retrieved 2019-07-26.
50. World Bank (2017-06-27). "ICT in Agriculture (Updated Edition)" (https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10
986/27526).
51. "Videos" (https://www.digitalgreen.org/videos/). Digital Green. Retrieved 2019-07-26.
52. World Bank (2019). "The Future of Food: Harnessing Digital Technologies to Improve Food System Outcomes" (h
ttps://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/31565). Washington, DC.
53. Casaburi et al. 2014. “Harnessing ICT to Increase Agricultural Production: Evidence from Kenya. (https://pdfs.se
manticscholar.org/1040/e169e5070d08cf9df864fd26c899a9ba8365.pdf?_ga=2.245185733.1950360298.1563463
761-1781288121.1563463761)”
54. "Digital Agriculture | Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station" (https://cuaes.cals.cornell.edu/digital-agric
ulture/). cuaes.cals.cornell.edu. Retrieved 2019-07-26.
55. Morgan-Davies, Claire; Lambe, Nicola; Wishart, Harriet; Waterhouse, Tony; Kenyon, Fiona; McBean, Dave;
McCracken, Davy (2018-02-01). "Impacts of using a precision livestock system targeted approach in mountain
sheep flocks". Livestock Science. 208: 67–76. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2017.12.002 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.livsc
i.2017.12.002). ISSN 1871-1413 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1871-1413).
56. Seabrook, John (2019-04-08). "The Age of Robot Farmers" (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/15/th
e-age-of-robot-farmers). ISSN 0028-792X (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0028-792X). Retrieved 2019-07-26.
57. Fafchamps, Marcel; Aker, Jenny C. (2015-01-01). "Mobile Phone Coverage and Producer Markets: Evidence
from West Africa" (http://www.csae.ox.ac.uk/materials/papers/csae-wps-2013-09.pdf) (PDF). The World Bank
Economic Review. 29 (2): 262–292. doi:10.1093/wber/lhu006 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fwber%2Flhu006).
hdl:10986/25842 (https://hdl.handle.net/10986%2F25842). ISSN 0258-6770 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0258-
6770).
58. Goyal, Aparajita (2010). "Information, Direct Access to Farmers, and Rural Market Performance in Central India"
(http://www.aeaweb.org/aej/app/app/2009-0087_app.pdf) (PDF). American Economic Journal: Applied
Economics. 2 (3): 22–45. doi:10.1257/app.2.3.22 (https://doi.org/10.1257%2Fapp.2.3.22). ISSN 1945-7782 (http
s://www.worldcat.org/issn/1945-7782). JSTOR 25760218 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/25760218).
59. Andres, Dustin (20 July 2012). "ICT Innovations: with Mfarm, agribusiness meets the app economy in Kenya" (htt
ps://www.agrilinks.org/blog/ict-innovations-mfarm-agribusiness-meets-app-economy-kenya). USAID Feed the
Future: AgriLinks.
60. "Esoko website" (https://esoko.com).
61. Zeng, Yiwu; Jia, Fu; Wan, Li; Guo, Hongdong (2017-07-24). "E-commerce in agri-food sector: a systematic
literature review". International Food and Agribusiness Management Review. 20 (4): 439–460.
doi:10.22434/IFAMR2016.0156 (https://doi.org/10.22434%2FIFAMR2016.0156). ISSN 1559-2448 (https://www.w
orldcat.org/issn/1559-2448).
62. Hobbs et al. 2011. “International e-commerce: a solution to penetrating niche markets for food? (https://law.usas
k.ca/documents/research/estey-journal/Hobbs-Boyd-Kerr-e-commerce-estey-2001.pdf)” Estey Centre for Law
and Economics in International Trade.
63. Brugger 2011. "Mobile applications in agriculture (https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploa
ds/2011/12/Syngenta_Report_on_mAgriculture_abridged_web_version.pdf)." Syngenta Foundation.
64. Jouanjean, Marie-Agnes (2019-02-15). "Digital Opportunities for Trade in the Agriculture and Food Sectors" (http
s://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/agriculture-and-food/digital-opportunities-for-trade-in-the-agriculture-and-food-sectors_9
1c40e07-en). OECD Food, Agriculture, and Fisheries Papers, No. 122. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries
Papers. doi:10.1787/91c40e07-en (https://doi.org/10.1787%2F91c40e07-en).
65. Lonie (2010). "Innovations in Rural and Agricultural Finance: M-PESA: Finding New Ways to Serve the
Unbanked in Kenya" (http://www.ifpri.org/publication/innovations-rural-and-agricultural-finance-m-pesa). IFPRI:
2020 Vision for Food, Agriculture and the Environment.
66. Hakobyan, Artavazd; Buyvolova, Anna; Meng, Yuan Ting; Nielson, David J. (2018-01-01). "Unleashing the Power
of Digital on Farms in Russia - and Seeking Opportunities for Small Farms" (http://documents.worldbank.org/cura
ted/en/174171539109767548/Unleashing-the-Power-of-Digital-on-Farms-in-Russia-and-Seeking-Opportunities-fo
r-Small-Farms). The World Bank Group: 1–50.
67. Tarazi, Michael; Grossman, Jeremiah (2014-06-01). "Serving smallholder farmers : recent developments in digital
finance" (http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/119581468148758424/Serving-smallholder-farmers-recent-
developments-in-digital-finance): 1–16.
68. Martin, Harihareswara, Diebold, Kodali, and Averch (2016). "Guide to the Use of Digital Financial Services in
Agriculture" (https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/15396/Digital_Financial_Services_for_Ag_Guid
e.pdf) (PDF). USAID.
69. IFAD (2016). "Lessons learned: Digital financial services for smallholder households" (https://www.ifad.org/docum
ents/38714170/40185433/lessons+learned+-+Digital+financial+services+for+smallholder+households.pdf/f3867c
13-d74d-4c71-aceb-6bde51cd965c.). International Fund for Agricultural Development.
70. Marulanda and the Bankable Frontier Associates (2015). "Colombia's Coffee Growers' Smart ID card:
Successfully Reaching Rural Communities with Digital Payments" (https://btca-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/docume
nts/31/english_attachments/Colombia-Cafeteros-Case-Study-Long-ENG-Jan-2015.pdf?1438939088) (PDF).
Better Than Cash Alliance.
71. Sitko, Nicholas J.; Bwalya, Richard; Kamwanga, Jolly; Wamulume, Mukata (2012). "Assessing the Feasibility of
Implementing the Farmer Input Support Programme (FISP) Through an Electronic Voucher System in Zambia" (h
ttps://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/midcpb/123210.html). Food Security Collaborative Policy Briefs 123210, Michigan
State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
72. World Bank Group (2019). "AFCW3 Economic Update, Spring 2019: Digitizing Agriculture - Evidence from E-
Voucher Programs in Mali, Chad, Niger, and Guinea" (https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/3157
6).
73. Kärner, Ene (2017-09-21). "The Future of Agriculture is Digital: Showcasting e-Estonia" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pmc/articles/PMC5613108). Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 4: 151. doi:10.3389/fvets.2017.00151 (https://do
i.org/10.3389%2Ffvets.2017.00151). ISSN 2297-1769 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/2297-1769). PMC 5613108
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5613108). PMID 28983486 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubme
d/28983486).
74. Cook and McKay. "Top 10 Things to Know About M-Shwari." Consultative Group to Assist the Poor - Blog. 2 April
2015.
75. "Winning in African agriculture | McKinsey" (https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/agriculture/our-insights/winning-
in-africas-agricultural-market). www.mckinsey.com. Retrieved 2019-07-26.
76. "FarmDrive" (https://farmdrive.co.ke/). farmdrive.co.ke. Retrieved 2019-07-26.
77. Sylvester, Gerard (2018). "E-agriculture in action: drones for agriculture" (http://www.fao.org/3/i8494en/i8494en.p
df) (PDF). FAO and ITU.
78. World Bank (2017-06-27). ICT in Agriculture (Updated Edition): Connecting Smallholders to Knowledge,
Networks, and Institutions. The World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1002-2 (https://doi.org/10.1596%2F978-1-4
648-1002-2). hdl:10986/27526 (https://hdl.handle.net/10986%2F27526). ISBN 9781464810022.
79. Poublanc, Christophe (26 October 2018). "Let's Get Digital: Un-Blocking Finance for Farmers in Senegal" (https://
www.agrilinks.org/post/lets-get-digital-un-blocking-finance-farmers-senegal). USAID Feed the Future: Agrilinks
Blog.
80. Mitchell, Tara (2014). "Is Knowledge Power? Competition and Information in Agricultural Markets" (https://ideas.r
epec.org/p/iis/dispap/iiisdp456.html). The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series.
81. Nakasone, Eduardo, ed. (2013). The Role of Price Information in Agricultural Markets: Experimental Evidence
from Rural Peru (https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/150418/?ln=en). IFPRI.
82. Thomas, Susan. "LOOP Mobile App Makes Farm to Market Linkages Easy" (https://www.digitalgreen.org/blogs/lo
op-mobile-app-makes-farm-to-market-linkages-easy/). Digital Green. Retrieved 2019-07-26.
83. Schimmelpfennig (2016). "Farm Profits and Adoption of Precision Agriculture" (https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdoc
s/publications/80326/err-217.pdf?v=0) (PDF). USDA Economic Research Service. Report no. 217.
84. Article by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (https://ahdb.org.uk/news/swarm-robotics-and-the-
future-of-farming)
85. Acemoglu, D (1998). "Why Do New Technologies Complement Skills? Directed Technical Change and Wage
Inequality". The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 113 (4): 1055–1089. doi:10.1162/003355398555838 (https://doi.
org/10.1162%2F003355398555838).
86. Goldin and Katz (2008). The Race Between Education and Technology. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
87. Cole and Fernando (2012). "Mobile'izing Agricultural Advice: Technology Adoption, Diffusion and Sustainability".
Harvard Business School Finance Unit. Research Paper No. 13-047.
88. Demirguc-Kunt, Asli; Klapper, Leora; Singer, Dorothe; Ansar, Saniya; Hess, Jake (2018-04-19). The Global
Findex Database 2017: Measuring Financial Inclusion and the Fintech Revolution. The World Bank.
doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1259-0 (https://doi.org/10.1596%2F978-1-4648-1259-0). hdl:10986/29510 (https://hdl.ha
ndle.net/10986%2F29510). ISBN 9781464812590.
89. Roscoe, Alexa; Hoffmann, Nathalie Ilona (2016-10-01). "Investing in women along agribusiness value chains" (htt
p://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/355831511503089525/Investing-in-women-along-agribusiness-value-ch
ains): 1–65.
90. Mendonca, Crespo, and Simoes (2015). "Inequality in the Network Society: An Integrated Approach to ICT
Access, Basic Skills, and Complex Capabilities" (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273300147).
Telecommunications Policy. 39 (3–4): 192–207. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2014.12.010 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.tel
pol.2014.12.010).
91. Quintini, Glenda; Nedelkoska, Ljubica (2018-03-08). "Automation, skills use and training" (https://www.oecd-ilibra
ry.org/employment/automation-skills-use-and-training_2e2f4eea-en;jsessionid=yvhLUxB6vC19Fv-yu9Zi5G4t.ip-1
0-240-5-107). OECD Directorate for Employment, Labour, and Social Affairs - Employment, Labour, and Social
Affairs Committee. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers. doi:10.1787/2e2f4eea-en (https://d
oi.org/10.1787%2F2e2f4eea-en).
92. McKinsey & Company (2017). "Jobs lost, jobs gained: workforce transitions in a time of automation" (https://www.
mckinsey.com/~/media/BAB489A30B724BECB5DEDC41E9BB9FAC.ashx). McKinsey Global Institute.
93. Maru, Berne, De Beer, Ballantyne, Pesce, Kalyesubula, Fourie, Addison, Collett, and Chaves 2018. “Digital and
Data-Driven Agriculture: Harnessing the Power of Data for Smallholders.” Global Forum on Agricultural Research
and Innovation (GFAR); Global Open Data for Agriculture and Nutrition (GODAN); Technical Centre for
Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA).https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/92477/GFAR-
GODAN-CTA-white-paper-final.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y.
94. Bongiovanni, R.; Lowenberg-Deboer, J. (2004-08-01). "Precision Agriculture and Sustainability". Precision
Agriculture. 5 (4): 359–387. doi:10.1023/B:PRAG.0000040806.39604.aa (https://doi.org/10.1023%2FB%3APRA
G.0000040806.39604.aa). ISSN 1573-1618 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1573-1618).
 95. Eory, Vera; Barnes, Andrew; Gómez-Barbero, Manuel; Soto, Iria; Wal, Tamme Van der; Vangeyte, Jurgen;
Fountas, Spyros; Beck, Bert; Balafoutis, Athanasios (2017). "Precision Agriculture Technologies Positively
Contributing to GHG Emissions Mitigation, Farm Productivity and Economics". Sustainability. 9 (8): 1339.
doi:10.3390/su9081339 (https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fsu9081339).
96. European Parliament (2014). "Precision Agriculture: An Opportunity for EU Farmers - Potential Support with the
CAP 2014-2020" (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2014/529049/IPOL-AGRI_NT%28201
4%29529049_EN.pdf) (PDF). EU Parliament Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Dept. B, Structural
and Cohesion Policies: Agriculture and Rural Development.
97. Berry, Delgado, Khosla, and Pierce (2003). "Precision conservation for environmental sustainability". Journal of
Soil and Water Conservation: 332–339. doi:10.3390/su9081339 (https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fsu9081339).
98. Katalin, Takács-György; Rahoveanu, Turek; Magdalena, Maria; István, Takács (2014-01-01). "Sustainable New
Agricultural Technology – Economic Aspects of Precision Crop Protection". Procedia Economics and Finance. 1st
International Conference 'Economic Scientific Research - Theoretical, Empirical and Practical Approaches',
ESPERA 2013. 8: 729–736. doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00151-8 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS2212-5671%281
4%2900151-8). ISSN 2212-5671 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/2212-5671).
99. Gonzalez-Dugo, V.; Zarco-Tejada, P.; Nicolás, E.; Nortes, P. A.; Alarcón, J. J.; Intrigliolo, D. S.; Fereres, E. (2013-
12-01). "Using high resolution UAV thermal imagery to assess the variability in the water status of five fruit tree
species within a commercial orchard". Precision Agriculture. 14 (6): 660–678. doi:10.1007/s11119-013-9322-9 (ht
tps://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11119-013-9322-9). ISSN 1573-1618 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1573-1618).
100. Basso, Sartori, Cammarano, and Florentino (2012). "Environmental and economic evaluation of N fertilizer rates
in a maize crop in Italy: A spatial and temporal analysis using crop models". Biosystems Engineering. 113 (2):
103–111. doi:10.1007/s11119-013-9322-9 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11119-013-9322-9).
101. Schieffer, J.; Dillon, C. (2015-02-01). "The economic and environmental impacts of precision agriculture and
interactions with agro-environmental policy". Precision Agriculture. 16 (1): 46–61. doi:10.1007/s11119-014-9382-
5 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11119-014-9382-5). ISSN 1573-1618 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1573-1618).
102. "The role of digital in improving traceability and certification in the agricultural last mile" (https://www.gsma.com/m
obilefordevelopment/blog-2/the-role-of-digital-in-improving-traceability-and-certification-in-the-agricultural-last-mil
e/). GSMA mAgri: Mobile for Development. 2018-11-26. Retrieved 2019-07-26.
103. World Economic Forum and McKinsey & Company (2019). "Innovation with a Purpose: Improving Traceability in
Food Value Chains through Technology Innovation" (http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Traceability_in_food_v
alue_chains_Digital.pdf) (PDF). World Economic Forum: System Initiative on Shaping the Future of Food.
104. Friedlander, Blaine. "Future cartons will track milk from farm to fridge | CALS" (https://cals.cornell.edu/news/future
-cartons-will-track-milk-farm-fridge/). cals.cornell.edu. Retrieved 2019-07-26.
105. Kent, Lampietti and Hasiner (2019). "Dead Branding Society: Is blockchain the death of food branding as we
know it?" (https://blogs.worldbank.org/voices/dead-branding-society-blockchain-death-food-branding-we-know-it).
World Bank Blogs. Retrieved 2019-07-26.
106. Manyika, Ramaswamy, Khanna, Sarrazin, Pinkus, Sethupathy, and Yaffe (December 2015). "Digital America: A
Tale of Haves and Have-Mores (Executive Summary)" (https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/
High%20Tech/Our%20Insights/Digital%20America%20A%20tale%20of%20the%20haves%20and%20have%20
mores/MGI%20Digital%20America_Executive%20Summary_December%202015.ashx). McKinsey Global
Institute.
107. Shepherd, Mark; Turner, James A.; Small, Bruce; Wheeler, David (2018). "Priorities for science to overcome
hurdles thwarting the full promise of the 'digital agriculture' revolution". Journal of the Science of Food and
Agriculture. doi:10.1002/jsfa.9346 (https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fjsfa.9346). ISSN 1097-0010 (https://www.worldcat.
org/issn/1097-0010). PMID 30191570 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30191570).
108. Lowenberg-DeBoer, James; Erickson, Bruce (2019). "Setting the Record Straight on Precision Agriculture
Adoption". Agronomy Journal. 111 (4): 1552. doi:10.2134/agronj2018.12.0779 (https://doi.org/10.2134%2Fagronj
2018.12.0779). ISSN 0002-1962 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0002-1962).
109. Shepherd, Mark; Turner, James A.; Small, Bruce; Wheeler, David (2013). "Priorities for science to overcome
hurdles thwarting the full promise of the 'digital agriculture' revolution". Journal of the Science of Food and
Agriculture. doi:10.1002/jsfa.9346 (https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fjsfa.9346). ISSN 1097-0010 (https://www.worldcat.
org/issn/1097-0010). PMID 30191570 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30191570).
110. Asian Development Bank (2018). "Internet plus agriculture: a new engine for rural economic growth in the
People's Republic of China". Asian Development Bank. doi:10.22617/TCS189559-2 (https://doi.org/10.22617%2
FTCS189559-2). ISBN 9789292613235.
111. Arese Lucini, Okeleke, and Tricarico (2016). "Analysis: Market size and opportunity in digitizing payments in
agricultural value chains" (https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/resources/market-size-and-opportunity-i
n-digitising-payments-in-agricultural-value-chains/). GSMA Intelligence.
112. International Telecommunications Union as cited in Protopop and Shanoyan 2016. “Big Data and Smallholder
Farmers: Big Data Applications in the Agri-Food Supply Chain in Developing Countries (https://www.researchgat
e.net/publication/306346048_Big_Data_and_Smallholder_Farmers_Big_Data_Applications_in_the_Agri-Food_S
upply_Chain_in_Developing_Countries.).” International Food and Agribusiness Management Review Special
Issue - Volume 19 Issue A, 2016.
113. Ji, Rozelle, Huang, Zhang, and Zhang (2016). "Are China's Farms Growing?" (http://www.igsnrr.ac.cn/xwzx/jxlwtj/
201609/P020160929403217366534.pdf) (PDF). China & World Economy. 24 (1): 41–62. doi:10.1111/cwe.12143
(https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fcwe.12143).
114. Bukht and Heeks (2018). "Development Implications of Digital Economies: Digital Economy Policy in Developing
Countries" (https://diode.network/publications/). Centre for Development Informatics Global Development
Institute, SEED - Economic and Social Research Council. Paper no. 6.
115. Van Es and Woodard 2017. “Chapter 4: Innovation in Agriculture and Food Systems in the Digital Age (https://ww
w.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_gii_2017-chapter4.pdf.).” The Global Innovation Index 2017.
116. Finistere Ventures, LLC (2018). "2018 Agtech Investment Review" (https://files.pitchbook.com/website/files/pdf/Fi
nistere_Ventures_2018_Agtech_Investment_Review_PJZ.pdf) (PDF).
117. Acheampong (2019). "The nature of corporate digital agricultural entrepreneurship in Ghana". Digital
Entrepreneurship in Sub-Saharan Africa. Palgrave Studies of Entrepreneurship in Africa: 175–198.
doi:10.1007/978-3-030-04924-9_8 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-030-04924-9_8). ISBN 978-3-030-04923-2.
118. Disrupt Africa (2018). "Agrinnovating for Africa: Exploring the African Agri-Tech Startup Ecosystem Report 2018"
(http://disrupt-africa.com/agrinnovating-for-africa-2018/).
119. "Angola's go-to app for delivering live goats to your door" (https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/201
8/12/06/angolas-go-to-app-for-delivering-live-goats-to-your-door). The Economist. 2018-12-06. ISSN 0013-0613
(https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0013-0613). Retrieved 2019-07-26.
120. CTA, AROYIS, and Ashoka (October 2016). "Youth e-agriculture entrepreneurship" (https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bits
tream/handle/10568/89782/ICT083E_PDF.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y) (PDF). ICT Update, Issue 83.
121. Sherafat and Lehr (2017). "ICT-centric economic growth, innovation and job creation 2017" (https://www.itu.int/d
ms_pub/itu-d/opb/gen/D-GEN-ICT_SDGS.01-2017-PDF-E.pdf) (PDF). International Telecommunications Union.
122. Pollock, R. and Lämmerhirt, D. 2019. “Open data around the world: European Union.” In T. Davies, S. Walker, M.
Rubinstein, and F. Perini (Eds.), The state of open data: Histories and horizons(pp. 465-484). Cape Town and
Ottawa: African Minds and International Development Research Centre.
123. Fleming, Jakku, Lim-Camacho, Taylor, and Thorburn (2018). "Is big data for big farming or for everyone?
Perceptions in the Australian grains industry". Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 38 (24).
doi:10.1007/s13593-018-0501-y (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs13593-018-0501-y).
124. Wiseman, Leanne; Sanderson, Jay; Zhang, Airong; Jakku, Emma (2019). "Farmers and their data: An
examination of farmers' reluctance to share their data through the lens of the laws impacting smart farming" (http
s://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1573521418302616). NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences:
100301. doi:10.1016/j.njas.2019.04.007 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.njas.2019.04.007).
125. "DLG e.V. - Digital Agriculture - Opportunities. Risks. Acceptance" (https://www.dlg.org/en/agriculture/topics/a-dlg
-position-paper/). www.dlg.org. Retrieved 2019-07-26.
126. Lesser 2014; Orts and Spigonardo 2014; Sonka 2014; Van’t Spijker 2014 — all as cited in Wolfert, Ge, Verdouw,
and Bogaardt. 2017. “Big data in smart farming – A review (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S03
08521X16303754.).” Agricultural Systems, Volume 153, pp. 69-80.
127. European Parliamentary Research Service 2017. “Precision agriculture in Europe: Legal, social and ethical
considerations (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_STU(2017)60320
7.).” European Parliament Think Tank.13 November 2017.
128. GODAN as cited in Carolan, M. (2016). Publicising food: big data, precision agriculture, and co-experimental
techniques of addition. Soc. Ruralis 57, 135–154. doi:10.1111/soru.12120 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fsoru.1212
0).
129. "Business Secretary calls for new tech revolution in agriculture" (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/business-s
ecretary-calls-for-new-tech-revolution-in-agriculture). GOV.UK. Retrieved 2019-07-26.
130. Michalopoulos, Sarantis (2018-10-30). "Greek plan to digitise agriculture wins EU approval" (https://www.euractiv.
com/section/agriculture-food/news/greek-plan-to-digitise-agriculture-wins-eu-approval/). euractiv.com. Retrieved
2019-07-26.
131. "Digital Agriculture: feeding the future" (http://breakthrough.unglobalcompact.org/disruptive-technologies/digital-a
griculture/). Project Breakthrough. Retrieved 2018-12-10.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_agriculture&oldid=921215445"

This page was last edited on 14 October 2019, at 15:46 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using
this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.