Perspective Digital Agriculture, Mascha Gugganig and Kelly Bronson

PERSPECTIVE DIGITAL AGRICULTURE AND KELLY DIGITAL AGRICULTURE AND THE PROMISE OF IMMATERIALITY is a anthropologist and science and technology studies ( scholar who researches knowledge politics that both constitute and trouble expertise on ( nous ) land and environmental issues . Through ethnographic , multimodal research and policy analysis , she researches and ( discourses and practices of sustainable ture . She is currently an Alex Postdoctoral Fellow in Artificial Intelligence and Environment at the University of , and a Research Associate at the Department of Science Technology Studies , Technical University Munich . AND KELLY 681

Kelly is a Canada Research Chair in Science and Society at the University of in Canada . She is a social scientist studying and helping to mitigate that erupt around controversial technologies and their Os to big data . Her research aims to bring community values and knowledge into tion with technical in the production of making . Kelly is the author of Immaculate Conception of Data Agribusiness , activists and their shared politics of the future . Learning Outcomes After reading and discussing this text , students should be able to Describe the many different elements of digital ture , including both hardware and software elements . Explain why the digitization of of many different practices and material effects in the world . Articulate some of the broader and potentially effects of the digital revolution in ture . INTRODUCTION When thinking about food production , you likely imagine a farmer standing in a field using a notebook to log observations about crops . Maybe you can hear the sound of the 682 DIGITAL AGRICULTURE

grain rustling in the wind as you envision the farmer feeling the wheat shaft and plunging her hand into the soil to assess its ture level . Yet farming is also envisioned to become digitized , whereby insights on crop quality and soil moisture are determined using digital devices like sensors on tractors . The virtues of digital agriculture is its ( supposed ) immateriality , such as the precise ( and thus reduced ) use of fertilizers through advice stored in the cloud . Proponents argue that a digital revolution will reduce farming negative material impacts on the ment and on human health , while opponents raise concerns about digital tools displacing human labourers . In this chapter we ask Does the digitalization of agriculture mean will become immaterial , that it will no longer involve ple , and that it will no longer generate the material and environmental impacts of practices ?

We explore these questions and highlight some of the continued material aspects of digital tools in agriculture . We situate this chapter within new materialist social science , which has lighted the material effects of social processes ( the tous use of plastic bags as a consumer convenience ) that have real material effects on the environment . To date , however , less tion has been given to digital We begin the chapter by outlining common terms connected to digital agriculture , showing how it is often talked about as an escape from materiality . We illustrate the continued materiality of digital agriculture in two physical matter , and as conclude that agriculture still depends on the material world , with significant impacts on people and the environment . For an exception , see Cobby 2020 and Higgins et al 2017 . AND KELLY 683

WHAT IS DIGITAL AGRICULTURE ?

There are many terms that relate to digital agriculture , and sion agriculture is arguably the most prominent one . With the help of sensors embedded in farm machinery , precision agriculture has for two decades been used to apply resources in a highly trolled and specific The farm machinery collects data on local weather or soil conditions , which then drive farm decisions . In recent years , such data have been combined with remote ing data , including environmental ( climate ) The resulting big can be processed using computing to create even more precise insights on farm management decisions , such as when to plant , apply chemicals , irrigate , and so on . The term digital agriculture is often used to refer to the use of big data in food production , combined with the deployment of internet of things ( loT ) technology , artificial intelligence ( Al ) machine learning , cloud computing , as well as unmanned aerial vehicles ( and robotics . Another common term is smart farming . Compared to precision agriculture , scholars argue that smart farming and agriculture are terms , as the former includes digitization of whole food systems ( beyond farming ) while the latter may include processes , like gene editing of Another umbrella term is the fourth agricultural revolution , yet there is no agreement as to what constitutes its newness , whether it has started , and if it is even . Wolf Wood 1997 . 2017 , Rose 2018 , 87 et al . 2019 , 100315 Overall , distinguishing agriculture into successive periods reflects a problematic evolutionary tion of agriculture . Rose 2018 . 684 DIGITAL AGRICULTURE

THE IMMATERIAL SMART FARM OF THE FUTURE A common way proponents talk about the benefits of digital agriculture is in regard to its decreased material impact on the environment . Indeed , the current systems of intensive , global , capitalist food its heavy reliance on cultural been the cause of tremendous house gas emissions and water Proponents of digital agriculture predict that insights will lead to a dramatic reduction in chemical use . As Tobias , head of Global Digital ing Unit explained Before , selling more products meant more business for a company like whereas in future , the fewer we sell the better , because were selling based services . With sensor devices , we can learn a lot more about what is and is not helping crops and livestock and create a better way of doing Here , the lead of the largest agribusiness corporation claims that conventional products like pesticides and seeds will no longer drive their business instead , they will focus on services . One Canadian agricultural economist likewise explained in an view If we are to feed 10 billion people by 2100 while serving our environment , the next green revolution must incorporate the virtual Scholars often similarly argue that precision agriculture will substitute environmental tion and knowledge for physical . Food 2015 . Quoted in 2004 , para . 2019 , 2004 . AND KELLY 685

10 . 11 . 12 . Yet it resources for software and machines , the climate , or not simply disappear . In the next tion we explore the material of digital agriculture , and then look at labour , including how farmers interact with artifacts . THE MATERIAL OF DIGITAL AGRICULTURE To consider the materiality of digital artifacts , it is helpful to two forms materiality as physical substance ( drones detecting weeds ) and materiality as the manifestation of or ( intellectual property rights that allow or restrict the use of farm management tools ) Materiality as physical matter One key infrastructure supporting digital agriculture is energy , which requires materials like coal , gas , and oil , as well as water , wind , and solar infrastructure . When boasts that its Climate Pro sensors generate seven gigabytes of data per acre , there are implications for the resources needed to manage that data . Consider this if the virtual cloud ( where our data is stored and processed ) were a country , it would have the fifth largest electricity demand In that context , digital ture also requires reliable rural telecommunication ture and broadband access . Another material dimension concerns the extraction of rare earth minerals to create in microchips for computers and platforms , analytic software , and data storage systems . Scholars have explored this material dimension for social 2010 , 2017 , 139 . Cook 2012 . 686 DIGITAL AGRICULTURE

media and information and communication technology ( Due to the heavy reliance on and digital platforms , digital agriculture shares many environmental impacts , ing water and energy use , as well as detrimental labour A key material property in digital agriculture is computer structure , especially for scientists and engineers in the public tor . Often , public sector computer scientists are limited by a lack of access to sophisticated Concurrently , spatial compiled by public entities ( such as NASA ) are used by industry actors to develop products that are subsequently blocked behind . Seeing the materiality of digital microchips , servers , computers , cell towers , or the electricity be difficult in the farming context , where it seems distant from the immediate However , these infrastructures have an immediate effect on those that have to generate such materials . For instance , the demand for cobalt and other minerals has resulted in ongoing violence , slavery and labour exploitation in the Democratic Republic of worlds largest producer of businesses in Silicon Valley turing industry frequently contaminate the environment and human 13 . Reading 2014 . 14 . et al . 2015 . 15 . Cobby 2020 Chen 2016 2018 2014 . 16 . 2018 . 17 . 2017 , 147 . 18 . 2014 . 19 . Fellow Park , 1991 . AND KELLY 687

20 . 21 . 22 . 23 . 24 . 25 . Materiality as ideas As mentioned above , materiality is also the result of principles or values . Governments around the world create and invest public money to develop telecommunication infrastructure , yet often for private reflecting the principle of equal rural access to the internet may therefore result in supporting industry actors who could not profit from selling digital farm tools without this infrastructure . Digital infrastructure expansion and maintenance can also prove controversial ( concerns over technology environmental and health or cell tower infrastructures intervening with natural heritage ) Policies Legal infrastructures , in the form of intellectual property rights , are also principles that are in material properties they regulate who can have access to data and machinery for developing and using sensing technologies , file formats , or Exemplary is the agribusiness corporation john , which applies copyright licenses to protect both data and sensing machines , which in turn limits farmers access to their data and preventing them from fixing their Further , interpreting agricultural data requires digital skills and expertise that many farmers often do not possess , but which would allow them to interpret data and acquire ties to tinker , fix , innovate and build Concerns over et al . Higgins 2017 688 DIGITAL AGRICULTURE

26 . 27 . 28 . 29 . 30 . proprietary have spurred such initiatives as the organization , Ag Data Coalition , which seeks to give farmers an option for storing all of their data in one secure location independent of suppliers or State authorities have also worked towards holder engagements in the governance of digital agriculture ( the Swiss Charter on the of Swiss Agriculture and Food Production ) The materialization of values , in the form of private gain , is also visible in the design of digital agricultural technologies . like John develop tools with large commodity crop and farms in Farm technology ers , and investors often imagine farmers as being minimally concerned with anything but economic This results in commercial systems like that follow economic logics , and provide an overview that is only ful for farms . As one Prairie farmer , Dan , explained , precision tractors with are only worthwhile for farms like his because of the cumulative efficiency gains Say , you re overlapping by two feet every time , it doesn take very long before you start to add up quite a bit of As a result , farmers have had little to gain from the use of ( very costly ) digital agriculture tools . Most visual tools trained to detect crop diseases are also not conducive to culture growth settings . Such farming systems are currently not captured by applications trained to collect big The value Mooney . 2018 2019 , 100294 . 2019 . 2016 . AND KELLY 689

32 . 33 . 34 . 35 . 36 . 37 . 38 . 39 . of farming as business is thus into the materiality of digital technologies currently on the market . IMPLICATIONS OF DIGITAL AGRICULTURE Because there is a bias toward commodity producers , digital agriculture arguably , industrial system that has known material implications on people and the Digital agriculture extends historic processes of the industrialization of , potentially leading to a new digital food 34 Adding the dimension of energy , extracted resources for developing microchips , digital storehouses , and rural network infrastructures , the tal and health consequences of a digitized agriculture may in fact undo its own sustainability Digital tools such as robots may also alter farmers identity and relationships to farming Indeed , requiring farmers to use decision support tools can how farmers interact with their A farm may turn into a control centre where the farmer becomes an office manager or data The good farmer may be the one who trusts big data to be more objective than their neighbor , their gut , or their own tacit De 2015 . 2016 2019 . et al . 2019 , 10 . Cobby , 2020 et al . 2020 , 101183 . 2015 . 2021 . Rose et al . 2018 . et al . 2000 , 913 . et al . 2019 . 2017 , 145 Miles 2019 et al . 2017 , 957 . 690 DIGITAL AGRICULTURE

Yet for farmers , a digital monitoring system may also free up time for leisure activities , fostering other forms of relationships , caring for animals beyond service exchanges like cattle for milk , or improving communication with their consumers . Indeed , in practice , farmers engage with precision technologies in many ways , sometimes by tinkering and repurposing them , or blending them with analogue CONCLUSION Proponents of digital agriculture claim that digital tools in culture will require less chemical input , such as pesticides or fertilizer , as they can now be applied in a more precise way . The digitization of farm management , often imagined as data in the form of a distant cloud , is portrayed as is , requiring less machinery , chemical input , and land for food production . Digital agriculture is also imagined to decrease the detrimental impacts on the environment due to decades of input industrial agriculture . Yet there are numerous material for , and consequences of the digitalization of culture , that has effects on land and people . To better understand such claims of immateriality , this chapter approached materiality not merely as physical matter but also as ideas . This is because the existence ( or lack ) of , intellectual property rights , digital education programs , and the design of tools have material implications regarding who is able to participate in the digital revolution in ture . Likewise , the material of tools are , similarly to other sectors , reliant on the extraction of rare earth minerals , energy resources for drive sensors , or rural telecommunication infrastructures . They exemplify the very real material needs for the digitization of agriculture . 41 . et al . 2019 , 100305 Higgins et al . 2017 . AND KELLY 691

Some questions left to consider are Does existing policy ( like broadband development programs ) and existing legislation ( like licenses protecting farm data as corporate property ) serve the public , industry , or both ?

Who ought to hold the legal rights to develop , tinker With , and fix digital tools and ?

What if digital tools were developed such that they a broad array of farm values , like the environmental principles of , or the relational knowledge of Indigenous farming ?

What might the very material dimensions of digital agricultural tools look like if they were developed by farmers and developers , based on their knowledge and expertise , rather than merely industry scientists ?

As you can see , there is still much research to be done ! Discussion Questions What are the key elements of digital agriculture ?

How have digital technologies changed farming practices ?

How have digital technologies changed how and what we think about agriculture ?

What are the potential benefits of digital ture ?

What are the potential problems ?

This chapter identifies materiality as an important concept for examining the impacts of digital agriculture . What is materiality and why is it important to identify the material effects of digital agriculture ?

Additional Resources 692 DIGITAL AGRICULTURE Disadvantaged by Digitization Technology , Big Data , and Food Systems . 2021 . Handpicked Stories from the Field ( podcast ) References , and . 2017 . Look twice at the digital cultural Policy Options . 2019 . Meeting Data User Needs A Look Behind the Curtain . and . 2004 . Precision agriculture and Precision Agriculture ( 2018 . Smart farming including rights holders for responsible agricultural Technology Innovation Review ( 2019 . Looking through a responsible innovation lens at uneven engagements with digital journal ofLife Sciences 90 100294 . and . 2016 . Big Data in food and Big Data ?

Society ( 2053951716648174 . and . 2019 . The digital divide and how it matters for Canadian food system Canadian journal of Communication 44 ( 2017 . food big data , precision culture , and techniques of 57 ( AND KELLY 693 Chen , 2016 . The materialist circuits and the quest for justice in global , Capitalism Critique . Open Access journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 14 ( Cobby , 2020 . Searching for sustainability in the digital agriculture debate an alternative approach for a systemic 17 ( Cook , 2012 . How Clean is Your Cloud ?

Accessed May 16 . De , 2015 . Don Let Food Be the Foreign Policy . Jorge , Nicholas Short , Daniel Roberts , and Bruce . 2019 . Big Data Analysis for Sustainable Agriculture on a Cloud Frontiers in Food Systems . and . 2018 . Cows desiring to be milked ?

Milking robots and the of ethics and on Dutch dairy Agriculture and Human Values 32 , no . 2015 ) Nathan . The environmental tory of Technology and Culture 59 ( Miller , Roth , and . 2015 . Conflict minerals in the compute sector estimating extent of tin , tantalum , tungsten , and gold use in Science Technology 49 ( 2014 . Theorising and analysing digital labour From global value chains to modes of The Political Economy of Communication ( Higgins , Bryant , Howell , and . 2017 . ing adoption Materiality , knowledge and farmer engagement 694 DIGITAL AGRICULTURE

with precision agriculture journal of Rural Studies 55 . Hes , Galt , 2017 . Agricultural systems knowledge and In Handbook of Science ?

Technology Studies , ed . Food ( International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems ) 2015 . The New Science Food Systems . and . 2019 . A review of social science on digital agriculture , smart farming and agriculture New contributions and a future research journal ofLife Sciences 90 100315 . and . 2020 . Adverse health effects of mobile networking technology under Toxicology Letters 323 . van der Burg , and . 2020 . The future ( of digital agriculture and sustainable food systems An analysis of policy Ecosystem Services 45 101 183 . and . 2021 . How apple ers are assembling in anticipation of new Al of Rural Studies 82 . 2010 . Digital materiality ?

How artifacts without matter , First Monday 15 ( 1991 . Women who make the Science as ture ( Miles , 2019 . The Combine Will Tell the Truth On precision agriculture and algorithmic Big Data Society ( 205395 1719849444 . AND KELLY 695 Mooney , 2018 . Blocking the chain chain tion , Big Data platforms and food sovereignty solutions . Berlin ETC Group . and Park . 2002 . The Silicon Valley of dreams Environmental injustice , immigrant workers , and the global economy . Vol . 31 . New York NYU Press . Reading , A . 2014 . Seeing Red A political economy of digital Media , Culture Society 36 ( Rose , and . 2018 . Agriculture Broadening responsible innovation in an era of smart Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems ( 87 . Rose , Morris , Winter , and Lynn Dicks . 2018 . Exploring the of technological and user the case of decision support tools in UK 89 . Duncan , Small , Dara , Reed , and . 2019 . The politics of digital technologies a preliminary 59 ( and . 2018 . Can the Digital Revolution Transform Agriculture ?

Institute . February 28 . Seymour , and Watkins . 2000 . Exploring Precision farming , yield mapping , and the Environment and Planning A 32 ( Hansen , and . 2019 . The political structural consequences of automated ing systems ( AMS ) in journal of Life Sciences 90 100305 . 696 DIGITAL AGRICULTURE

Wolf , and . Wood . 1997 . Precision Farming mental Legitimation , of Information , and Industrial Coordination Rural Sociology 62 ( AND KELLY 697