Agriculture is both responsible and victim of global warming. Responsible because it emits nearly 20% of greenhouse gases, which are composed of methane, resulting in particular from livestock farming, nitrous oxide, resulting from the spreading of fertilizers and carbon dioxide from the consumption of fossil energy on the farm. Victim because global warming leads to fatal weather episodes for some farms: late frosts for vineyards, droughts for field crops, floods altering the soil, etc.
The fight against global warming is therefore an important issue for farmers: an economic issue but also a societal one. The agricultural world and society in general must therefore propose solutions to reduce greenhouse gases from agriculture. Digital tools are part of this arsenal of solutions.
Tools available…
The digitization of agriculture, or “connected” agriculture, now comes in different forms. The best known is undoubtedly the modulation of inputs. This consists of using connected equipment that makes it possible to spread fertilizers or phytosanitary products in the sufficient quantity, at the right time and in the right place.
Several materials can be used: connected boxes installed on the spreading booms, fully connected booms or even drones which identify in the fields the places where the plant is in water stress, loss of growth or attacked by pests. The spreading of inputs is thus done precisely, which limits the volume of inputs on a plot.
Other tools are used by farmers: connected greenhouses which make it possible to know the temperature and hydrometry inside the greenhouses, sensors for frost, outdoor temperature, plant chlorophyll, etc. All these tools make it possible to limit the emission of certain greenhouse gases and in particular nitrous oxide.
… but low digitization
In a recent study, however, we show that while digital is mostly seen as a way to increase agricultural productivity while respecting the planet, the tools and practices remain relatively uncommon in the agricultural sector – even less than in other other sectors with companies of the same size. At the same time, the perceived benefits of digitization seem weaker than in other sectors.
If these results can undoubtedly hide a significant diversity between the sub-sectors of the agricultural world and the sizes of the farms, they nevertheless challenge.
Farmers do not perceive the meaning of digitalization, as if they were told stories about the ecological and economic interest of digitalization. They conclude that it is necessary to consider digitalization differently, to present it from a less productive and more social angle. Agriculture is, in fact, going through multiple changes that cannot be reduced to technological change and the reduction of greenhouse gases.
By digging a little deeper, we noted that, in general, digital tools were not sufficiently part of a global digital transformation logic. However, agriculture is not only driven by issues of ecologically intensive production: social issues must also be taken into account, including within the farming population, which justify a new approach to connected agriculture.
No need for institutional speeches
Many operators today aspire to change their lives: to take vacations, time with their families, to manage operations remotely, to be connected with their peers, partners or acquaintances quickly and smoothly. Agriculture is also affected by societal issues such as animal welfare, recognition of the work of the farmer, the fight against agri-bashing, direct sales, the attractiveness of agricultural professions or the transmission of knowledge. exploitation.
Farmers are also entrepreneurs and managers: they therefore need to be offered forward-looking management tools allowing them to be autonomous in their decision-making. They must have management tools for their operation like any other company.
Several digital initiatives are indicative of these changes: the use of YouTube to present one’s profession, the use of a commercial site to sell farm products, connected collars to know the state of health of an animal remotely , farm management applications or real-time consultation of the price of raw materials, platforms interconnecting farmers, for mutual assistance purposes, in particular such as e-farm.com or Agrifeel. Examples of this type are numerous and contrast with the productive or productivist vision surrounding connected agriculture.
These new practices show that we are probably wrong about how to encourage farmers to go digital. The latter probably do not need institutional discourse to do so. They do it on their own, at their own pace and passing the farm down from generation to generation. However, they still need new tools to be more responsive as agri-managers, to live better on a daily basis, to better value the agricultural professions and to better transmit their farm.
