The distributed farmer: rethinking US Midwestern precision agriculture techniques

Comi, Matt

doi:10.1080/23251042.2020.1794426

Cited by 29 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It enables farmers to stay at least partially independent of large corporations and to regain or maintain sovereignty over how their data is shared [2,10,19,43]. FarmOS and similar initiatives such as the OpenAg Data Alliance, Joindata, FarmLogs, and DJustConnect collect and use data "for and by farm owners without ag-input company ownership" and under their own sovereignty [61]. These initiatives provide alternative, low-cost open-source software on shared platforms that acknowledge farmers' ownership of their data and operate outside of corporate control [10,17,43].…”

Section: Uneven Sovereignty Over Data and Hardwarementioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns of Inequalities in Digital Agriculture: A Systematic Literature Review

Hackfort

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digitalization of agriculture is often hailed as the next agricultural revolution. However, little is yet known about its social impacts and power effects. This review addresses this research gap by analyzing patterns of inequality linked to the development and adoption of digital technologies in agriculture and reviewing the strategies developed to reduce these inequalities and challenge the power relations in which they are embedded. Analysis of 84 publications found through a systematic literature review identified five patterns of inequality: (1) in digital technology development; (2) in the distribution of benefits from the use of digital technologies; (3) in sovereignty over data, hardware and digital infrastructure; (4) in skills and knowledge (‘digital literacy’); and (5) in problem definition and problem-solving capacities. This review also highlights the existence of emancipatory initiatives that are applying digital technologies to challenge existing inequalities and to advance alternative visions of agriculture. These initiatives underscore the political nature of digital agriculture; however, their reach is still quite limited. This is partly due to the fact that existing inequalities are structural and represent expressions of corporate power. From such a perspective, digitalization in agriculture is not a ‘revolution’ per se; rather, digital technologies mirror and reproduce existing power relations.

show abstract

Section: Uneven Sovereignty Over Data and Hardwarementioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns of Inequalities in Digital Agriculture: A Systematic Literature Review

Hackfort

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While changes in equipment need to be made and some farmers remark that no‐till works against the grain of conventional farming aesthetics or norms, it is still fairly easily to incorporate into large‐scale agricultural production of commodity row‐crops, like corn and soy. Similar to Bronson’s (2019) observations regarding the “smart farming revolution,” hegemonic features of industrial agriculture (and its assemblages) tend to reproduce themselves, including the increasing reliance on machinery and agrichemicals, expanding acreage of production, and growing profitability (see also Comi 2020, 403–404). No‐till allows for advances in soil conservation in ways that do not necessarily challenge these facets of industrial farming’s status quo.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

A “Win‐Win” for Soil Conservation? How Indiana Row‐Crop Farmers Perceive the Benefits (and Trade‐offs) of No‐Till Agriculture

Kawa¹

2021

Culture Agric Food & Envi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To address problems of soil degradation, industrial farmers across the United States have converted to no‐till agriculture, which can mitigate the effects of soil erosion and reduce operating costs without necessarily compromising agricultural output. However, producers still debate the benefits of this practice. Through participant observation and semi‐structured interviews with 14 row‐crop farmers in central Indiana, this study examines farmer perceptions of no‐till as a soil conservation practice. Ethnographic findings reveal that adopters highlight no‐till’s benefits for improving soil quality while also minimizing operating costs, including labor and fuel. However, both adopters and critics alike acknowledge trade‐offs; for example, no‐till disrupts entrenched management practices and norms—from the aesthetics of “clean” fields to the timing of spring planting. Furthermore, some non‐adopters argue that no‐till’s heightened reliance on herbicide contradicts the broader goals of conservation. This study thus shows that while a compelling case can be made for no‐till as an environmental and economic “win‐win,” this narrative also elides ongoing disagreements and trade‐offs linked to its adoption. No‐till’s appeal for many producers is that it advances soil conservation without fundamentally challenging industrial farming’s aspiration for ever‐increasing efficiency and profitability.

show abstract

“…To best understand hybrid socioecological landscapes and develop just transitions forward, therefore, we must critically examine the relations at these highly contested and power-laden “contact zones” in which organisms “become-with” the surrounding landscape [ 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 81 , 88 – 90 ].…”

Section: Theoretical Approach: Critical Hybridity and The Problem Of ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Be(e)coming pollinators: Beekeeping and perceptions of environmentalism in Massachusetts

DiDonato

Gareau

2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an era of mass extinction and biodiversity crisis, it is increasingly crucial to cultivate more just and inclusive multispecies futures. As mitigation and adaption efforts are formed in response to these crises, just transitions forward require intentional consideration of the hybrid entanglement of humans, human societies, and wider landscapes. We thus apply a critical hybridity framework to examine the entanglement of the pollinator crisis with the cultural and agricultural practice of hobbyist beekeeping. We draw on ethnographic engagements with Massachusetts beekeepers and find apiculture to be widely understood as a form of environmentalism—including as both a mitigation to and adaptation for the pollinator crisis. Illustrating how power-laden socioecological negotiations shape and reshape regional environments, we then discuss how this narrative relies on the capitalistic and instrumental logics characteristic of Capitalocene environmentalisms. These rationalities, which obscure the hybridity of landscapes, consequently increase the likelihood of problematic unintended consequences. Also present, however, is a deeper engagement with hybrid perspectives, with some beekeepers even offering pathways toward inclusive solutions. We conclude that if more just and biodiverse futures are to be realized, beekeeping communities must foster increasingly hybrid visions of apiculture as situated within socioecological and contested landscapes.

show abstract

The distributed farmer: rethinking US Midwestern precision agriculture techniques

Cited by 29 publications

References 49 publications

Patterns of Inequalities in Digital Agriculture: A Systematic Literature Review

Patterns of Inequalities in Digital Agriculture: A Systematic Literature Review

A “Win‐Win” for Soil Conservation? How Indiana Row‐Crop Farmers Perceive the Benefits (and Trade‐offs) of No‐Till Agriculture

Be(e)coming pollinators: Beekeeping and perceptions of environmentalism in Massachusetts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About