=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2030/HAICTA_2017_paper65
|storemode=property
|title=Approaching to the Fourth Agricultural Revolution: Analysis of Needs for the Profitable Introduction of Smart Farming in Rural Areas
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2030/HAICTA_2017_paper65.pdf
|volume=Vol-2030
|authors=Stefania Lombardo,Daniele Sarri,Luigi Corvo,Marco Vieri
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/haicta/LombardoSCV17
}}
==Approaching to the Fourth Agricultural Revolution: Analysis of Needs for the Profitable Introduction of Smart Farming in Rural Areas==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2030/HAICTA_2017_paper65.pdf
Approaching to the Fourth Agricultural Revolution:
Analysis of Needs for the Profitable Introduction of
Smart Farming in Rural Areas
Stefania Lombardo1, Daniele Sarri1, Luigi Corvo2, Marco Vieri1
1
Department Agricultural, Food Production and Forest Management, University of Florence,
Italy e-mail: stefania.lombardo@unifi.it
2
Department of management and law, University of Rome, Italy e-mail:
luigi.corvo@uniroma2.it
Abstract. Innovation in rural areas depends upon several factors. One of the
most important of those is the technology transfer and how it takes place.
Referring to the “long waves” theory on the technological revolutions, since
the first agricultural revolution to the one we are experiencing today, some
indicators, held together, can establish the relevance of innovations for each
revolution. This approach, based on a comparison between agricultural
systems, starts from a SWOT analysis to make a matrix table created and
inspired to the smart specialization strategies on high technology farming of
European Commission on research and innovation on the Agrofood sector. The
aim of this work was to build a conceptual framework to understand if the
frenzy period of precision agriculture could be a chance mostly in terms of
sustainability. This paper highlights on a first approach to delineate some
guidelines in order to provide feasible technological transferring for every kind
of agriculture system.
Keywords: agricultural revolution, rural social innovation, precision farming,
technology transfer, smart farming
1 Introduction
Nowadays it is possible to make an evaluation of what and how innovation and
technologies in rural areas spread through industrializes centuries. There are different
economic theories that explain the dissemination of innovation through industrial
revolution, but it is difficult to find specific comparisons in the agricultural field.
Organize ideas and innovation and comparing different technologies for the same
kind of agronomic activity, is an essential requirement to understand in this age and
even in the future, where and how precision agriculture could help the agriculture
systems. To deal with this challenge, on the one hand it is necessary to refer to
conceptual framework known as the “Long wave” theory of Kondratiev (neo–
Schumpeterian theory), which stated that radical technological revolutions influence
innovation and markets above social and economic changes. On the other hand, we
need to take into account the “Transition theory”, that try to explain technological
521
revolution emphasizing the spreading of niches. On these frameworks, it can be
resume that the two conceptual frameworks have similar targets and adopt
evolutionary economics with social change as a process of co-evolution of societal
sub-systems but with different historical coverage. Lastly, it is also important to bear
in mind that the Transition theory consider the sustainability, as opposed in the neo-
Schumpeterian theory, therefore it could be important for future evaluations. In order
to evaluate agricultural systems in their complexity, can be helpful the SWOT
analysis that allows to evaluate ex-ante or ex-post systems or policy programs as
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) as well as to focalize points of strength or
weakness and to underline opportunity or threats. This methodology is necessary to
defining differences between agricultural systems, characterized by different
innovations, and those which are now developing with the new approach named
“precision agriculture”. In the larger part of agro industrial farms the high tech
farming (HTF) is becoming a reality. The question to be resolved, therefore, is the
following: is it possible to assert the same for other farming system? Farmers will
have initial economical efforts, but for some agricultural operations, there are
immediate effects for environmental and economic sustainability. There are
severalexamples of technologytransferring to farmers in Europe inside
Mediterraneanregionsasproject “Mare, Ruralità e Terra: potenziare l’unitarietà
strategica” MARS + (Tirrò et al, 2013), “Vivaismo sostenibile” VIS (Recchia et al,
2013), “Valorizzazione della filiera vitivinicola attraverso la tracciabilità elettronica e
le applicazioni della viticoltura di precisione.” TRA.PRE.VIT (Sarri et al, 2015) and
“innovazioni per il miglioramento della viticoltura Toscana” IMVITO (Vieri et al,
2013). These projects documented that there are in addition initial barriers as in the
learning in using the software or to understand the usefulness of collecting field data
to deal with precision agriculture. Additionally, it must also be taken into account
that precision agriculture solutions is becoming commercially achievable and is
estimated that from 2014 to 2020 the precision agriculture market will grow every
year by 12%, more less 50% in 4 years (EC, 2016a). Finally, it is important to
measure the differences between old system and new one to let farmers choose
consciously what type of system adopt in order of economic, social and
environmental efforts and sustainability.
2 Materials and Methods
2.1 Technological Revolution Models
A first approach to delineate some guidelines in order to provide feasible
technological transferring to the different kind of agriculture systems requires an
initial reference to the theories that have been point out about technological
revolutions. Kondratiev wave theory describes technology revolutions and how
innovation irrupts through economy and markets. The also called “long wave”
theory, revised and discussed by many economist has many contact points with the
“Transition” theory that mainly analyses processes of radical change in society
522
connected with big changes in socio-technical system. Kondratiev theory (neo-
Schumpeterian theory) is not usually associated with sustainability instead,
“Transition” theory is it and is limited in its debate of how to influence social and
economic opportunity. Within this theory, “the advantages of the new technology
are so great that policy and institution accompany the development of the new
industry” (Köhler, 2012). There are several modern economist which have been tried
to describe long waves as Freeman and Louçã (Freeman and Louçã, 2001) that have
summarized in six phases the life cycle of a techno-economic paradigm i.e. 1, the
laboratory/invention phase, 2 decisive demonstration(s) of radical technical
improvement and commercial feasibility, 3 Explosive, turbulent growth,
characterized by heavy investment and many business start-ups and failures., The
phase 4 refers to continued high growth, as the new technology system becomes the
defining characteristic of economy, with impacts on most, if not all sectors of the
economy. The ‘regulatory regime’ is therefore reconfigured to support the new
technologies and industries’ products. Then the 5 step "Slowdown" as the technology
is challenged by new technologies, finally the 6 stage "Maturity" leading to a
(smaller) continuing role of the technology in the economy or slow disappearance.
Therefore, the innovation trajectories in long waves theory for technological
revolutions defined by Perez (Perez, 2010) are based on the diffusion of the
technological revolution and time and can be identified in four phases defined by a
first irruption phase followed by a frenzy period then by a synergy period and finally
a maturity period (figure 1).
Fig. 1. Graphic of technological revolution, based on Perez (2002).
523
Generally, the discussion on technological revolution is on industrial field, but it
can be borrowed also on agricultural revolutions that usually deduce from industrial
ground.
Lastly, if the larger part of economist agree with the “Schumpeter-Freeman-Perez”
paradigm that identify five waves for agricultural sector, innovations that bring new
waves can be compared with industrial revolution waves as showed in the table 1.
Table 1. Comparison between industrial revolutions and agricultural revolutions.
Big-bang Big-bang
Technologi
initiating the initiating the Agricultural
cal Popular name Year Year
industrial agricultural revolution
revolution for the period
revolution revolution
Arkwright’s mill First theory on
The Industrial
First opens in 1771 reversing 1774 First
revolution
Cromford plough*
Test of the
Rocket
steam engine for
Age of steam First gasoline
Second the 1829 1890 Second
and railways tractor engine**
Liverpool–
Manchester
railway
The Carnegie
Age of steel,
Bessemer
electricity and
Third steel plant opens 1875 - - -
heavy
in
engineering
Pittsburgh, PA
Age of Oil, the First Model-T
Automobile comes out Fordsontractor
Fourth and of the Ford plant 1908 based on T 1915 Third
Mass in model**
Production Detroit, MI
Fifth Age of The Intel 1971 ICT and digital 1997
Information microprocessor systems in
and is announced in agriculture Fourth
Telecommunic Santa management**
ations Clara, CA *
*AA.VV, (2008).
**Zoli, M., Vieri, M. (1998).
*** IstEuropean conference on precision agriculture (1997).
Technological revolutions in the industrial sector and also in the agriculture sector
occurred along the same years. Nevertheless, it must be noticed that for the main tool
of the green revolution i.e. the tractor, and specifically for the T tractor have elapsed
only few years, while it is just a fact to find the first microprocessor on tractor have
524
spent many years. Consequently, the first approach with CAN-bus was made only in
1988 (Biondi, 1999).
2.2 SWOT Analysis Method
In order to evaluate each agricultural revolution that generated different agricultural
systems, a SWOT analysis was carried out to assess ex-ante or ex-post the systems
with the objective to focalize points of strength or weakness from internal and to
underlines opportunity or threats from external (Table 2).
Table 2. SWOT matrix model
Helpful Harmful
(to achieving the objective) (to achieving the objective)
Internal origin Strengths Weaknesses
External origin Opportunities Threats
2.3 A Matrix to Compare Technological Revolutions in Agriculture
A matrix that compares agrarian revolution with a system based on the precision
agriculture method was made with the target to make order in this frenzy period and
in order to compare it with other known systems. This system, inspired to the smart
specialization strategies on high technology farming of European Commission on
research and innovation on the Agrofood sector, splits different mechanized/not-
mechanized field operations divided in technology oriented (eyes, touch, arms, mind)
and in service oriented (memory, experience, identity) (table 3). Under each
operation are shown the unit used (Vieri, 2016).
These operations were defined for the precision farming (but they can be
explained also for the others technological revolution) as follow:
● EYES & TOUCH to monitor the single element on wide area (sensors and digital
layer) and recognise the effects in each element treated (on board, proximal and
remote sensors)
● ARMS to do huge and precise tasks (automation, robot)
● MIND to be aware of what, where and when to act in each single productive step
(Modelling and Decision Support Systems)
● MEMORY to be aware on what has been done (telemetrics, traceability, data
store)
● EXPERIENCE (Data Management & Prescriptions)
525
● IDENTITY of agricultural resources and sustainable use at Local & Regional
level (territorial complexity, TRL of tools & services, Know-how, CoPs).
Table 3. Comparison between agricultural revolutions in terms of field operations technology
oriented
Agricultural Operation
revolution
EYES TOUCH ARMS MIND
ha/year/man ha/year/man h/ha/man surface
subsistence
First 2-3 2-3 From 800 to 80
farm
levelling
From 80 to 10 out
Second scheduled andprescribed application methods
and
practices
Third 200-300 200-300 From 10 to 2 farm
300-500 300-500
Fourth From 2 to ~ 1 global level
(multiparameter) (multiparameter)
Table 4. Comparison between agricultural revolutions in terms of field operations service
oriented
Agricultural Operation
revolution
MEMORY EXPERIENCE IDENTITY
data farmer farmer
First oral oral/personal experience family
Second levelling out methods and practices
Third oral/written/data local level/farms farms
Fourth big data global level local level
In the tables 3 and 4, clearly show how technology have influenced since the first to
the fourth agricultural revolution the different operations. Moreover, it is possible to
highlight as in the green revolution, (the second agricultural revolution) farmers did
not carry on decisions on many operations.
526
3 Discussion & Results
In the first agrarian revolution thanks to innovations in the design and efficiency
of ploughs, human strength increased even though there were less people employed
in farming because of industrial revolution and wars. In the second agrarian
revolution mechanization played a key role allowing everyone, more profits and
production. Thanks to this, although the increasing number of people, the born of
agroindustry resolved the hunger problem, with mechanization and chemicals. On the
other hand, the system loses its complexity in terms of territorial knowledge and
peculiarity. In the third agrarian revolution, times of innovation reduced in bias of
more complexity of systems and technologies used. Knowing this, a first approach,
committing the neo-Schumpeterian theory of technological revolutions and applying
the SWOT analysis to the fourth agricultural revolution can be discussed and
resumed as follows: (Table 5).
Table 5. SWOT Analysis on the fourth agricultural revolution
Helpful Harmful
(to achieving the objective) (to achieving the objective)
Internal origin Strengths Weaknesses
• knowledge – based • speculative business model
agriculture • digital divide of rural
• augmented capacity communities
• multidisciplinary • limited access to data and
innovation
External origin Opportunities Threats
• innovative value chain • business as usual value chain
• circular economy • inequality
• social cohesion • exploitation of rural
• empowerment of rural communities
communities • fragility
• antifragility
The table above summarize the state of the art of what is the fourth agricultural
revolution.
Thebiggest difference between the fourth agricultural revolution and the others is
that the former happens during the era of the digital revolution. This opens to the
opportunity of changing radically the value distribution and allows the re-thinking of
the local products (and local producers) as the core of a new value system based on
the triple bottom line approach (people, planet, profit). This paradigm has been
defined “rural social innovation”, and is aimed at investigating the pathways for a
Mediterranean social innovation initiative (Giordano, A. and Arvidsson, A., 2015).
Referring to the SWOT analysis, this means that threats can become opportunities for
medium and small agricultural companies and this represents a challenge for the
527
territories in which these companies play a significant role for the social and
economic development of the communities.
Trying to realize it, we should also consider that there are different actors turning
in this system, discovering who exactly they are and how they act.
The main actors of this system are:
- government (local or central), as the actor in charge for the policies
- farmers, as the actor in charge for the supply
- people, as the actor in charge for the final consumption demand
In this scenario, policies should take in consideration the real need of rural
communities, taking care of the important role played by them for maintenance of
landscape, water regulation, traditions, food quality and finally, of all the dimensions
that can generate positive social and environmental impacts.
The last European Policies (CAP) and the Declaration of Cork 2.0 claim this path
well signed (EC, 2016b).
Table 6. Perspective of possible evolution of technological shifting in agricultural contest
Empowerment of
rural communities
Traditional CSA
technology Digital innovation hub
transfer
Speculative as
Innovative
usual business
value chain
model
Marketing
Top- Down of local
policies products
Exploitation of
rural communities
Furthermore, the SWOT analysis risks realizing a static vision of the reality. In
fact, it is not possible to effect on strengths and weaknesses but it is possible to have
a deeper vision of the SWOT analysis working on and convert treats in opportunities.
In this case, referring to the table 5 there are two key variables, the value chain
(strength-weaknesses related) and the level of empowerment-exploitation of rural
communities and we intend to show how guidelines can influence the evolution of
the new agricultural paradigm, in terms of technological shifting, and their related
effects. This dynamic framework can develop (if the factors on the axis go to the
upside and the right) in a Community Supported Agriculture system (CSA), a digital
innovation hub, or other online and offline networks that fulfil the rural social
innovation approach, which include a digital approach (Lombardo, 2017 in press).
528
Every action took by actors, in other directions, cannot realize completely the
innovations needed in rural areas for farmers. In fact, turning threats in opportunities
means that the access to technology allows little and medium companies to use
environmental peculiarities (i.e. biodiversity or landscape) as levers for marketing.
For this reasons instead, those peculiarities can be the lever of a new value
distribution.
3.1 A First Approach to Comparison Between Precision Agriculture and Other
Agricultural Revolutions
Whilst it has been considered the policies and a different innovation approach in
rurality, on the other side arises the necessity to compare operational data in order to
understand that filling the gap of technologies innovation in agriculture is a real need.
As an evaluation example of agricultural working stages, the ploughing was
considered. The reference unit analysed was the working capacity expressed as m3 h-
1
ploughed considering a soil furrow slice with a 0,2 m deep and 0,4 m width, for a
total surface of 8 dm2 worked by a man with a shovel. The time required was set to
800 hours per hectare as documented by CosimoRidolfi (Faucci, 2008) and further a
yard efficiency of 0,85 was set. In view of these parameters, it follows that the
amount of soil to plow was 2000 m3 per hectare and that a man with a shovel was
able to work around 2,5 m3 per hour. This reference unit yard was compared with the
horse with plough, to the tractor coupled with single plow, a tractor with a five
ploughshare plows and finally with a tractor equipped with a five ploughshare plows
and automatic drive. The yard working capacity was calculated multiplying the
forward speed by the soil furrow slice surface. Then the resulting value was
multiplied by the yard efficiency.
529
Table 7. Work needed for a furrow slice of 8 dm2 for different yard typologies representing
diverse technologies revolutions.
Working capacity
Yard
m3 h-1
Man + Volume/h m3 h-1 2,5
Shovel Yard efficiency 0,85 2
-1
Horse + Forward speed mh 3600
Plough Yard efficiency 0,8 230
-1
Tractor + Forward speed mh 6000
Single Plough Yard efficiency 0,7 336
-1
Tractor + Forward speed mh 6000
five ploughshare Yard efficiency 0,7 1680
-1
Tractor + Forward speed mh 6000
five ploughshare +
Yard efficiency 0,9 2160
Automatic Drive
The results showed, referring to the unit m3 h-1and taking as reference unit the man
work, the huge differences between the productivity of a tractor (like that one of the
2ndth and 3th agricultural revolution and the more used kind of tractor), compared to
the productivity of a tractor with automatic drive. The difference encountered
between the productivity of the tractor with ploughshare 336 m3 h-1 and the tractor
with five ploughshare 1680 m3 h-1 is attributable to the increasing number of
ploughshares and not to the technology used. It is important to underline, the relevant
difference if the technology used changing. In fact, a tractor with five ploughshare
has a productivity of 1680 m3 h-1, but a tractor with five ploughshare and automatic
drive has a productivity of 2.160 m3 h-1 that is 1,3 times more.
4 Conclusions
Approaching to the fourth agricultural revolution and trying to understand
emerging needs, in both operational and policies it could be a chance to introduce
profitable innovations in agriculture to have a sustainable managing of the natural
resource. The highlight on one field operation, comparing through different kind of
technology used, is the first step to underline the necessity of a technology
introduction also for small and medium agricultural enterprises. In this contest, it is
important to remember the feasibility of a technology and the cost to effort for every
kind of company. The challenge for the policy makers in the framework of a
technological revolution, such as precision farming, is boosting knowledge and
technological transfer also for those farmers who can’t have all the capital needed.
530
For this reasons, it is desirable to design and implement an economic and social
ecosystem able in supporting this kind of policy. Only in this way, it will possible to
shift from a extractive business as usual value, to a community supported agriculture
system (CSA), where the value generation and redistribution is coherent with the
effective value contribution given by the actors involved in the process.In
conclusion, these kind of policies allow us to consider a new SWOT analysis that
faces the challenge of the rural social innovation approach.
References
1. Biondi, P. (1999) Le macchine agricole UTET, 3, p.76-78.
2. EC, (2016a) Precision Agriculture and the Future of farming in Europe -
Technical Horizon Scan; Study, Science and Technology Option Assessment.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/581892/EPRS_STU(
2016)581892_EN.pdf. Accessed October 1 2017.
3. EC, (2016b) Cork 2.0 Declaration A Better Life in Rural Areas. Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union.
http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/sites/enrd/files/cork-declaration_en.pdf. Accessed May
13 2017.
4. Faucci, R. (2008) Centro studi sulla Civiltà Toscana fra ‘800 e ‘900, serie di
storia del pensiero economico 48/1, Cosimo Ridolfi - Scritti scelti.
5. Freeman, C. and Louçã, F. (2001) As Time Goes By: From the Industrial
Revolutions to the Information Revolution. Oxford University Press,
http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oxp:obooks:9780199241071.
6. Giordano, A. and Arvidsson, A., (2015) Il manifesto della rural social
innovationhttp://www.ruralhub.it/manifesto-rural-social-innovation/ .
7. Köhler, J. (2012) A comparison of the neo-Schumpeterian theory of Kondratiev
waves and the multi-level perspective on transitions. Environmental Innovation
and Societal Transitions, 3, p.1-15.
8. Lombardo, S., Sarri, D., Vieri, M. and Baracco, G. (in press). Proposal for spaces
of agrotechnology co-generation in marginal areas 2017. Atti della Società
Toscana di scienze Naturali, Serie B.
9. Perez, C. (2010) Technological revolutions and techno-economic
paradigms. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34, p.185-202.
10. Recchia L., Sarri D., Rimediotti M., Vieri M., Cini E., (2013) Environmental
benefits from the use of the residual biomass in nurseries. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 81, 31-9.
11. Sarri, D., Lisci, R., Rimediotti, M., Vieri, M. and Storchi, P. (2015) Applications
of the precision viticulture techniques in the Chianti district. Paper presented at
the 1st Conference on Proximal Sensing Supporting Precision Agriculture - Held
at Near Surface Geoscience 2015, p.121-25.
531
12. Tirrò, G., Lisci, R., Rimediotti, M., Sarri, D. and Vieri, M. (2013) The cross-
border project between France and Italy MARS+ sub-project - innovative
technologies for the mechanization of the areas hard to reach. Journal of
Agricultural Engineering, 44, 425-30.
13. Vieri M. (2016) S3 Platforms for High Technology Farming pillars of the
Scoping Note [PowerPoint Presentation]: EU Kick-off Event of the Smart
Specialisation Platform on Agri-Food, Florence, 6 December 2016, Available at:
http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/-/kick-off-event-of-the-smart-specialisation-
platform-on-agri-food?inheritRedirect=true .
14. Vieri M., Sarri D., Rimediotti M., Perria R. and Storchi P., (2013) The new
architecture in the vineyard system management for variable rate technologies
and traceability).
15. Zoli, M. and Vieri, M. (1998) Storia del XX secolo, Istituto della Enciclopedia
Italiana fondata da Giovanni Treccani, Roma. Tecnologie I, (III), VII, p.7-19 .
532