Sustainable Farming

#### **Chapter 2**

## Adoption of Conservation Agriculture as a Driver of Sustainable Farming: Opportunities, Constraints, and Policy Issues

*Pomi Shahbaz, Shamsheer ul Haq and Ismet Boz*

#### **Abstract**

Sustainable farming is critical for rural development and global food security, but it is threatened by intensive agriculture and climate change. Conservation agriculture (CA) is a sustainable farming system developed in response to intensive agriculture, environmental degradation, and climate change caused by traditional agriculture systems. This chapter discusses the role of CA in sustainable farming and examines the factors influencing CA adoption globally through a review of previous studies. The review results indicated that CA assists farmers increase farm sustainability by influencing economic, social, and environmental dimensions through minimum mechanical soil disturbance, permanent soil cover, and diversification. CA adoption aims at maintaining soil fertility, improving farm yield, and reducing the use of external inputs necessary for sustainable farming. Therefore, the number of CA-adopting countries has grown significantly over the last decade but its adoption is constrained by a variety of factors such as farmers' demographic characteristics, farm characteristics, institutional factors, capital ownership, cognitive factors, and farm manager entrepreneurial ability. Moreover, abundance of small-scale farming and a lack of awareness about the role of CA in sustainable farming also pose a challenge to the global adoption of CA. Farmers' entrepreneurial abilities and awareness of CA benefits should be improved to increase adoption of CA and sustainable farming.

**Keywords:** conservation agriculture, farm sustainability, sustainable farming, sustainable land management, sustainable agriculture

#### **1. Introduction**

Farming systems play a critical role in ensuring food security worldwide, and healthy soils are necessary for sustainable food production. Farming systems are under huge pressure to meet the increasing demands of agricultural commodities due to an increasing global population and climate change. Farming systems try to meet growing demands through intensified agriculture. Intensified agriculture poses a threat to sustainable farming as it affects the quality of natural resources [1]. Monoculture farming, heavy use of off-farm inputs, and machinery have multifaceted negative

impacts on the environment and soil health [2]. The intensive nature of conventional farming raises the risk of soil degradation. Moreover, land and soil degradation have increased dramatically because farming systems have transitioned from high manpower and low input production to low manpower, high use of external inputs, and a highly mechanized system. Machines with more horsepower that move faster than required speed harm the quality and health of the soil. This also increases the loss of soil organic matter, slows water infiltration, and lowers the soil's ability to hold water, all of which are prerequisite for sustainable production [3]. Thus, degradation of land and ecological system services due to intensified agriculture should be avoided, and previous degradation of land must be remedied for sustainable farming [4].

In addition to intensified agriculture, climate change also poses a serious threat to global farming sustainability. Agriculture accounts for nearly one-fourth of total global greenhouse gas emissions and is also directly affected by the effects of climate change [5]. Thus, agriculture is both a cause and an affectee of climate change [6]. Moreover, extreme climatic events are occurring more frequently and are having a severe impact on agriculture by degrading soil and land health [7].

Climate change and land degradation necessitate a more sound and sustainable farming production paradigm that is both environmentally sustainable and economically profitable without compromising yield and productivity [5]. Furthermore, the production system's flexibility and strength must be increased in response to shocks and stress caused by climate change. Similarly, increasing biodiversity above and below ground in the crop production system has numerous important benefits that improve soil health and enable farmers to produce in a way that is supported by society [8]. All of these measures result in sustainable farming, which includes increased production (economic sustainability), a healthier environment, and high resilience to climatic shocks and stress (environmental sustainability) [9]. To conserve and enhance the natural habitats and resources of the environment, "sustainable production intensification" is a new production paradigm [10], which acknowledges the prerequisite for productive and remunerative farming [4, 11]. So, all of these goals can be reached with a no-till method, which is also called Conservation Agriculture (CA). Tillage has a significant impact on soil health because it disrupts the soil's water retention capacity, temperature, and evapotranspiration process [1]. Furthermore, tillage results in a significant loss of soil organic carbon [12].

CA is a sophisticated modern production system that enables farmers to perform sustainable production, which leads to the achievement of sustainable farming goals [13]. Somasundaram et al. [14] define "CA" as "a set of management practices for sustainable agricultural production that avoids excessive soil disturbance in order to protect it from soil degradation processes such as erosion, compaction, structural/ aggregate breakdown, loss of soil organic matter, and nutrient leaching. FAO [15] defines CA as a farming system that promotes minimum soil disturbance, the maintenance of a permanent soil cover, and the diversification of plant species. Thus, CA has three principles, which are as follows: 1) low mechanical soil disturbance; 2) permanent soil cover; and 3) diversification (**Figure 1**).

No-tillage, minimal disturbance, and direct seeding without tilling the soil are all examples of minimal mechanical soil disturbance. It explains how to cause the least amount of soil disturbance through cultural farm practices or mechanical operations. Direct seeding into soil is encouraged for sustainable farming [16]. FAO [15] also suggested that the disturbed area should be 15 cm wide or less than 25% of the total cropped area. Minimal or no-tillage is an effective erosion control measure that increases fertilizer and water use efficiency and crop yield [17].

*Adoption of Conservation Agriculture as a Driver of Sustainable Farming: Opportunities… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106002*

#### **Figure 1.**

*Principles of conservation agriculture.*

Permanent organic soil cover refers to the ground surface's permanent biomass soil mulch cover. It is particularly encouraged when there is a long gap between harvesting and planting the next crop [15]. Crop biomass, cover crops, and rootstocks can all be preserved. Microbes decompose the cover crop naturally in the soil [18]. When the field is empty, it protects the soil and mobilizes and accelerates the nutrient recycling process. Soil cover also preserves the soil structure and reduces hardpans and compacted layers. Moreover, it also reduces weed growth and pest attacks.

Diversification refers to the preservation of soil nutrients through crop rotation, which entails the proper sequence and association of annual and perennial crops, as well as a balanced mix of legume and nonlegume crops [5]. Crop rotation feeds the soil because many nutrients leach down to the deeper layers of soil and are no longer available for better crop growth. These nutrients are naturally recycled through proper and balanced crop rotation [15].

As a result, CA is critical for sustainable farming, and this chapter will discuss CA's brief history and current global situation. Furthermore, the chapter will discuss the role of CA in sustainable farming and list the CA practices that are being implemented on farms around the world. The chapter also aims to provide information on the challenges that farmers face when implementing different farm practices on their farms and concludes with policy recommendations for improving the CA situation, especially in developing countries.

#### **2. History and global status of CA adoption**

#### **2.1 Historical background of CA**

Tillage is the use of farm machinery to manipulate soil. Tillage has a long history, dating back a million years, when men transitioned from hunting to sedentary and conventional farming, particularly in the Nile, Euphrates, Tigris, Indus Valley, and Yangtse valleys [19]. Tillage was traditionally used to soften the soil layers for seedbed preparation, control and manage weeds, and improve the oxidation mineralization process [13]. In the years following the industrial revolution in the 1990s, the invention of the engine made machinery available for performing farm activities, such as plowing, planking, seed drilling, and so on. In the Midwestern United States, dust bowls destroyed large areas, and tillage-based farming was called into question for the first time in history in the 1930s [20]. As a result, for the first time, CA practices such as reducing tillage and covering the soil for soil protection were adopted on farms. The seedling machine was invented in the 1990s, allowing seeds to be planted without disturbing the soil. CA was first theoretically proposed in 1943 by Edward H. Faulkner in the manuscript "Plowman's Folly" [21]. The CA idea has become more and more popular over time and is used a lot in sustainable farming.

No-tillage was first used in farming in Brazil in the early 1970s, and agriculture has been transformed by incorporating no-tillage practices into the farming system known as CA today. Furthermore, in the 1970s, no-tillage was practiced in West Africa [22, 23]. Before CA reached a significant adoption level in South America and the rest of the world, significant improvements in farm equipment and agronomic practices regarding CA were made and developed to enhance crop growth and machine efficiency. Also, as fuel prices went up in the 1970s, farmers switched to a system that farming resources. Commercial farmers used the CA to avoid soil erosion caused by drought, along with the fuel-saving system [24].

Since the early 1990s, the CA has become well known and has spread rapidly, and agricultural systems in Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina have been transformed into CA. The development of the CA system drew the attention of the rest of the world, and international organizations such as FAO, CGIAR, IFAD, EU, ACT, CIRAD centers, and many others began to take an interest in the CA system's promotion. Following that, a study tour to Brazil, research projects, and workshops were organized all over the world to raise awareness and increase CA adoption. After that, CA adaptation has been observed in African countries such as Tanzania, Zambia, and Kenya, as well as in Asia, particularly in China, Pakistan, India, and Kazakhstan. The CA was also significantly adapted in developed countries such as Australia, Spain, Canada, and Finland at the end of the millennium [25]. The CA adaptation is not restricted to specific geographical and ecological environments. Farmers practice it from the Arctic Circle (e.g., Finland) to the tropics (e.g., Uganda, Kenya). CA has also been adopted at 3000 m altitude and under severe environmental conditions with 250 mm of rain a year (e.g., Morocco, Western Australia), as well as in countries such as Brazil and Chile where heavy rainfall occurs during the whole year. No-tillage is also used in sandy and clay soil types. It is used in soils ranging from 90% sand (as in Australia) to 80% clay (as in Brazil's Oxisols and Alisols). Similarly, the CA system can grow any crop [20, 26].

#### **2.2 Global situation of CA adoption**

CA is currently practiced in over 79 countries worldwide [5], and the number of farmers adopting CA practices on farms is increasing in both developed and developing countries due to its beneficial effects on farm resources and crop production. CA is practiced on every continent, but Europe has the most countries that have adopted *Adoption of Conservation Agriculture as a Driver of Sustainable Farming: Opportunities… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106002*

CA (**Figure 2**). CA has also begun to gain traction in Asia and Africa, with the number of countries adopting CA on these two continents increasing significantly over the last decade.

Despite the fact that the number of countries adopting CA has increased significantly, the area under CA remains minimal in comparison to the total world cropped area. In 2015/16, the total area under CA in the world was 180.44 million hectares. Europe has a large majority of CA-adopting countries, but its share of the total global CA area is negligible. Similarly, Asia and Africa contain significant world agricultural land as well as habitats for the world's large population, which is more vulnerable to climate change and food insecurity, but their share of total CA world area is also minute.

#### **Figure 2.**

*Area under CA and number of adopting countries on each continent.*


#### **Table 1.**

*Countries with the highest share in area under CA in their continents.*

The United States and the Caribbean countries that practice CA have the largest share of the total CA area in the world, followed by Australia and Oceania. **Table 1** depicts the major CA adopting countries by area on each continent. The United States accounts for nearly one-third, with Brazil accounting for nearly one-fourth of the total area under CA in America and the Caribbean countries. Australia is the largest CA adopter on the Australian continent. CA was widely practiced in Asia, with China accounting for nearly two-thirds of the total area covered, followed by Kazakhstan. Russia and Spain were major contributors to the CA area in Europe. South Africa alone accounts for nearly one-third of the total area under CA on the African continent.

#### **3. Conservation agriculture and sustainable farming**

Sustainable development is defined as "the ability of the current generation to meet their needs without jeopardizing future generations' ability to meet their own needs" [27]. In order to apply the concept of sustainable development to farming, farming must be socially acceptable, economically viable, and environmentally friendly. Farming will therefore be sustainable if it is socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable [28]. Hobbs et al. [13] described CA as a modern way of farming that helps farmers achieve their goals of sustainable development through sustainable farming.

The impact of CA on crop yield can be used to explain CA's role in achieving economic sustainability [29, 30]. A high crop yield is one of the farmer's primary goals in order to enjoy a good economic return. Crop yield is affected by numerous management (timely and proper application of off-farm inputs) and ecological factors (uneven rains, harsh weather, water deficiency, etc.). CA is critical in reducing the negative impact of these factors on crop yield. No-tillage, for example, improves soil fertility and structure while also softening the soil, which improves seed germination and crop growth [31]. A well-grown crop with good germination results in a good crop yield, which increases the crop surplus. Farmers make a good profit from the high crop surplus, which lets farmers keep their high standard of living. CA also boosts crop yield and economic returns, which makes farming socially and economically more sustainable. Thus, the CA improves farmers' long-term welfare by increasing crop yield, high economic returns, and food security [32–35].

Zheng et al. [36] discovered that adoption of CA practices has a positive impact on crop yield in China. The study showed that adoption of CA on farms significantly increases crop yields. However, the impact of CA on crop yields is dependent on geographical location, climatic conditions, and the type of adopted CA practice. The study also found that conventional tillage with straw retention produced better crop yields than no-tillage with straw retention. Moreover, the study also reported that CA practices produce better results in geographical locations with annual precipitation of less than 600 mm and a mean temperature of greater than 5°C. The potential for high crop yields with CA is greater in rain-fed areas than in conventional tillage systems [37]. The CA is more effective in terms of yield and farm productivity effects when all three CA principles are implemented in combination than when they are implemented alone on farms. Even sometimes, CA principles implemented separately can have a negative impact on farm productivity. Pittelkow et al. [29] stated that no-tillage has a negative impact on crop yield, but when combined with the other two principles (cover crops and crop rotation); it generates an equal or greater crop yield than conventional agriculture. Therefore, no-tillage, cover crop, and diversification (crop rotation) produce high crop yields ensuring the CA system's economic sustainability [38–40].

#### *Adoption of Conservation Agriculture as a Driver of Sustainable Farming: Opportunities… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106002*

The widespread adoption of three CA principles around the world has ushered in a new era of environmental control and mitigation for damages associated with conventional agriculture. No-tillage leaves the soil untouched, improving its physical properties, which is a major component of the environment. The organic carbon stock is three times more concentrated in the soil than in the atmosphere [31, 41]. Increased soil carbon level is highly associated with increased soil carbon level through improved mineralization processes, which reduces the negative effects of climate change on crop yield [42, 43]. CA provides climate-smart sustainable farming systems that enable farmers to cope with the adverse impacts of climate change [44]. Similarly, growing cover crops on fallow lands lowers the risk of soil erosion [45]. By covering the field where no primary crop is grown, it can control weed germination and enhance N-input leaching [46]. It also increases the soil's water-holding capacity, promotes microbial activity, maintains soil structure and porosity, and balances the nutrient cycle [47–50]. Similarly, crop rotation reduces climate vulnerability and improves soil health by reducing herbivores, increasing yields, and generating high economic benefits. It also provides a more stable planting system in extreme weather conditions [51–53]. Likewise, CA improves soil fertility [54], reduces soil erosion [55], improves water filtration and retention, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions [56], all of which contribute to the farming system's high environmental sustainability.

Therefore, the CA is an ideal solution for resolving the environmental problem in agriculture. CA's associated environmental benefit improves agriculture's environmental sustainability.

Moreover, CA also contributes to social sustainability by increasing gender equality, labor participation, and farmer welfare, and it is expected that promoting the CA farming system will increase the participation of women in farming [57].

**Figure 3.** *Conservation Agriculture (CA) and Sustainable Farming (SF).*

For example, women's participation in Zimbabwe increased grain yield and improved food diversity and security. Furthermore, the use of CA has altered intra-household decision-making between males and females. Women's participation in decision-making, crop management, and improved agency were observed in Zimbabwe [58, 59]. Furthermore, crop residue retention can be used to describe the labor requirements of CA [60]. Women practicing CA are good time managers because they start clearing land on time to prepare it for early planting [61].

Based on the preceding discussion, it is clear that CA adoption helps farmers cope with climate change while also increasing farm-level sustainability (social, economic, and environmental). Thus, adoption of CA works as a driver of sustainable farming, as depicted in **Figure 3**. CA principles provide multifaceted benefits that lead to sustainable farming. Improving soil fertility, for example, improves farmers' economic conditions, which in turn affects farms' economic and social sustainability. Similarly, reducing the use of machinery for tillage reduces greenhouse gas emissions while also reducing costs, which helps to improve environmental, economic, and social sustainability. As an outcome, CA's minimal soil mechanical disturbance principle influences all three dimensions of sustainability. Similarly, the other two CA principles help farmers improve their farms' economic, social, and environmental sustainability. As a result, CA adoption can play a critical role in global farming sustainability.

#### **4. Globally adopted CA practices and constraints**

#### **4.1 CA practices and factors influencing CA adoption on farms**

CA practices aim to improve farm resource utilization by integrating natural resource management such as soil, water, and biological resources with the fewest external farm inputs [62]. Therefore, CA is being adopted all over the world in response to the growing concerns of national and international institutions related to farm sustainability, and CA is one of the most important and rapidly expanding adoption systems in all regions of the world. Different types of CA practices are preferred on different farms and in different regions depending on the climate, the land type, the farmer's skills, and the farm's resources. Moreover, the CA practices adoption on farms is also majorly dependent on the purpose of adoption CA. Moreover, the CA practices adoption on farms is also majorly dependent on the purpose of adoption. As a result, CA practices used in one country or farm may be different from those used in another country due to the difference in intended objectives of CA adoption.

**Table 2** shows the CA practices adopted around the world, as well as the factors that influence the adoption of these CA practices on farms. Different types of CA practices are preferred on different farms and in different regions depending on the climate, the land type, the farmer's skills, and the farm's resources. According to the literature, farmers in different countries adopted different CA practices on their farms, but zero tillage/ no-tillage was one of the most widely adopted CA practices on farms. The minimum or zero-tillage CA practice is widely used around the world, but crop residuals retention in the field is more complicated [74]. Moreover, cover crops and crop rotation are also commonly practiced CA strategies in the world. Crop rotation is underutilized in terms of pest control, disease cycle disruption, income risk reduction, and soil fertility [74].

Farmers' demographic characteristics, farm characteristics, institutional and social inclusion, capital ownership, and cognitive factors (farmer attitude, CA perception, and farming behavior) were identified as major influencing factors in


*Adoption of Conservation Agriculture as a Driver of Sustainable Farming: Opportunities… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106002*

#### **Table 2.**

*CA practices around the world and the factor influencing its adoption.*

the adoption of CA practices worldwide. Age, education, farming experience, and family size were among the socio-demographic factors influencing the adoption of CA practices on farms. Farm size, farm income, and land tenure status were the farm characteristics that influenced CA adoption in various countries. Credit utilization and the availability of extension services were institutional determinants of CA adoption. Furthermore, famers' attitudes and perceptions were influential factors in the global adoption of CA practices. Giller et al. [75] also stated that socioeconomic factors play an important role in CA practice adaptation.

#### **4.2 Challenges in adoption of CA practices on farms**

Although CA is a driving force in achieving sustainable farming, there are numerous challenges and constraints that affect CA adoption on farms around the world, in addition to the factors discussed above. The first and most prominent challenge that limits the adoption of CA cited in previous literature is small-scale farming. Small farmers lack social inclusion, institutional support, capital, and other resources, and they are less likely to implement CA on their farms. Moreover, farmers with owned animal traction are also less likely to adopt CA practices such as minimum tillage/zero tillage on their farms due to readily available tillage sources. Framers with animal traction typically replace mechanized soil management with animal-driven plowing [76].

Crop residual retention is also used as a CA practice in the fields by the farmers. Crop cultivation and livestock rearing are complementary to each other for farmers, especially small farmers in developing countries, but farmers with crop and livestock interaction tend to have low crop residual retention on their farms. Furthermore, livestock is a more important source of traction and income security in an emergency [76], and crop residuals are a vital source of animal feed [77]. Furthermore, managing crop residuals is more expensive than simply burning crop residuals. The cost of managing crop residuals is more than one-third higher than the cost of burning the residuals [78, 79].

Another major impediment to the adoption of CA practices such as crop rotation is a lack of timely seed availability, as well as dysfunctional markets for final farm outputs [80]. The other challenge faced by farmers in the adoption of CA practices on farms is the unavailability of advanced equipment required for CA adoption. The equipment is either unavailable or its financial costs are high, especially in developing countries. Other than the above challenges, lack of awareness about different CA practices and their associated benefits among farmers in developing countries limits the adoption of CA on farms.

#### **5. Conclusion**

Agriculture is one of the largest consumers of natural resources, and adopting sustainable farming systems is necessary not only to preserve natural resources but also to meet the food needs of the world's ever-increasing population under climatic change scenarios. A sustainable farming system is one that is socially acceptable, economically viable, and environmentally friendly. CA is a sustainable system that helps farmers improve farm sustainability by influencing economic, social, and environmental dimensions through its three basic principles. These three principles of CA are as follows 1) minimal mechanical soil disturbance; 2) permanent soil cover; and 3) diversification. The CA system is intended to improve and maintain soil fertility while

#### *Adoption of Conservation Agriculture as a Driver of Sustainable Farming: Opportunities… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106002*

reducing the use of external farm inputs. Thus, the CA system increases crop yields while decreasing input costs, affecting farmers' economic and social sustainability. Similarly, CA practices aid in mitigating the effects of climate change on farms and also reduce the use of machinery and chemicals in the fields. All of this contributes to the farmers' environmental sustainability. As a result, implementing CA practices on farms is critical not only for the sustainable management of agricultural land but also for the overall sustainability of the farming system.

The European continent has the most CA-adopting countries, and the United States is the world's largest CA adopter in terms of area. Despite the fact that CA is being adopted in many countries around the world, the area under CA remains very small in comparison to the world's total cultivable area. Farmers' demographics, farm characteristics, institutional and social inclusion, capital ownership, and cognitive factors (farmer attitude, CA perception, and farming behavior) were identified as major influencing factors in the global adoption of CA practices. Furthermore, smallscale farming as well as a lack of awareness about the benefits of CA is regarded as major barriers to CA adoption worldwide.

CA can also play an important role in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in developing countries, as agriculture is a major driver of their economies. The continuous degradation of natural resources, particularly land, is the primary cause of unsustainable farming systems all over the world. As a result, developing countries should increase the adoption of CA practices in order to transition from unsustainable to sustainable farming systems. The following suggestions are recommended for increasing CA adoption in developing countries:

In order for CA to be adopted in developing countries, farms must be treated as enterprises like any other business. So, farmer entrepreneurship and a culture of entrepreneurship in farming should be encouraged to enhance the adoption of CA and sustainable farming by involving all agricultural socio-economic networks (farmers and their associations, farmer cooperatives, research and advisory organizations, market and chain parties, and government and social agencies).

Increasing farmer awareness about the benefits of the CA farming system is critical to the adoption of CA practices on farms in developing countries. The agricultural extension system remains an important source of information for farmers. As a result, agriculture extension systems can play an important role in the adoption of CA and sustainable farming in developing countries by creating awareness among the farming community. Through their agricultural extension network, policymakers need to develop a comprehensive plan for educating farmers, particularly small-scale farmers, about various CA practices and the benefits associated with them. Before providing information to farmers, the first step should be to train extension workers who are directly involved with farmers to improve their own knowledge of CA. Furthermore, in order to achieve sustainable farming goals, the agricultural extension network must be expanded in terms of capacity and outreach to the larger farming community, particularly small farmers and those living far from city centers. Modern information and communication channels should also be used to raise farmers' awareness of the benefits of CA practices and sustainable agriculture along with traditional information systems.

Furthermore, small farmers must be provided with CA equipment for the adoption of CA practices such as zero tillage machines, as the majority of farmers in the developing world have subsistence land sizes.

Finally, engaging the younger generation in agriculture is critical to sustainable farming in both the developing and developed worlds, as youth interest in agriculture as a career has declined dramatically. Therefore, policymakers should look for ways to increase youth participation in agricultural activities in order to ensure sustainable farming.

### **Conflict of interest**

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

### **Author details**

Pomi Shahbaz1 \*, Shamsheer ul Haq2 and Ismet Boz1

1 Department of Agricultural Economics, Ondokuz Mayis University, Samsun, Turkey

2 Department of Economics, Division of Management and Administrative Science, University of Education, Lahore, Pakistan

\*Address all correspondence to: pomi1781@gmail.com

© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

*Adoption of Conservation Agriculture as a Driver of Sustainable Farming: Opportunities… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106002*

#### **References**

[1] Busari MA, Kukal SS, Kaur A, Bhatt R, Dulazi AA. Conservation tillage impacts on soil, crop and the environment. International Soil and Water Conservation Research. 2015;**3**(2):119-129

[2] Altieri M. Modern Agriculture: Ecological impacts and the possibilities for truly sustainable farming. Agroecology in Action (internet). Available from: http://nature.berkeley. edu/~agroeco3/index.html [2022.04.10]

[3] Dumansky J, Reicosky DC, Peiretti RA. Pioneers in soil conservation and conservation agriculture. International Soil and Water Conservation Research. 2014;**2**(1):1-4

[4] Kassam AH, Basch G, Friedrich T, Shaxson F, Goddard T, Amado T, et al. Sustainable soil management is more than what and how crops are grown. In: Lal R, Stewart BA, editors. Principles of Soil Management in Agro-Ecosystems. Advances in Soil Science. Raton, FA: CRC Press; 2013. pp. 230-270

[5] Kassam A, Friedrich T, Derpsch R. Global spread of conservation agriculture. International Journal of Environmental Studies. 2019;**76**(1): 29-51

[6] Haq SU, Boz I, Shahbaz P. Adoption of climate-smart agriculture practices and differentiated nutritional outcome among rural households: A case of Punjab province, Pakistan. Food Security. 2021;**13**(4):913-931

[7] Hay J. Extreme weather and climate events, and farming risks. In: Managing Weather and Climate Risks in Agriculture. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2007. pp. 1-19

[8] Brussaard L, De Ruiter PC, Brown GG. Soil biodiversity for agricultural sustainability. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 2007;**121**(3):233-244

[9] Montgomery CA. Ranking the benefits of biodiversity: An exploration of relative values. Journal of Environmental Management. 2002;**65**(3):313-326

[10] FAO. Save and Grow, a Policymaker's Guide to Sustainable Intensification of Smallholder Crop Production. Rome: FAO; 2011

[11] Goddard T, Zoebisch MA, Gan YT, Ellis W, Watson A, Sombatpanit S. No-Till Farming Systems. Bangkok, Thailand: WASWAC;

[12] Lal R. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma. 2004;**123**(1-2):1-22

[13] Hobbs PR, Sayre K, Gupta R. The role of conservation agriculture in sustainable agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences. 2008;**363**(1491):543-555

[14] Somasundaram J, Sinha NK, Dalal RC, Lal R, Mohanty M, Naorem AK, et al. No-till farming and conservation agriculture in South Asia–issues, challenges, prospects and benefits. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. 2020;**39**(3):236-279

[15] FAO. What is conservation agriculture (internet). 2022. Available from https://www.fao.org/conservationagriculture/overview/conservationagriculture-principles/en/ [2022.05.20]

[16] Nichols V, Verhulst N, Cox R, Govaerts B. Weed dynamics and

conservation agriculture principles: A review. Field Crops Research. 2015;**183**:56-68

[17] Triplett GB Jr, Dick WA. No-tillage crop production: A revolution in agriculture! Agronomy Journal. 2008;**100**:153

[18] LFDFN. Permanent Soil Cover: Cover Crops, Lower Fox Demonstration Farms Network (ntrenet). Available from: https://fyi.extension.wisc. edu/foxdemofarms/conservationagriculture/permanent-soil-cover-covercrops/#:~:text=Permanent%20soil%20 cover%20is%20defined,planted%20 late%20in%20the%20season [2022.05.22]

[19] Hillel D. Out of the Earth: Civilization and the Life of the Oil. California: University of California Press; 1992

[20] Friedrich T, Derpsch R, Kassam A. Overview of the Global Spread of Conservation Agriculture. 2012

[21] Faulkner EH. Plowman's Folly. London: Michael Joseph Ltd.; 1943

[22] Greenland DJ. Bringing the Green Revolution to the Shifting Cultivator: Better seed, fertilizers, zero or minimum tillage, and mixed cropping are necessary. Science. 1975;**190**(4217):841-844

[23] Lal R. No-tillage effects on soil properties under different crops in Western Nigeria. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 1976;**40**(5):762-768

[24] Haggblade S, Tembo G. Conservation Farming in Zambia EPTD. Washington: IFPRI;

[25] Farooq M, Siddique KH. Conservation agriculture: Concepts, brief history, and impacts on agricultural systems. In: Conservation Agriculture. Cham: Springer; 2015. pp. 3-17

[26] Derpsch R, Friedrich T. Development and Current Status of No-till Adoption in the World. In: Proceedings on CD, 18th Triennial Conference of the International Soil Tillage Research Organization (ISTRO). Izmir. 2009

[27] Ul Haq S, Boz I. Measuring environmental, economic, and social sustainability index of tea farms in Rize Province, Turkey. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2020;**22**(3):2545-2567

[28] Ul Haq S, Boz I. Developing a set of indicators to measure sustainability of tea cultivating farms in Rize Province, Turkey. Ecological Indicators. 2020;**95**:219-232

[29] Choi SH, Kim YH, Hebisch M, Sliwinski C, Lee S, D'Avanzo C, et al. A three-dimensional human neural cell culture model of Alzheimer's disease. Nature. 2014;**515**(7526):274-278

[30] Sun W, Canadell JG, Yu L, Yu L, Zhang W, Smith P, et al. Climate drives global soil carbon sequestration and crop yield changes under conservation agriculture. Global Change Biology. 2020;**26**(6):3325-3335

[31] Blanco-Canqui H, Ruis SJ. No-tillage and soil physical environment. Geoderma. 2018;**326**:164-200

[32] Baudron F, Corbeels M, Monicat F, Giller KE. Cotton expansion and biodiversity loss in African savannahs, opportunities and challenges for conservation agriculture: A review paper based on two case studies. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2009;**18**(10):2625-2644

[33] Makate C, Makate M, Mango N. Sustainable agriculture practices and *Adoption of Conservation Agriculture as a Driver of Sustainable Farming: Opportunities… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106002*

livelihoods in pro-poor smallholder farming systems in southern Africa. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development. 2017;**9**(3):269-279

[34] Nkala P, Mango N, Zikhali P. Conservation agriculture and livelihoods of smallholder farmers in Central Mozambique. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. 2011;**35**(7):757-779

[35] Ward PS, Bell AR, Droppelmann K, Benton TG. Early adoption of conservation agriculture practices: Understanding partial compliance in programs with multiple adoption decisions. Land Use Policy. 2018;**70**:27-37

[36] Zheng C, Jiang Y, Chen C, Sun Y, Feng J, Deng A, et al. The impacts of conservation agriculture on crop yield in China depend on specific practices, crops and cropping regions. The Crop Journal. 2014;**2**(5):289-296

[37] Farooq M, Flower KC, Jabran K, Wahid A, Siddique KH. Crop yield and weed management in rainfed conservation agriculture. Soil and Tillage Research. 2011;**117**:172-183

[38] Lu YC, Watkins KB, Teasdale JR, Abdul-Baki AA. Cover crops in sustainable food production. Food Reviews International. 2000;**16**(2): 121-157

[39] Volsi B, Higashi GE, Bordin I, Telles TS. Production and profitability of diversified agricultural systems. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências. 2021;**93**(2):1-15

[40] Singh J, Wang T, Kumar S, Xu Z, Sexton P, Davis J, et al. Crop yield and economics of cropping systems involving different rotations, tillage, and cover crops. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 2021;**76**(4):340-348

[41] Sanderman J, Hengl T, Fiske GJ. Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2017;**114**(36):9575-9580

[42] Soussana JF, Lutfalla S, Ehrhardt F, Rosenstock T, Lamanna C, Havlík P, et al. Matching policy and science: Rationale for the '4 per 1000-soils for food security and climate' initiative. Soil and Tillage Research. 2019;**188**:3-15

[43] Lobell DB, Schlenker W, Costa-Roberts J. Climate trends and global crop production since 1980. Science. 2011;**333**(6042):616-620

[44] Beuchelt TD, Badstue L. Gender, nutrition-and climate-smart food production: Opportunities and tradeoffs. Food Security. 2013;**5**(5):709-721

[45] Battany MC, Grismer ME. Rainfall runoff and erosion in Napa Valley vineyards: Effects of slope, cover and surface roughness. Hydrological Processes. 2000;**14**(7):1289-1304

[46] Halde C, Gulden RH, Entz MH. Selecting cover crop mulches for organic rotational no-till systems in Manitoba, Canada. Agronomy Journal. 2014;**106**(4):1193-1204

[47] Lotter DW, Seidel R, Liebhardt W. The performance of organic and conventional cropping systems in an extreme climate year. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. 2003;**18**(3):146-154

[48] Drinkwater LE, Snapp S. Nutrients in agroecosystems: Rethinking the management paradigm. Advances in Agronomy. 2007;**92**:163-186

[49] Haruna SI, Nkongolo NV. Cover crop management effects on soil physical and biological properties. Procedia Environmental Sciences. 2015;**29**:13-14

[50] Abdalla M, Hastings A, Cheng K, Yue Q, Chadwick D, Espenberg M, et al. A critical review of the impacts of cover crops on nitrogen leaching, net greenhouse gas balance and crop productivity. Global Change Biology. 2019;**25**(8):2530-2543

[51] Bowles TM, Mooshammer M, Socolar Y, Calderón F, Cavigelli MA, Culman SW, Deen W, Drury CF, y Garcia AG, Gaudin AC, Harkcom WS. Long-term evidence shows that croprotation diversification increases agricultural resilience to adverse growing conditions in North America. One Earth. 2020; 2(3):284-293.

[52] Li J, Huang L, Zhang J, Coulter JA, Li L, Gan Y. Diversifying crop rotation improves system robustness. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 2019;**39**(4):1-3

[53] Yu T, Mahe L, Li Y, Wei X, Deng X, Zhang D. Benefits of crop rotation on climate resilience and its prospects in China. Agronomy. 2022;**12**(2):436

[54] Palm C, Blanco-Canqui H, Declerck F, Gatere L, Grace P. Agriculture, ecosystems and environment. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 2014;**187**:87-105

[55] Johansen C, Haque M, Bell R, Thierfelder C, Esdaile R. Conservation agriculture for small holder rainfed farming: Opportunities and constraints of new mechanized seeding systems. Field Crops Research. 2012;**132**:18-32

[56] Govaerts B, Verhulst N, Castellanos-Navarrete A, Sayre KD, Dixon J, Dendooven L. Conservation agriculture and soil carbon sequestration: Between myth and farmer reality. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. 2009;**28**(3):97-122

[57] Farnworth CR, Baudron F, Andersson JA, Misiko M, Badstue L, Stirling CM. Gender and conservation agriculture in East and Southern Africa: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. 2016;**14**(2):142-165

[58] Hove M, Gweme T. Women's food security and conservation farming in Zaka District-Zimbabwe. Journal of Arid Environments. 2018;**149**:18-29

[59] Kunzekweguta M, Rich KM, Lyne MC. Factors affecting adoption and intensity of conservation agriculture techniques applied by smallholders in Masvingo district, Zimbabwe. Agrekon. 2017;**56**(4):330-346

[60] Nyanga PH, Johnsen FH, Kalinda TH. Gendered impacts of conservation agriculture and paradox of herbicide use among smallholder farmers. International Journal of Technology and Development Studies. 2012;**3**(1):1-24

[61] Wekesah FM, Mutua EN, Izugbara CO. Gender and conservation agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. 2019;**17**(1):78-91

[62] Garcıa-Torres L, Benites J, Martınez-Vilela A, Holgado-Cabrera A. Conservation Agriculture: Environment, Farmers Experiences, Innovations, Socio-economy, Policy. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers;

[63] Okoye CU. Comparative analysis of factors in the adoption of traditional and recommended soil erosion control practices in Nigeria. Soil and Tillage Research. 1998;**45**(3-4):251-263

[64] Clay D, Reardon T, Kangasniemi J. Sustainable intensification in the

*Adoption of Conservation Agriculture as a Driver of Sustainable Farming: Opportunities… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106002*

highland tropics: Rwandan farmers' investments in land conservation and soil fertility. Economic Development and Cultural Change. 1998;**45**(2):351-378

[65] Soule MJ, Tegene A, Wiebe KD. Land tenure and the adoption of conservation practices. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2000;**82**(4):993-1005

[66] Chiputwa B, Langyintuo AS, Wall P. Adoption of conservation agriculture technologies by smallholder farmers in the Shamva District of Zimbabwe: A Tobit application (internet). Available from: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/ record/98851/ [2022.04.20]

[67] Rodríguez-Entrena M, Arriaza M. Adoption of conservation agriculture in olive groves: Evidences from southern Spain. Land Use Policy. 2013;**34**:294-300

[68] Mavunganidze Z, Madakadze IC, Nyamangara J, Mafongoya P. The impact of tillage system and herbicides on weed density, diversity and yield of cotton (*Gossipium hirsutum* L.) and maize (*Zea mays* L.) under the smallholder sector. Crop Protection. 2014;**58**:25-32

[69] Rochecouste JF, Dargusch P, Cameron D, Smith C. An analysis of the socio-economic factors influencing the adoption of conservation agriculture as a climate change mitigation activity in Australian dryland grain production. Agricultural Systems. 2015;**135**:20-30

[70] Uddin MT, Dhar AR, Islam MM. Adoption of conservation agriculture practice in Bangladesh: Impact on crop profitability and productivity. Journal of the Bangladesh Agricultural University. 2016;**14**(1):101-112

[71] Van Hulst FJ, Posthumus H. Understanding (non-) adoption of conservation agriculture in Kenya using the reasoned action approach. Land Use Policy. 2016;**56**:303-314

[72] Ntshangase NL, Muroyiwa B, Sibanda M. Farmers' perceptions and factors influencing the adoption of no-till conservation agriculture by small-scale farmers in Zashuke. KwaZulu-Natal Province. Sustainability. 2018;**10**(2):555

[73] Kolady D, Zhang W, Wang T, Ulrich-Schad J. Spatially mediated peer effects in the adoption of conservation agriculture practices. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics. 2021;**53**(1):1-20

[74] Thierfelder C, Wall PC. Rotation in conservation agriculture systems of Zambia: Effects on soil quality and water relations. Experimental Agriculture. 2010;**46**(3):309-325

[75] Giller KE, Witter E, Corbeels M, Tittonell P. Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: The heretics' view. Field Crops Research. 2009;**114**(1):23-34

[76] Thierfelder C, Cheesman S, Rusinamhodzi L. A comparative analysis of conservation agriculture systems: Benefits and challenges of rotations and intercropping in Zimbabwe. Field Crops Research. 2012;**137**:237-250

[77] Erenstein O. Cropping systems and crop residue management in the Trans-Gangetic Plains: Issues and challenges for conservation agriculture from village surveys. Agricultural Systems. 2011;**104**(1):54-62

[78] Ahmed T, Ahmad B, Ahmad W. Why do farmers burn rice residue? Examining farmers' choices in Punjab, Pakistan. Land Use Policy. 2015;**47**:448-458

[79] Prasad R, Gangaiah B, Aipe KC. Effect of crop residue management

in a rice–wheat cropping system on growth and yield of crops and on soil fertility. Experimental Agriculture. 1999;**35**(4):427-435

[80] Snapp SS, Rohrbach DD, Simtowe F, Freeman HA. Sustainable soil management options for Malawi: Can smallholder farmers grow more legumes? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 2002;**91**(1-3):159-174

Section 3

## Information Technology Use in Smart Farming

#### **Chapter 3**

## Information Technology Drivers in Smart Farming Management Systems

*Alexy Márta, András Jung and Bálint Molnár*

#### **Abstract**

The chapter describes the possibilities of collecting digital data on crop and livestock production and their use in "smart farming" systems. Earth drone and spectral mobile mapping technologies can provide plant production-related measures with high temporal and spatial resolution. Remote sensing helps better understand farming patterns and crop management. Improving understanding of the link between remotely sensed data and risk assessment and management in "smart farming" is very important. Controlled-environment agriculture takes advantage of light recipes, related to spectral light-emitting diode (LEDs) and sensors. In livestock farming, analyzing a database of digital data on the environment and livestock individuals can help farmers make decisions better. The heterogeneous digital data from plant and livestock production are collected into a Data Lake. Then the data are processed to transform the data into the proper format for data analytics. Data Warehouse should be integrated into an ERP system that is dedicated to the agricultural environment.

**Keywords:** smart farming, remote sensing, drone application, precision livestock farming, IoT, data science, ERP, Data Warehouse, Data Lake

#### **1. Introduction**

The transition from experience-driven to data-driven decisions in agriculture production is unthinkable without the use of digital tools and solutions. Given the traditional nature of agriculture production and its custom-based practices, this is not a quick process. During the last decades, farming has been forced to implement measures to increase efficiency and productivity at the expense of resilience in the face of climate change and environmental variability. Intensification in agriculture has been causing a serious impact on environmental sustainability. The industry is facing a reduction in the workforce, and consumer demand is growing for more transparent, sustainable, ecological, and high-quality products. Moreover, the new common agricultural policy of the EU aligned with the European Green Deal is focused on environmental protection in rural areas. The use of precision methods – i.e. information and communication technologies (ICT )tools, processes, and methods – in the production of agricultural products is becoming increasingly important in production practice. In the two major sectors of agriculture, crop production and large-scale

livestock farming, precision technologies are enabling the creation of "smart farming" systems. In data-driven farming, the expertise of the farmer is becoming more valuable. The results of data analysis that exploits large-scale databases can be incorporated into decision support systems. This data analytics will enable actors in the agricultural sector to rely on accurate, traceable, and credible production results to make decisions that will help them manage cost-effectively and optimize the environmental impact of production.

Digital tools and analytical methods are ready for use in agriculture. It will take time for them to become widespread in farming practices and part of farmers' animal and crop production procedures. The application of data analytics will validate the added value of precision practices and their added value for farmers in real-life farming environments through lots of good practices. This chapter reviews the most relevant precision methods in crop production, large-scale livestock production, and their usability in the decision support process. The latter leads to "smart farming" technology.

#### **2. Precision plant production**

The real benefit of proximal and remote sensing is the capability to characterize spatial or field variability that cannot be parameterized more effectively by any other way. This function has great potential for all land-use practices to increase information availability in everyday farming using proximal and remote sensing technologies. Generally, remote sensing performs nondestructive chemical measurements without intrusion into the material, while providing the possibility of a broad spatial overview and high temporal flexibility.

When spatial thematic information is requested for large-scale areas at regular times, satellite remote sensing is often applied in agriculture. Nowadays, many traditional remote sensing tools are available for both large- and small-scale farming entities as well. Spectral imaging and non-imaging sensors are powerful bio- and geochemical data acquisition tools that can play a crucial role in the early detection of crop management risk factors, such as soil nutrition supply, pests, and diseases.

From a practical point of view, those research studies in the paper are considered that are using field spectrometers and/or spectral cameras and attempt to understand the agricultural values, biophysical and biochemical properties, or reactions of cultivated plants. Only outdoor or field-related applications are included in this discussion of the paper.

#### **2.1 Remote sensing data acquisition**

The fineness of the spatially distributed data depends on the sensor and platform. There is a technical limitation to the spectral and spatial resolutions of the satellite platforms. This constraint causes that high spectral resolution and high spatial resolution cannot be achieved at the same time from the same satellite altitude. It has technical aspects, one of them being a justifiable signal-to-noise ratio. The signal-tonoise ratio (SNR) compares preferred signal levels to unpreferred ones. It is complex to give an average SNR for a sensor or multispectral data because it depends on wavelengths, radiance levels, and other technical parameters. Generally, non-imaging spectrometers provide higher SNR values compared to imaging ones. Satellites with

#### *Information Technology Drivers in Smart Farming Management Systems DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106320*

less than 1-m pixel size have less than 10 broad bands in the spectrum typically, while satellite images with more than 10 spectral bands have larger pixel sizes than 10 m on the ground typically. One way to increase the spatial and spectral resolution is to change the sensor and reduce the altitude of the data capturing. This demand initiated many different forms of terrestrial and near-ground imaging and non-imaging spectroscopy.

The spectral resolution describes the electromagnetic spectrum to sense material properties and characterizes the number and width of the spectral channels available for spectroscopic sampling. The spectral resolution could be also interpreted as the "chemical resolution," since the spectral resolution resolves the apparent spectral material properties and links chemistry to spectroscopy. Accordingly, the higher spectral resolution provides more detailed chemical insights [1].

Temporal resolution is a factor in agricultural remote sensing that controls flexibility and data availability. The periodical returns of satellites are typically not demand-driven, and the airborne campaigns with the high-temporal resolution are very cost-intensive and complex.

Radiometric resolution is a technical term that characterizes the sensitivity of the detector or the wavelength-dependent energy resolving power of a sensor. It is quantified by bits, typically. Accuracy and stability are essential in radiometric calibrations to calculate radiance and/or reflectance that are the derivatives and representative outputs (information carriers) of the remotely sensed data and the primary inputs for further statistical analyses.

In color imaging, three broad bands (blue, green, and red) are used to reproduce real-life object properties in a virtual form the best. The RGB (red, green, and blue) bands are broad spectral channels.

When the number of spectral channels is increased (over 100) and the spectral range is extended (400–1000 nm or more), imaging spectroscopy or hyperspectral imaging is applied.

#### **2.2 Characteristics of data sources**

Spatial scales of field phenomena are not absolute and are customized to specific needs and applications. From a global (earth-observing) point of view, scales smaller than 104 km2 could be referred to as local scales, which are higher by several magnitudes than the common agricultural management scales in Europe. For site-specific observations, further downscaling is needed. For crop management, the variability on the field and subfield scale are of interest, and the variability at distances of 50 m or less is mainly related to management practices [2].

Considering options for the remote sensing application in agriculture is one of the most time-critical. The entire crop sector and production are based on time-critical processes that contain sowing, plant protection, fertilizing, irrigating, and all management decisions.

In spatial downscaling when the measurement height drops down to 100, 10, and 1 m, the temporal, spatial, and spectral resolution can be significantly increased and new demands or application needs such as mobility (e.g. on the fly) and flexibility (e.g. vehicle-based) can be considered.

The temporal resolution affects not only the process accuracy but also the imaging process. Recent developments show that a novel kind of imaging technique (e.g. snapshot spectroscopy) enables high-rate spectral images to generate spectral videos that


**Table 1.**

*Passive and active remote sensing tools used to characterize plant and soil parameters.*

are an obvious advantage in online process monitoring and controlling of agricultural conditions both in field and indoor.

Ref [3] accentuated that characterizing vegetation, soil, or environmental parameters through spectrometers would offer new opportunities. Meantime, many new opportunities for application were found in science and research, primarily. Remote sensing research topics often focused on stress caused by pest or disease incidences, yield and biomass estimation, nutrition deficiencies, drought, frost, etc. Vegetation stress may cause anomalies in the cellular or leaf structure affecting the pigment system or the moisture content in canopy, which could be detected and mapped by optical sensors as can be seen in **Table 1**.

#### **2.3 High-resolution crop remote sensing**

Remote sensing of biophysical parameters such as phytomass, leaf area index (LAI) and canopy structure have intensively been analyzed, [4–7]. Behind the biophysical parameters, numerous papers have been devoted to biochemical components such as foliar constituents, chlorophyll a and b, carotenoids, lignin, cellulose, protein, water, and other elements [8, 9]. Many of the studies used high-resolution full-range (FR) spectra (400–2500 nm), because some foliar chemistry components give indications only over 2000 nm (e.g. lignin and cellulose) [10, 11]. Our study focuses on narrowband indications in the range of 400 to 1100 nm. Our study focuses on narrowband indications in the range of 400 to 1100 nm.

Multispectral, satellite remote sensing used broad (50–100 nm) spectral bands initially, which have been narrowed by scientific high-resolution sensors over the last decades [12]. The VNIR (400–1100 nm) spectral range will remain significant in future crop sensor developments as well, but it will be spectrally enhanced likely, to produce high-resolution crop or soil sensors. Band comparisons highlight the best *Information Technology Drivers in Smart Farming Management Systems DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106320*


#### **Table 2.**

*Narrowband sensor wavelengths for measuring crop parameters.*

benefits of the narrowband indices such as non-saturating behavior or high sensitivity in vegetation dynamics (e.g. phenology) [13]. The narrowbands can be classified as very narrowbands (1 nm to 15 nm), narrow bands (16 nm to 30 nm), intermediate bands (31 nm to 45 nm), and broadbands (greater than 45 nm) [13]. For future VNIR crop sensor developments, the following spectral narrow bands could be of interest (**Table 2**).

Narrowband studies showed that classification accuracies have increased. Generally, the hyperspectral narrowbands explain about 10–30% greater variability in quantitative biophysical models in comparison with broadband and are not sensible to saturation problems in biophysical estimations [31]. These benefits are to be considered in future high-resolution imaging or non-imaging crop sensors. There are known important parts of the VNIR spectrum: the so-called red-edge region, which is likely becoming increasingly important for novel optical field sensors as well (**Table 2**).

An auspicious tool to detect vegetation conditions is to study the sharp rise of the reflectance curve between 670 and 780 nm. This segment is called the red-edge region. Both the position and the slope of the red-edge point (REP) change due to physiological conditions and can result in a blue- or redshift of the inflection point. The red-edge index is defined as the position of the inflection point of the red-NIR slope of a vegetation reflectance curve. The reliable detection of this index requires high-resolution spectral measurements [27]. The well-known methods are to define red-edge position (REP) [32]. The reflectance curve's numeric derivation and interpolation techniques are also widely used. The REP is correlated strongly with foliar

chlorophyll content which is a sensitive indicator for various environmental factors. A comprehensive spectral analysis has been conducted on fruits and other agricultural products in scientific studies [33]. Recent developments in REP offer new perspectives and approaches for spectral mobile mapping services.

#### **2.4 New demands and tendencies**

The demand for out-of-the-lab devices initiated the early field spectroscopy and sensor with non-imaging measurements, which originated from laboratory spectroscopy and required respective developments in optics and portable platform techniques. From the beginning, portable or handheld field spectroradiometers were very popular in geology, soil, and vegetation spectroscopy as they provide flexible and rapid field data acquisition [34]. Thus, the spectroscopy in the visible (VIS) and near-infrared (NIR) has been widely used either in the laboratory [35] or for in situ monitoring [36].

There is an apparent gap between integrative point measurements and airborne or even space-borne image data. Field imaging line scanners are less widespread in ground-truthing than portable point spectroradiometers. Non-scanning or snapshot hyperspectral imaging is one possible solution to overcome this limitation of in-field usability [37]. Snapshot hyperspectral imaging enables rapid data acquisition as the entire image with all spectra is captured, at once, within a few milliseconds by a handheld or portable mode [38].

Optical field data acquisition has been reshaped and extended by new platforms in the last few years. This kind of platform liberalization changes our ground-truthing attitudes and fieldwork traditions. Traditionally, field spectroscopy was used to support airborne and space-borne campaigns (**Figure 1**).

The proximal and remote sensing spectral detectors are either imaging or nonimaging sensors. Until recently, light-weighted spectral scanners were not used widely because of technical limitations. One of the first successful fix-wing miniature spectral scanning measurements was achieved by [39]. The light-weighed scanners (< 1–2 kg) mainly work in the spectral range from 400 to 1100 nm. These typically utilize push-broom spectral imaging. Hyperspectral cameras with the scanning principle cannot capture random moving objects. Mobile imaging field spectroscopy requires sensors that are flexible and easy to operate. Non-scanning hyperspectral imaging has been recently introduced for many outdoor applications. Non-scanning spectral imaging is called "snapshot imaging spectroscopy" [37], and it has a different principle from the push- and whiskbroom sensors (**Figure 2**).

A snapshot light-splitting architecture integrated on a sensing sensor chip with appropriate spatial resolution captures the full-frame image with a high spectral (> 100 bands) and radiometric resolution (> 14 bit). The image capturing process benefits from a powerful light collection capacity [37]. For a hyperspectral snapshot camera, in a sunlight situation, the integration time of taking one hyperspectral data cube is about 1 ms. Such a camera can capture more than 10 spectral image data cubes per second, which facilitates hyperspectral video recording. The commercially available snapshot imaging spectrometers record hyperspectral full-frame images with more than 20–100 bands in a spectral range of 400 and 1000 nm.

The snapshot advantage prefers time-critical applications either in the laboratory or in the field. This fact is significant for vegetation studies and crop management, especially because of physiological and phenotypical changes [31]. Knowing more about temporally resolved spectral crop information is of high importance for

*Information Technology Drivers in Smart Farming Management Systems DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106320*

**Figure 1.** *A non-imaging (A) and an imaging spectrometer (B) in field use. Source: A. Jung.*

#### **Figure 2.**

*Working principles of hyperspectral imaging, colors represent different wavelengths. Source: Courtesy of Cubert GmbH, Germany.*

agriculture among others because of timely and targeted nutrition supply, and preventive and precision pest control. Beyond the temporal aspect, there is a general and global demand for high-resolution data in agricultural process control. The technical paradigm change in imaging field spectroscopy will enhance the effectiveness and availability of commercial sensors in smart farming.

The real-time image capturing capability of the proximal snapshot imaging spectroscopy is essential for capturing moving objects (i.e. leaves and canopy) or being on a moving platform (i.e. vehicle, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), robot, or human being) at high-resolution scales. Smart farming applications could offer individual detection and treatments of species or canopies that are of interest in the viewpoint

of economic, environmental, and professional. Reference [40] used a snapshot hyperspectral imaging camera in a farming experiment to study its usability on a UAV platform to monitor crops. This study concluded that the combination of 3D imaging techniques and snapshot hyperspectral imaging enables the precise and accurate monitoring of dynamic crop growth through phenological changes. A multi-temporal crop surface analysis enables the precise monitoring of plant height and plant growth, while hyperspectral analysis derives physiological vegetation parameters like chlorophyll or nitrogen content and others. To monitor crop growth behavior, crop vitality, and crop stress snapshot hyperspectral imaging may be an ideal sensor [40].

#### **3. Precision livestock farming**

In all farm animal species, farmers have the same goal: to produce animal products profitably. The scope of inputs is similar: feed, water, livestock, medicine, infrastructure, and human resources. The big difference is that the animal species have different external and internal characteristics, the farms have different technological standards, and the management requirements are different. These factors determine the structure, quality, and use of the resources listed earlier. The digital technologies ought to fit into the operational framework of a given livestock farm and create a well-defined added value for farmers. This is not an easy task under the conditions in which livestock products are produced, the often difficult to predict market environment affecting profitability, and changing social and regulatory factors.

The driving force behind the demand for precision technologies in large-scale livestock farming is the possibility of early detection of diseases primarily [41]. In the case of breeding animals, this offers the opportunity to reduce the additional costs of culling due to the late detection of disease. In these groups of animals, the farmer wants to keep the farm animal in breeding and reproduction as long as possible. The objective of rearing animal products for human consumption (fattening and/or laying flocks) is to produce the animal product of the quality required by the market in the time available, using the optimum quantity of inputs (feed, drinking water, etc.) to reduce the negative environmental impact.

The early detection of diseases and their electronic alerting to the farmer through the analysis of digital data collection tools and the database they produce is just one of the possibilities offered by precision livestock technologies. Achieving this goal also provides the producer with a range of other useful information: the appearance of the disease is indicated by changes in animal behavior. While the digital devices collect data on individuals and send a signal when they change, analysis of the data in the database can reveal several important facts. These include the time spent eating, drinking, and resting, which is typical of all our farm animals. Species specificities can be observed, such as scratching in poultry, wallowing in pigs, or ruminating in cattle. In addition to studying individual behaviors, the observation of social behavior also provides the farmer with useful information about certain farm animals (e.g. fighting or playing patterns in pigs).

These observations have been made by farmers in the past and present without digital tools. The difference is that the use of precision technologies reduces the need for personal presence and allows continuous monitoring of individual and group animal behavior instead of periodic observations [42]. An additional advantage is that farmers can gain practical knowledge and experience not at the time of data

#### *Information Technology Drivers in Smart Farming Management Systems DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106320*

collection, but also at a later point in time. The data can be saved and examined in other using methods that were not previously available.

The central issue of precision livestock farming (PLF, smart livestock farming, and smart animal agriculture) is how to increase food production sustainably. While, the farmers should care about animal welfare and reduce the environmental burden. This goal can be achieved by merging data that originated from data acquisition (sensors) and Internet of Things (IoTs). The data transformation along with predictive analytics can be applied by using artificial intelligence (AI) tools. Ref [43, 44] indicated that PLF uses principles and technology of process engineering to manage livestock production through smart sensors to monitor animal growth, milk and egg production, endemic diseases, animal behavior, and components of the microenvironment within the production unit (in Ref [44]). Precision livestock technologies are playing an increasingly important role in response to the factors that hamper the production of animal products. These include reducing the environmental impact of intensive livestock production systems, reducing the cost of inputs by optimizing their quantity (including human labor), and keeping up-to-date knowledge of animal health by studying individual and group animal behavior [42, 45]. A more detailed in-depth analysis of data from the farming environment will help livestock keepers make decisions and indirectly improve their ability to generate income. These technologies consist of digital data collection, the creation of databases from that data, the analysis of the data, and the presentation and visualization of the patterns found in the data. The big difference with traditional methods is that databases containing data on animals or environmental parameters collected by digital means cannot be successfully analyzed using traditional statistical methods. This requires the use of data science methods to identify internal patterns in the data sets that are not possible with traditional analysis methods.

It is important to note that precision technologies, i.e. the use of informatics in the collection and processing of data from livestock, cannot be generalized in practice. There is no universally applicable device or procedure that answers the questions of livestock farmers. The simplest, most reliable, and least costly IT solution must be tailored to the circumstances of the farm. Digital data collection tools can be categorized according to the type of data they collect, and the most appropriate analysis methods should be selected from those already available. This requires knowledge of the specificities of the farm. In practice, these precision solutions will only be widely used if they are validated in on-farm projects.

This section describes the framework for precision farming technologies.

#### **3.1 Data acquisition**

Recently, there are several publications on precision livestock farming [46–51]. Several authors have concluded that although the IT solution that are used works well, its practical uptake remains to be seen. In [52], the major limitation of practical applications includes high installation and maintenance cost, difficulties in using the new technologies due to lack of knowledge or skill of farmers, lack of confidence in the manufacturing companies, etc. How can this be changed, and how could this be improved? (**Figure 3**).

The use of precision livestock farming technologies would contribute to consistent objective and regular welfare monitoring of livestock in real time, allowing farmers expeditiously to identify problems and implement preventative measures to avoid

**Figure 3.** *Farm with precision livestock farming technology [52].*

critical failures [53]. In large-scale livestock farming, the data that come into the earlier-mentioned database can be divided into two broad categories: direct (i.e. digital data coming in via IT tools) and indirect (digital data recorded by the farmer). Digital data must be collected from all possible sources to have an accurate database of the production activities of a given livestock holding. This database is necessary to achieve the objective. The so-called analog and historical data that are collected traditionally should also be incorporated into the database.

Another equally important aspect of data collection is the environment-oriented (i.e. data collected directly on the farming environment) and animal-oriented (data collected on livestock individuals) data sets. The use of both animal- and environment-oriented data supports easy and proper monitoring of health, welfare, production, and risks [54]. Farmers have been collecting these data with varying degrees of attention for years. After all, a careful farmer wants to know exactly how much it costs to produce the animal product and where there are points for improvement. However, we can only talk about precision livestock farming if the database also contains digital data on the individuals in the livestock.

#### *3.1.1 Housing system*

**Table 3** lists the input data that can be measured and analyzed to provide the farmer with information on the farming environment. There are three main types of farming in large-scale livestock production: confined, semi-confined, and freerange. The more enclosed and controlled housing is (poultry and pigs), the easier it is to collect data on the microenvironment of the barn using sensors. These data were collected by farmers for decades, especially in confined housing, because it is the basis for automatic ventilation, cooling, heating, feeding, and water technologies. This approach represents an opportunity for precision livestock farming because farmers do not use this large amount of data for data analysis purposes in most cases. In semi-confined systems, animals are affected by the external environment, and

*Information Technology Drivers in Smart Farming Management Systems DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106320*


#### **Table 3.**

*Data in the farming environment, Alexy M.'s own research.*

human influence is minor (dairy cattle). In free-range conditions (beef cattle and pigs), the role of humans is even reduced, with external weather factors fully determining the environmental conditions around the animals. In this type of farming, it is also possible to collect environmental data, e.g. by placing weather stations in the pasture.

The way how animals are kept also has a big influence on the individual data that can be collected about them. **Table 4** lists and groups the most popular digital data collection tools according to their practical application in different housing systems.

**Table 4** shows that not all digital devices are suitable for all types of housing systems. The usability of the tools, the cost of acquisition and operation, and the quality and quantity of data that can be collected are of important considerations. The matching and integration of data in different formats into a common database is of particular importance. Ensuring data transmission is one of the most difficult tasks (interoperability) because local data storage must be implemented if there is insufficient bandwidth. These are practical problems that can only be solved, tested, and developed, in the context of pilot experiments.


#### **Table 4.**

*Applicability of PLF tools in different housing systems, Alexy M.'s own research.*

#### *3.1.2 Livestock characteristics*

A key element of precision livestock technologies is to acquire data on individuals of livestock. The data acquisition requires either placing a digital device on the animal or inside a part of the animal or collecting data on the stock. In the latter case, it is necessary to segment the images during data analysis after data collection, by labeling every animal. In all cases, the behavioral and body characteristics of the animal must be known.

**Table 5** presents the digital data collection tools that can be considered for three farm animal species (cattle, pigs, and poultry) and assesses their applicability. The digital tools presented are those included in **Table 4**.

In cattle farming, the milk and meat production directions are indicated separately. The reason for this is the different production purposes of the cattle and the different farming environments. In the case of pigs (although almost 95% of the world's pig population is kept in confined, intensive conditions), free-range farming is also observed (the purpose is the same, here free-range means organic farming and meeting the needs of other target groups of customers). All digital data collection tools can be used in cattle farming. The possibility to collect individual data from poultry flocks that are kept in completely enclosed conditions is hampered by the body structure of the birds. Namely, birds have no external ears to which, e.g. radio-frequency identification (RFID), tags can be attached and their fast growth rate causes problems since devices that can be placed on the neck or limbs cannot be used because the animals' body size changes so rapidly that it may damage the animals' physical integrity. In their case, the use of cameras and microphones is an option. Attempts have been made to use RFID technology on the wingtip, but in practice, this is not a feasible and worthwhile investment.


#### **Table 5.**

*Applicability of digital devices in cattle, pig, and poultry, Alexy M.'s research.*

#### *Information Technology Drivers in Smart Farming Management Systems DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106320*

In livestock farming practice, the specificities of the farming environment largely determine the quality of the data that can be collected. A good example of this is our experience in one of our pilot projects, in which we analyzed camera images of poultry flocks to estimate individual weights and detect behavioral anomalies. In this case, the issue was not with the application of the model (artificial neural network), because the results were surprisingly good, but with devices for the data collection and storage. The metal parts of the computer in the enclosure, which collected the camera images, were so corroded after only two fattening cycles that the device was unusable. The camera lenses had dust on them, a spider had woven a web in front of the lens (only whiteness was visible), and the high temperatures and humidity required to capture the day chicks had fogged the lenses. Consequently, we were able to use only some images for analysis. It was not possible to store the images taken by the cameras on a remote computer (Cloud storage), because the site did not have strong reception (edge storage).

#### **3.2 Data storage and preprocessing**

At this stage, the skills of data scientists are needed. In the first two steps, the experts sit at the same table, and in this phase, the domain expert leaves the table but stays in the room. Data preparation consists of several steps: cleaning the data, sorting data in different formats, performing anonymization, reconciling data in different tables, etc. Then the most appropriate data analysis model can be selected. One of the cornerstones to select a data model is the type of data collected (image, sound, number, etc.). By analyzing the aggregated database, data scientists can build a data analysis model by identifying the internal patterns in the data series. The data must have the characteristics that allow a credible and correct analysis to be performed. Data science defines at least six important characteristics (6 V's, **Figure 4**), each of which must be present in the data for the database on which the data analysis is based to be usable.

Although this process may seem simple, practical experience shows that it is not. We have experienced this in one of our pilot experiments by ourselves, in which we collected individual data on the daily activity of Mangalica breeding sows kept outdoor. Passive RFID tags were inserted in the ears of 20 sows and readers were installed in an area of the pasture, at the wallowing area. Data were collected on three

#### **Figure 4.**

*6 V data characteristics. Source: https://nix-united.com/blog/how-big-data-is-transforming-the-educationprocess/.*

#### **Figure 5.**

*Poultry is detected by the neural network algorithm on images. Source: Alexy, M.'s own research.*

weather parameters at hourly intervals. The database included the time of arrival and departure of the sows (from which the duration of presence can be calculated) and the data of the three weather parameters (temperature, humidity, and air pressure). After cleaning the database, the frequent item sets method from data mining (apriori algorithm) was chosen to obtain information on the daily activity and social behavior of the sows [56]. However, during the evaluation of this model, we found that it was not suitable to evaluate the database over time and to determine the activity trends of sows. After several months of work, a new model was set up and is currently under analysis. Although the business and data understanding was formulated and the database preparation was successful, the use of an inappropriate model could not answer the practical question.

However, the artificial neural network algorithm used to evaluate images of poultry flocks successfully recognized the birds. This is illustrated in **Figure 5**.

#### **3.3 Evaluation and deployment**

In this step, the domain expert returns to the table: s/he evaluates the patterns established by the model and determines whether the question asked has been answered correctly. The data scientist may have found correlations that are flawed or irrelevant from an expert's point of view in a livestock domain. If the evaluation shows that the result has added value for the domain expert, the practical application of the solution in the field can begin. This solution will be presented to farmers, then the results are validated whether it has value to farmers. As the practical example aforementioned shows, in the peer review process, it is possible that the desired result is not achieved by applying the wrong model. A livestock professional knows the farming and breeding characteristics of the livestock and understands the complexities involved in producing animal products. They know whether the data science answer to the question asked at the start of the project is appropriate. If so, the results obtained can be applied in practice and disseminated to livestock farmers.

The results of the precision method, validated in a real farming environment, can be successfully integrated into the decision support system of the agricultural enterprise. The outputs of precision methods provide real-time and reliable input

information to information systems, which can be used as the basis for complex, strategically important economic decisions. This is presented in the next section.

#### **4. Architecture solution for the problems of smart farming and information supply chain**

Recently, agriculture became one of the primary sources of data through the applications of various sensors and IoTs (Internet of Things). In the ecosystem of agriculture, horticulture, and farming, the efficient and effective utilization of data has gained momentum and become an essential issue. Transformation of data collection from the simple substantiated financial data to data that originate from largescale monitoring and controls of operation led to the requirement of disciplined data analytics. There are data that can be listed as traditional data of company operation and operational data of farming originated from different devices, IoTs. These latter types of data are unstructured and heterogeneous; either we consider their structure or their content. Some pieces of data are accompanied by metadata that may describe the essential information about the content and can be utilized to categorize them and organize them into a data catalog to exploit them for advanced data analytics.

#### **4.1 Agriculture and information management**

The development of past decades transformed agriculture and farming regarding digitization and data processing profoundly. Some data sources are available and can be utilized as social media. Web information systems, Internet of Things/sensors, and management information systems of the agricultural enterprises, and electronic images, which were generated by various equipments, have an important role in the assessment of several relevant factors within the production process of farming.

The application of Data Warehouses is apt to structured data that originated from structured databases [57, 58]. The processing of unstructured data by advanced algorithms machine learning and data science, e.g. images, audio, and text, requires cleaned data, a so-called single source of trust that encompasses reliable and trustable data for prediction and prescription. The aforementioned, different types of data can be gathered into an appropriate data architecture that would provide step-by-step transformation (**Figure 6**).

#### **4.2 Data Lake for information management**

We suppose that the data originating from the disparate source system are of good quality; if this is not the case, the data preparation process has a built-in procedure for quality improvement and data cleansing. The typical life cycle of data related to farming is showcased in **Figure 6**. The left-hand side of the diagram contains the potential sources of data that can play an essential role in farming, either agriculture, horticulture, livestock management, or any other modern branches.

A hybrid data warehouse that includes a robust Data Warehouse, as a consequence, leads to a data life cycle that begins with transformation, cleansing, and integration. The purpose of constructing a Data Lake is to have day-to-day operations that separate transactional data from data collection devoted to reporting and retrieving. The original goal of the services of Data Warehouse was to query historical data

**Figure 6.** *Data sources and their utilization in smart farming.*

and to carry out complex data analysis. In the data preparation stage, the data are cleansed and sieved according to the data structure of the target Data Warehouse, and the major constituents of this general structure are the fact table and the associated dimension tables. The next phase includes activities as follows: data migration, data integration, the transformation of the codes that are used in the succinct description of the data, and conversion to transport data between database management systems. The primary objective of the development of the Data Warehouse was to lay a sound foundation of data analysis in a separate system from the production system to avoid performance problems that may have been caused by complex queries. The ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) process is used to load data into a Data Warehouse. In this step, the general data cleaning and transformation took place, e.g. removal of the last and introductory spaces of data items, removal of redundant zeros, standardization of identifiers/identification numbers, making effective restrictions of data fields; and e.g. conversion of imperial units into metric units of measure or vice versa.

While the aforementioned data manipulation is performed, relationships among data items, tables, and schemas may be violated or lost. Analogously, integrating and combining the data from multiple resources can lead to defects that are transferred into the Data Warehouse. To prevail over the data quality restrictions that were caused by the transformations in the Data Warehouse, the idea of the Data Lake was brought into existence. The idea advertised by the notion of Data Lake is to place the data in its original form in storage areas, i.e. in the Transitive and/or Raw Data Zone after the aggregation phase (**Figure 7**; [59]). Thus, Data Lake can store and obtain data from RDBMS (Relational Data Base Management Systems), semi-structured data (XML, binary XML, JSON, BSON, etc.), and unstructured data (e.g. images), moreover metadata, which are usually displayed in the semi-structured form and characterize the data fed into the Data Lake too. The data entry and preprocessing phase can involve loading, batch, and stream processing for source data while performing the necessary quality checks with the Map-Reduce capability [60]. A vital

*Information Technology Drivers in Smart Farming Management Systems DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106320*

**Figure 7.** *Data Lake architecture for agriculture.*

feature of the Raw Data Zone is that it can be regarded as the "single source of truth" because it retains the data in its original form; however, the data can be anonymized, masked, and tokenized in this zone. Data scientists and business/data analysts can come back to this zone when seeking original connections and relationships among data items that may have become absent during data transformation, conversion, encryption, and encoding. The Trusted Zone implements functions for data processing to ensure quality assurance and to guarantee compliance with standards, data cleansing, and data validation. In this zone, plenty of data alterations take place by the predefined local and global standards, through which the data can be considered "the only version of the truth." This zone encompasses master data and fact data that are registered and tracked by a data catalog that is automatically or semi-automatically populated with metadata. The data in the Refined Zone endure several additional alterations that are designed to make the data usable in data science algorithms. These data manipulations include structuring of the data format, possible detokenization, a quality check of data to meet the yearnings of the algorithms when models of the subject area (e.g. agriculture and smart farming), and data analysis are developed. In this way, procedures for knowledge acquisition through data exploration and analytics can be performed, and comprehension of the data sets can be achieved. Within each zone, user access rights must be rigorously controlled through adequate methods, e.g. role-based access control or other combined ensemble methods that fit the specific environment. In the event of temporary and ad hoc requirements to deviate from the basic settings, attribute-based access rights or any other adequate approaches can be used. For researchers, executives, authorized employees, and other experts who want to conduct exploratory data analytics, sandbox makes it possible to create models for data analytics and discover associations and relationships between

attributes, without involving external or internal experts, without other additional costs [61]. The researcher can feed data from any other zone into the sandbox in a controlled way. Interesting results that came into existence can be sent back to the Raw Data Zone for reuse.

#### **4.3 Agriculture and information system architecture**

Zachman's framework contains various viewpoints of business stakeholders and a set of models describing the essential facets of overarching information systems. In **Table 6**, the perspectives represent the various layers of the enterprise architecture in the sense of modeling tools, software, and operational infrastructure. The aspects can be perceived as a line of models, in that the lower-level model is a refinement of the upper-level model. The claimed advantage of the Data Lake is that the data extracted from the source systems are transformed before the actual use of the data for analysis. This approach permits more adaptability to requirements than the controlled, structured environment of Data Warehouses.

The purpose of the Data Lake and Data Warehouse dedicated to research within agriculture informatics is to lay the foundation of data analytics workflows. The architecture should support several requirements as follows: (1) achieving processing speed through adjusting configuration parameters; (2) exploitation of the distribution of data among cluster nodes; (3) usage of provenance data; and (4) data placement and scheduling algorithm for input data to prepare the efficient data processing.

The contextual perspective describes the goal to which the system is dedicated. In the case of data analytics workflow in e-agriculture, the objective is to assist the management to formulate the research questions in terms of business processes. At the conceptual level, the disparate models that are devoted to specific research questions and associated with various approaches to data analytics appear. In the logical layer, the specification of the data analytics workflows is exhibited using business process description languages, algorithms of data analytics, and services for data access. The logical level should contain the explicit specification of access rights taken into account of the different regulations, especially GDPR and sector-specific prescriptions. The physical layer contains the technology-specific arrangements and solutions. Besides the actual programs containing algorithms of Data Science, and data preparation activities, the physical level should contain the number of physicallevel data processes (executors) that carry out the particular workflow, the number of concurrent tasks, the allocable memory, etc. The implementation and operational layer (the detailed level) depicts the scientific workflows on an infrastructure that contains nodes of data processing that are realized as commodity hardware and the decomposed models into details, respectively (**Table 6**).

#### **4.4 Enterprise resource planning systems, Data Warehouse/Lake for information management in agriculture**

In large and small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), the data is transmitted from disparate systems. The essential constituents of the data sources are the Enterprise Resource Planning Systems (ERP), Customer Relationships Management (CRM), and Supply Chain Management (SCM) as the elements of information systems architecture in a company (**Figure 8**). Nowadays, SMEs and even microenterprises apply ERP systems, although open source or open access solutions through Clouds. The requirement is that the data that is produced by ERP systems is to be

*Information Technology Drivers in Smart Farming Management Systems DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106320*


**Table 6.**

 *A mapping schematically between Zachman architecture and components of Data Lakes [62].*

#### **Figure 8.**

*Enterprise resource planning (ERP) system and Data Warehouse (DWH) and Data Lake architecture for data analytics in agriculture.*

stored and archived for later data analytics. Generally, in various industry sectors, Data Warehouses play a significant role in administering data.

The Data Warehouse along with Data Lake in agriculture make it possible to support decision-making, and ground in durable, reliable, and trustable data analytics for the huge size of data both in real time and batch processing (see [63, 64] in other sectors of the economy). The primary role of Data Lake in an enterprise environment is to yield the chance for data integration and reconciliation; the decisive role of Data Warehouse is to provide the opportunity to integrate data in a structured manner and format; moreover, it stores persistently and efficiently the original data in the fact table from the disparate modules of ERP.

*Data Analytics* and *Business Intelligence* tools can use DW as the major source of structured data and provide insights [65–67]. The structured organization of DW serves as a sound foundation to acquire a holistic perspective of business process performance by senior managers, business workgroups, and data scientists. Generally, the Key Performance Indicators (KPI) can be monitored and tracked. The application of dashboards gives a cleaner, precise, reliable, trustable, and easy-to-access picture of the actual state of the enterprise. The dashboard lays the foundation for effective decision-making. The data feeding or ingestion framework should be built up in the case of Data Lake. In a Data Lake, structured and unstructured data should be handled in a secure environment, considering the data protection requirements. Adequate libraries and workbenches are needed for data analytics tools and machine learning. The data provenance and metadata management can be realized through an advanced machine learning tool set and data catalog in the Data Lake (**Figure 8**). The disciplined and strict access rights should be implemented through sophisticated single sign-on and multi-factor authorization and authentication methods.

*Data Quality* should be achieved through the application of combined tools in both cases, in DW and Data Lake. The processes of data quality should deal with the erroneous data and pass it to the data quality team for human interaction whether what format can be accepted and inputted.

*Integrating Data* is an essential function of DW and the operational teams. The goal is to transform the data into the standard structure and format and to create consistent, interpretable, and meaningful data. This process is realized by a data transportation tool that conveys the data from different systems into DW and into the appropriate zone of the Data Lake. This process applies heterogeneous standardization and data cleaning methods that are related to the domain.

#### **5. Conclusion**

After showcasing research in agriculture for precision farming in Chapters 2, and 3, we have proposed the application of contemporary, modern information architecture that is capable to process data efficiently and effectively. The focus point is to support decision-making for enterprises including large, SMEs, and even microenterprises. Since there are available solutions in the IT market that can be scaled to the size of the enterprise. Especially, the Cloud-based solutions can be regarded as viable for SMEs and microenterprises.

#### **Acknowledgements**

This research was partially supported by the project of "Application Domain Specific Highly Reliable IT Solutions" that has been implemented with the support provided by the National Research, Development, and Innovation Fund of Hungary, financed under the Thematic Excellence Programme TKP2020-NKA-06, TKP2021- NVA-29 (National Challenges Subprogramme) funding scheme.

#### **Conflict of interest**

"The authors declare no conflict of interest."

### **Author details**

Alexy Márta, András Jung and Bálint Molnár\* Faculty of Informatics, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary

\*Address all correspondence to: molnarba@inf.elte.hu

© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

#### **References**

[1] Goetz AFH, Vane G, Solomon JE, et al. Imaging spectrometry for earth remote sensing. Science. 1985;**228**:1147-1153

[2] Adamchuk VI, Ferguson RB, Hergert GW. Soil heterogeneity and crop growth. In: Oerke EC, Gerhards R, Menz G, et al., editors. Precision Crop Protection – The Challenge and Use of Heterogeneity. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; pp. 3-16

[3] Elvidge CD. Visible and near infrared reflectance characteristics of dry plant materials. International Journal of Remote Sensing. 1990;**11**:1775-1795

[4] Mutanga O, Skidmore AK, van Wieren S. Discriminating tropical grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) canopies grown under different nitrogen treatments using spectroradiometry. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. 2003;**57**:263-272

[5] Clevers JGPW, van der Heijden GWAM, Verzakov S, et al. Estimating grassland biomass using SVM band shaving of hyperspectral data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing. 2007;**73**:1141-1148

[6] Beeri O, Phillips R, Hendrickson J, et al. Estimating forage quantity and quality using aerial hyperspectral imagery for northern mixed-grass prairie. Remote Sensing of Environment. 2007;**110**:216-225

[7] Schellberg J, Hill MJ, Gerhards R, et al. Precision agriculture on grassland: Applications, perspectives and constraints. European Journal of Agronomy. 2008;**29**:59-71

[8] van der Meer F. Analysis of spectral absorption features in hyperspectral

imagery. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation. 2004;**5**:55-68

[9] Almeida TIR, Filho DS. Principal component analysis applied to featureoriented band ratios of hyperspectral data: A tool for vegetation studies. International Journal of Remote Sensing. 2004;**25**:5005-5023

[10] Bannari A, Pacheco A, Staenz K, et al. Estimating and mapping crop residues cover on agricultural lands using hyperspectral and IKONOS data. Remote Sensing of Environment. 2006;**104**:447-459

[11] Kokaly RF, Rockwell BW, Haire SL, et al. Characterization of post-fire surface cover, soils, and burn severity at the Cerro Grande fire, New Mexico, using hyperspectral and multispectral remote sensing. Remote Sensing of Environment. 2007;**106**:305-325

[12] Adam E, Mutanga O, Rugege D. Multispectral and hyperspectral remote sensing for identification and mapping of wetland vegetation: A review. Wetlands Ecology and Management. 2010;**18**:281-296

[13] Thenkabail PS, Smith RB, De Pauw E. Hyperspectral vegetation indices and their relationships with agricultural crop characteristics. Remote Sensing of Environment. 2000;**71**:158-182

[14] Thenkabail PS, Enclona EA, Ashton MS, et al. Accuracy assessments of hyperspectral waveband performance for vegetation analysis applications. Remote Sensing of Environment. 2004;**91**:354-376

[15] Wrolstad RE, Durst RW, Lee J. Tracking color and pigment changes in *Information Technology Drivers in Smart Farming Management Systems DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106320*

anthocyanin products. Trends in Food Science and Technology. 2005;**16**:423-428

[16] Gitelson A, Merzlyak MN. Spectral reflectance changes associated with autumn senescence of Aesculus hippocastanum L. and Acer platanoides L. Leaves. Spectral features and relation to chlorophyll estimation. Journal of Plant Physiology. 1994;**143**:286-292

[17] Gitelson AA, Grit Y, Merzlyak MN. Relationships between leaf chlorophyll content and spectral reflectance and algorithms for non-destructive chlorophyll assessment in higher plant leaves. Journal of Plant Physiology. 2003;**160**:271-282

[18] Wessman CA. Evaluation of Canopy biochemistry. In: Hobbs RJ, Mooney HA, editors. Remote Sensing of Biosphere Functioning. New York: Springer; pp. 135-156

[19] Gunasekaran S, Paulsen MR, Shove GC. Optical methods for nondestructive quality evaluation of agricultural and biological materials. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research. 1985;**32**:209-241

[20] Zhao D, Raja Reddy K, Kakani VG, et al. Corn (Zea mays L.) growth, leaf pigment concentration, photosynthesis and leaf hyperspectral reflectance properties as affected by nitrogen supply. Plant and Soil. 2003;**257**:205-218

[21] Chan JC-W, Paelinckx D. Evaluation of random Forest and Adaboost treebased ensemble classification and spectral band selection for ecotope mapping using airborne hyperspectral imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment. 2008;**112**:2999-3011

[22] Lichtenthaler HK, Gitelson A, Lang M. Non-destructive determination of chlorophyll content of leaves of a

green and an Aurea mutant of tobacco by reflectance measurements. Journal of Plant Physiology. 1996;**148**:483-493

[23] Sims DA, Gamon JA. Relationships between leaf pigment content and spectral reflectance across a wide range of species, leaf structures and developmental stages. Remote Sensing of Environment. 2002;**81**:337-354

[24] Penuelas J, Filella I, Lloret P, et al. Reflectance assessment of mite effects on apple trees. International Journal of Remote Sensing. 1995;**16**:2727-2733

[25] Merzlyak MN, Gitelson AA, Chivkunova OB, et al. Non-destructive optical detection of pigment changes during leaf senescence and fruit ripening. Physiologia Plantarum. 1999;**106**:135-141

[26] Yang F, Li J, Gan X, et al. Assessing nutritional status of Festuca arundinacea by monitoring photosynthetic pigments from hyperspectral data. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2010;**70**:52-59

[27] Filella I, Penuelas J. The red edge position and shape as indicators of plant chlorophyll content, biomass and hydric status. International Journal of Remote Sensing. 1994;**15**:1459-1470

[28] Danson FM, Steven MD, Malthus TJ, et al. High-spectral resolution data for determining leaf water content. International Journal of Remote Sensing. 1992;**13**:461-470

[29] Ustin SL, Roberts DA, Gamon JA, et al. Using imaging spectroscopy to study ecosystem processes and properties. Bioscience. 2004;**54**:523

[30] Abdel-Rahman EM, Ahmed FB, van den Berg M. Estimation of sugarcane leaf nitrogen concentration using in situ spectroscopy. International Journal

of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation. 2010;**12**:S52-S57

[31] Zarco-Tejada PJ, González-Dugo V, Berni JAJ. Fluorescence, temperature and narrow-band indices acquired from a UAV platform for water stress detection using a micro-hyperspectral imager and a thermal camera. Remote Sensing of Environment. 2012;**117**:322-337

[32] Smith KL, Steven MD, Colls JJ. Use of hyperspectral derivative ratios in the red-edge region to identify plant stress responses to gas leaks. Remote Sensing of Environment. 2004;**92**:207-217

[33] Zude M, Herold B, Roger J-M, et al. Non-destructive tests on the prediction of apple fruit flesh firmness and soluble solids content on tree and in shelf life. Journal of Food Engineering. 2006;**77**:254-260

[34] Milton EJ, Schaepman ME, Anderson K, et al. Progress in field spectroscopy. Remote Sensing of Environment. 2009;**113**:S92-S109

[35] Ben-Dor E, Banin A. Nearinfrared analysis as a rapid method to simultaneously evaluate several soil properties. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 1995;**59**:364-372

[36] Stevens A, van Wesemael B, Bartholomeus H, et al. Laboratory, field and airborne spectroscopy for monitoring organic carbon content in agricultural soils. Geoderma. 2008;**144**:395-404

[37] Hagen N. Snapshot advantage: A review of the light collection improvement for parallel highdimensional measurement systems. Optical Engineering. 2012;**51**:111702

[38] Jung A, Vohland M, Thiele-Bruhn S. Use of a portable camera for proximal

soil sensing with hyperspectral image data. Remote Sensing. 2015;**7**:11434-11448

[39] Zarco-Tejada PJ, Guillén-Climent ML, Hernández-Clemente R, et al. Estimating leaf carotenoid content in vineyards using high resolution hyperspectral imagery acquired from an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 2013;**171-172**:281-294

[40] Bareth G, Aasen H, Bendig J, et al. Leichte und UAV-getragene hyperspektrale, bildgebende Kameras zur Beobachtung von landwirtschaftlichen Pflanzenbeständen: spektraler Vergleich mit einem tragbaren Feldspektrometer. Photogramm-Fernerkund-Geoinformation. 2015;**2015**:69-79

[41] Halachmi I, Guarino M. Editorial: Precision livestock farming: A 'per animal'approach using advanced monitoring technologies. Animal. 2015;**10**:1482-1483

[42] Berckmans D. Precision livestock farming technologies for welfare management in intensive livestock systems: -EN-Precision livestock farming technologies for welfare management in intensive livestock systems -FR-Les technologies de l'élevage de précision appliquées à la gestion du bien-être animal dans les systèmes d'élevage intensif -ES-Tecnologías de ganadería de precisión para la gestión del bienestar en sistemas de ganadería intensiva. Revised Science Tech OIE. 2014;**33**:189-196

[43] Wathes CM, Kristensen HH, Aerts J-M, et al. Is precision livestock farming an engineer's daydream or nightmare, an animal's friend or foe, and a farmer's panacea or pitfall? Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2008;**64**:2-10

#### *Information Technology Drivers in Smart Farming Management Systems DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106320*

[44] Tedeschi LO, Greenwood PL, Halachmi I. Advancements in sensor technology and decision support intelligent tools to assist smart livestock farming. Journal of Animal Science. 2021;**99**:skab038

[45] Schillings J, Bennett R, Rose DC. Exploring the potential of precision livestock farming technologies to help address farm animal welfare. Frontiers in Animal Science. 2021;**2**:639678

[46] Chung Y, Lee J, Oh S, et al. Automatic detection of Cow's Oestrus in audio surveillance system. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences. 2013;**26**:1030-1037

[47] Vranken E, Berckmans D. Precision livestock farming for pigs. Animal Frontiers. 2017;**7**:32-37

[48] Tullo E, Finzi A, Guarino M. Review: Environmental impact of livestock farming and precision livestock farming as a mitigation strategy. Science Total Environment. 2019;**650**:2751-2760

[49] van der Burg S, Bogaardt M-J, Wolfert S. Ethics of smart farming: Current questions and directions for responsible innovation towards the future. NJAS Wagening Journal of Life Science. 2019;**90-91**:1-10

[50] Maes DGD, Dewulf J, Piñeiro C, et al. A critical reflection on intensive pork production with an emphasis on animal health and welfare. Journal of Animal Science. 2020;**98**:S15-S26

[51] Pandey S, Kalwa U, Kong T, et al. Behavioral monitoring tool for pig farmers: Ear tag sensors, machine intelligence, and technology adoption roadmap. Animals. 2021;**11**:2665

[52] Guarino M, Norton T, Berckmans D, et al. A blueprint for developing and

applying precision livestock farming tools: A key output of the EU-PLF project. Animal Frontiers. 2017;**7**:12-17

[53] Neethirajan S, Kemp B. Digital livestock farming. Sensor and Bio-Sensor Research. 2021;**32**:100408

[54] Piñeiro C, Morales J, Rodríguez M, et al. Big (pig) data and the internet of the swine things: A new paradigm in the industry. Animal Frontiers. 2019;**9**:6-15

[55] Aquilani C, Confessore A, Bozzi R, et al. Review: Precision livestock farming technologies in pasture-based livestock systems. Animal. 2022;**16**:100429

[56] Alexy M, Horváth T. Tracing the local breeds in an outdoor system – A Hungarian example with Mangalica pig breed. In: Tracing the Domestic Pig [Working Title]. London: IntechOpen; 2022. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen. 101615

[57] Kimball R. The Kimball Group Reader : Relentlessly Practical Tools for Data Warehousing and Business Intelligence. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley; 2010

[58] Golfarelli M, Rizzi S. Data Warehouse Design: Modern Principles and Methodologies. Bologna, Italia: McGraw-Hill, Inc; 2009

[59] LaPlante A, Sharma B. Architecting Data Lakes. O'Reilly Media Sebastopol, 2014.

[60] Duggal R, Khatri SK, Shukla B. Improving patient matching: Single patient view for clinical decision support using big data analytics. In: 2015 4th International Conference on Reliability, Infocom Technologies and Optimization (ICRITO)(Trends and Future Directions). 2015. pp. 1-6

[61] Myatt GJ. Making Sense of Data: A Practical Guide to Exploratory Data Analysis and Data Mining. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2007

[62] Zachman JA. A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal. 1987;**26**:276-292

[63] Molnár B, Pisoni G, Tarcsi Á. Data Lakes for insurance industry: Exploring challenges and opportunities for customer behaviour analytics. Risk Assessment, and Industry Adoption. 2020

[64] Pisoni G, Molnár B, Tarcsi Á. Data science for finance: Best-suited methods and enterprise architectures. Applied System and Innovation. 2021;**4**:69-69

[65] SAP Business Objects Business Intelligence suite. 2020. Available from: https://www.sap.com/products/ bi-platform.html [Accessed: May 29, 2022]

[66] Make better decisions, faster with Tableau. 2020. Available from: https:// www.tableau.com/products [Accessed: May 29, 2022]

[67] Go from data to insight to action with Power BI Desktop. 2015. Available from: https://powerbi.microsoft.com/en-us/ desktop/ [Accessed: May 29, 2022]

Section 4
