INTRODUCTION:

The agriculture sector represents just around 18% of India's Gross domestic product in spite of utilizing almost 65% of the complete labor force. Notwithstanding the critical improvement in food grain creation, there are a few difficulties to address as the government means to increment agricultural creation as a level of Gross domestic product. Agriculture in India is generally subject to nature, yet issues connected with environment and an unnatural weather change make agriculture capricious.

The need of great importance is to teach ranchers in the utilization of current innovation and imaginative ways to deal with increment efficiency and increment productivity. Innovation performance is measured in two ways: as the introduction of technological and nontechnological innovations; and as innovative sales, which reflect the commercial success of technological innovations (Gemechu Bekana Fufa, 2020). Innovation assumes a significant part in agriculture and agricultural practices and with the approach of advanced innovation the extent of use has extended. Advancement in agriculture is driving a development in agricultural practices, subsequently diminishing misfortunes and expanding productivity. This decidedly affects ranchers. The utilization of computerized and scientific apparatuses is driving nonstop improvement in the agricultural sector, and the pattern is setting down deep roots, bringing about superior harvest yields and assisting with expanding the pay of the cultivating local area. The job of current innovation is critical in agricultural turn of events and with the approach of computerized innovation the extent of utilization has extended. Development is prompting an advancement of agricultural works on, diminishing misfortunes and expanding effectiveness.

1. Importance of Modern Technology in Agriculture in India:

Digital transformation in agriculture and rural areas is a global policy priority. Agriculture is the foundation of many economies around the world and is critical to feeding the world's growing population. Furthermore, the growing demand for food requires farmers to develop new methods to increase production and efficiency. Technology in agriculture affects many areas of agriculture, such as fertilizers, pesticides, seed technology, etc. Biotechnology and genetic engineering have led to pest resistance and increased crop yields. Mechanization has led to efficient processing and harvesting and a reduction in manual labor. Irrigation methods and transportation systems have improved, processing machinery has reduced waste, etc., and the effect is visible in all areas. New age technologies focus on robotics, precision agriculture, artificial intelligence, blockchain technology and more. In 1960, during the Green Revolution, India managed to achieve self-sufficiency in grain production by taking advantage of modern agricultural methods such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides, superior quality seeds and adequate irrigation. Technological advances eventually appeared in agricultural development in India. The introduction of tractors was followed by new tillage and harvesting equipment, irrigation methods and air seeding technologies, all of which led to improved food and fiber quality. Farmers can leverage scientific data and technology to improve yields and keep up with cutting-edge agricultural methods. Technology in agriculture influences many sectors of agriculture. India has managed to achieve self-sufficiency in the production of food grains by leveraging modern farming methods along with agricultural mechanization. But success of any sector depends on the psychology of the people working in the sector (Lova Kumar P et. al, 2023). The upskilling has to be done to ensure the satisfaction of workers (Nayeema B et. al, 2021). Therefore, the these technical should be tough to the agriculture labourers to gain their support for transformation.

Types of Agriculture Technologies:

1. Precision Agriculture:

Precision farming involves the use of technology to optimize inputs such as water, fertilizers, and pesticides based on factors like soil variability, weather conditions, and crop requirements. Techniques include GPS-guided machinery, soil sensors, and variable rate application systems to precisely manage resources and maximize yields while minimizing environmental impact.

2. Drones and Remote Sensing:

Drones equipped with cameras and sensors are used for aerial imaging and monitoring of crops, soil health, and pest infestations. Remote sensing technologies, including satellite imagery and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), provide valuable data for crop health assessment, yield prediction, and land use mapping.

3. Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Crops:

Biotechnology plays a significant role in developing genetically modified (GM) crops with traits such as pest resistance, drought tolerance, and enhanced nutritional value. GM crops like Bt cotton, Bt brinjal, and biofortified varieties of rice and wheat are increasingly adopted by farmers to improve yields and mitigate crop losses.

4. Digital Agriculture:

Digital technologies, including mobile applications, IoT (Internet of Things) devices, and farm management software, facilitate data-driven decision-making and farm management. Platforms offer services such as weather forecasting, market information, crop advisories, and financial inclusion to empower farmers and enhance productivity.

5. Drip Irrigation and Water Management:

Drip irrigation systems deliver water directly to the roots of crops, reducing water wastage and improving water-use efficiency. Technologies like moisture sensors and automated irrigation controllers enable precise irrigation scheduling based on soil moisture levels and crop water requirements.

6. Mechanization and Farm Machinery:

Mechanization of agricultural operations through tractors, harvesters, seeders, and other machinery helps reduce labor costs, enhance productivity, and streamline farm operations. Innovations in farm machinery include power tillers, combine harvesters, and multi-crop threshers tailored to the needs of smallholder farmers.

7. Organic Farming and Sustainable Practices:

Organic farming practices focus on enhancing soil health, biodiversity, and environmental sustainability by minimizing synthetic inputs and promoting natural pest and disease management. Techniques include composting, crop rotation, intercropping, and use of biopesticides and biofertilizers to maintain soil fertility and ecosystem balance. Through CSR activities these skill development programs can be organized (Deepali Rani Sahoo and Sukanta Ku. Dwibedi, 2020).

8. Post-Harvest Technologies:

Post-harvest technologies such as cold storage, refrigerated transport, and packaging solutions

help reduce post-harvest losses and preserve the quality and freshness of agricultural produce. Innovations in food processing, value addition, and agri-business ventures contribute to enhancing the value chain and market access for farmers.

2. Positive Impacts of Technological Transformation on agriculture labour:

The positive impacts of technological transformation on agricultural labor are substantial, offering opportunities for increased efficiency, productivity, and improved livelihoods for farmers. Below are some key positive impacts:

1. Increased Productivity: Technological advancements such as mechanization, precision agriculture, and biotechnology have significantly boosted agricultural productivity. Mechanized tools and equipment enable farmers to perform tasks more efficiently and effectively, leading to higher yields per unit of labor input.

2. Efficiency Gains: Automation and mechanization reduce the time and labor required for various farming operations, freeing up agricultural laborers to focus on more skilled tasks. For example, the use of tractors, harvesters, and other machinery speeds up planting, harvesting, and processing activities, allowing farmers to accomplish more in less time.

3. Improved Working Conditions: Modern agricultural technologies often lead to improved working conditions for agricultural laborers. For instance, the use of mechanized equipment reduces physical exertion and exposure to hazardous conditions, contributing to better occupational health and safety standards.

4. Skill Development and Capacity Building: The adoption of technology in agriculture necessitates training and capacity building among agricultural laborers. As farmers learn to operate and maintain modern equipment, they acquire valuable skills that enhance their employability and enable them to adapt to evolving agricultural practices.

5. Income Generation Opportunities: Technological transformation can create new income generation opportunities for agricultural laborers. For example, the adoption of precision farming techniques may require the services of skilled technicians for data analysis, monitoring, and maintenance, thereby creating employment in related sectors.

6. Empowerment of Smallholder Farmers: Smallholder farmers, who often rely heavily on manual labor, can benefit significantly from technological transformation. Access to mechanized equipment and modern farming techniques levels the playing field, enabling smallholder farmers to compete more effectively in the market and improve their economic prospects.

7. Enhanced Livelihood Resilience: By increasing productivity and diversifying income sources, technological transformation enhances the resilience of agricultural laborers' livelihoods. Farmers are better equipped to withstand environmental shocks, market fluctuations, and other challenges, reducing their vulnerability to poverty and food insecurity.

8. Contribution to Rural Development: The adoption of technology in agriculture can drive rural development by creating employment opportunities, stimulating economic growth, and improving infrastructure and services in rural areas. This contributes to poverty alleviation and promotes inclusive development.

3. Negative Impacts of Technological Transformation on agriculture labour:

While technological transformation in agriculture brings numerous benefits, it also presents certain negative impacts on agricultural labor. These include:

1. Job Displacement: One of the most significant negative impacts of technological transformation is the displacement of agricultural laborers. As farms adopt mechanization and automation, fewer workers are needed to perform tasks such as planting, harvesting, and processing. This can lead to unemployment or underemployment among agricultural workers, particularly those with limited access to education or alternative employment opportunities.

2. Shift in Employment Patterns: Technological transformation often leads to a shift in employment patterns within the agricultural sector. Instead of providing stable, year-round employment, modern farming practices may rely more heavily on seasonal or temporary labor contracts. This can result in greater job insecurity and instability for agricultural laborers, who may struggle to find consistent work throughout the year.

3. Loss of Traditional Skills: As farms become increasingly mechanized and automated, there is a risk of traditional farming skills being lost or devalued. Agricultural laborers who have honed their skills over generations may find themselves marginalized or obsolete in the face of technological advancements, leading to a loss of cultural heritage and identity within rural communities.

4. Increased Dependence on Capital: The adoption of technology in agriculture often requires significant financial investment in machinery, equipment, and infrastructure. Smallholder farmers and agricultural laborers who lack access to capital may find themselves unable to afford the necessary technologies, exacerbating existing inequalities within the agricultural sector.

5. Social Disruption: Technological transformation can lead to social disruption within rural communities. Job displacement and changes in employment patterns may contribute to social tensions, migration, and rural depopulation as agricultural laborers seek alternative livelihoods elsewhere. This can have adverse effects on community cohesion, social networks, and traditional ways of life.

6. Environmental Concerns: While technological advancements in agriculture aim to increase efficiency and productivity, they may also have negative environmental consequences. Intensive mechanization and chemical inputs can lead to soil degradation, water pollution, and biodiversity loss, impacting the long-term sustainability of agricultural systems and exacerbating environmental challenges such as climate change.

7. Digital Divide: The adoption of digital technologies in agriculture, such as precision farming and data analytics, may exacerbate existing disparities in access to information and resources. Agricultural laborers who lack digital literacy or access to technology may be left behind, further marginalizing already vulnerable populations within rural communities.

8. Loss of Autonomy: As farms become more mechanized and automated, agricultural laborers may experience a loss of autonomy and control over their work. They may become increasingly dependent on external inputs, such as seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides, supplied by agribusiness corporations, limiting their ability to make independent decisions about farming practices.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

· To study the scope of employment in agriculture sector in the study area.

· To observe the changes in agriculture sector employment due to technological transformation

· To examine the pros and cons of changes in agriculture sector employment in the study area.

· To put forth certain suggestions based on the findings to the policy makers to ensure agriculture employees sustainability.

Sample and Data Collection:

A quantitative approach was followed in this exploratory study. The participants selected for this study consisted of agriculture labourers working in Guntur and Krishna districts of Andhra Pradesh, India. 150 questionnaires were distributed among the respondents. Convenience sampling technique was deployed in sample selection. The respondents were solicited to complete the questionnaire. The resultant response rate of useable questionnaires was 90% (135).

Data Analysis:

Table: 1- Demographic Profile of Respondents

S. No	Demographic Factor	Category	Frequency
1	Age	Baby Boomers	90
		Gen X	35
		Gen Y	10
2	Education	Illiterates	110
		SSC	15
		10+2 and more	10
3	Size of Landholding	Below 1 Hec	102
		1- 2 Hec	20
		More than 2 Hec	13

From the analysis it is found that majority of the respondents are Baby Boomers, illiterates and holding Below 1 Hector land.

Table: 2- Descriptive Statistics of Respondents perception on Negative Impact of Technological Transformation on Agriculture Labour

	N	Mean	Std. Deviation
Job Displacement	135	4.04	1.414
Shift in Employment Patterns	135	4.11	1.342
Loss of Traditional Skills	135	4.21	1.254
Increased Dependence on Capital	135	3.99	1.486
Social Disruption	135	4.20	1.365
Environmental Concerns	135	4.30	1.229
Digital Divide	135	4.34	1.134
Loss of Autonomy	135	4.41	1.017
Valid N (listwise)	135

From the analysis it is found that according to the respondents Loss of Autonomy registered highest mean value (4.41) and Increased Dependence on Capital registered lowest mean value (3.99).

Table-3: One way ANOVA for Negative Impact of Technological Transformation on Agriculture Labour (Age of the Respondents)

ANOVA
		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Job Displacement	Between Groups	145.383	4	36.346	38.618	0.000
	Within Groups	122.350	130	0.941
	Total	267.733	134
Shift in Employment Patterns	Between Groups	134.855	4	33.714	41.161	0.000
	Within Groups	106.478	130	0.819
	Total	241.333	134
Loss of Traditional Skills	Between Groups	95.370	4	23.842	26.859	0.000
	Within Groups	115.401	130	0.888
	Total	210.770	134
Increased Dependence on Capital	Between Groups	167.067	4	41.767	42.122	0.000
	Within Groups	128.903	130	0.992
	Total	295.970	134
Social Disruption	Between Groups	128.541	4	32.135	34.509	0.000
	Within Groups	121.059	130	0.931
	Total	249.600	134
Environmental Concerns	Between Groups	90.393	4	22.598	26.194	0.000
	Within Groups	112.156	130	0.863
	Total	202.548	134
Digital Divide	Between Groups	82.796	4	20.699	30.056	0.000
	Within Groups	89.530	130	0.689
	Total	172.326	134
Loss of Autonomy	Between Groups	56.819	4	14.205	22.582	0.000
	Within Groups	81.773	130	0.629
	Total	138.593	134

From the analysis it is found that age of the agricultural labourers has significant impact on their response on Negative Impact of Technological Transformation on Agriculture Labour.

Table-4: One way ANOVA for Negative Impact of Technological Transformation on Agriculture Labour (Landholding of the Respondents)

ANOVA
		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Job Displacement	Between Groups	95.610	4	23.902	18.053	0.000
	Within Groups	172.124	130	1.324
	Total	267.733	134
Shift in Employment Patterns	Between Groups	85.167	4	21.292	17.724	0.000
	Within Groups	156.166	130	1.201
	Total	241.333	134
Loss of Traditional Skills	Between Groups	62.359	4	15.590	13.656	0.000
	Within Groups	148.412	130	1.142
	Total	210.770	134
Increased Dependence on Capital	Between Groups	129.105	4	32.276	25.145	0.000
	Within Groups	166.866	130	1.284
	Total	295.970	134
Social Disruption	Between Groups	86.977	4	21.744	17.382	0.000
	Within Groups	162.623	130	1.251
	Total	249.600	134
Environmental Concerns	Between Groups	61.747	4	15.437	14.253	0.000
	Within Groups	140.801	130	1.083
	Total	202.548	134
Digital Divide	Between Groups	56.272	4	14.068	15.759	0.000
	Within Groups	116.054	130	0.893
	Total	172.326	134
Loss of Autonomy	Between Groups	46.023	4	11.506	16.158	0.000
	Within Groups	92.569	130	0.712
	Total	138.593	134

From the analysis it is found that landholding of the agricultural labourers has significant impact on their response on Negative Impact of Technological Transformation on Agriculture Labour.

FINDINGS:

1. From the analysis it is found that majority of the agriculture labourers are baby boomers and gen x people.

2. Baby boomers and gen x agriculture labourers are experts in traditional agriculture methods and they do not have much knowledge of modern equipment usage.

3. Only youngsters who are not good at physical activity are showing interest in modern equipment and many of the educated youngster are not showing interest to take agriculture as a carrier.

4. From the analysis it is also found that the modern equipment is bigger in size and only suitable for bigger lands but not for small lands.

5. According to 2015-16 agriculture report 68.52% of lands are in the hands of small farmers and among them 78.06% are SC’s.

6. Small farmers do not have sufficient funds to acquire modern agriculture methods.

SUGGESTIONS:

1. Agriculture sector should be made a profitable sector to attract youngster to take-up this sector.

2. Till now agriculture researchers focussed on crop yielding only but it is correct time for them to focus on cost cutting measures.

3. In Andhra Pradesh there are many fertile lands. Therefore, government should encourage food processing industries so that farmers will get good revenue for their products.

4. In the state it is often found that during the season farmers will not get good price for their crops and in off season the people have to pay much larger price for the same crops. Therefore, government should build sufficient storage place so that farmers can store their grains and other in this storage places and sell them only when they get good price.

5. The companies should also make modern equipment in smaller in size which will be suitable for small lands in India.

CONCLUSION:

The research is conducted to examine whether the technological transformation in the agriculture sector is a boom or bane for the agriculture employees. To understand the agriculture environment clearly, there is a need for classification, i.e. land lords and small farmers. From the research it is found that for land lords it is bane in the short run but boon in the long run. From the research it is observed that majority of the labourers working in the fields of the land lords are baby boomers and zen X people who are not good at technology. These people are experts in classical formation methods and not able to fit themselves in technological transformation era. So, this is a bane for them.

In the long-term environment will change drastically when baby boomers and zen x people not able to work due to age criteria. Currently in many parts of the world agriculture employment is treated as unskilled, uneducated and poor man’s job. For instance, in South Korea, where educated people are not ready to take farming as an employment due to which many Indians are taking care of their agriculture sector of South Korea. But the story still continues, though Indians are taking care of agriculture activities they ill-treat Indians by not allowing them in their restaurants. Similarly, in India also educated people will not opt agriculture as a carrier, unless it is made attractive. Current generation people are more attracted by technology; so, if agriculture sector is technologically transformed it can also get sufficient attention of younger generation people. In this context technological transformation can be considered as boon.

Land lords have vast lands and sufficient funds to adopt the technological changes in the agriculture sector but small farmers case is entirely different, these small farmers not able to afford for these bigger machines and if some how they manage to arrange them also, these bigger machines usage in the small piece of lands is nominal. Though we Indians are committed to “Make in India” concept, government has to motivate industries to design equipment which are suitable for small farmers of India. Then these equipment’s should be sold to farmers through agriculture cooperative societies on subsidies or they can give them on rental basis for nominal prices. All these measures will ensure that agriculture in the country will not be a costly afire due to technological transformation.

REFERENCES:

1. A. Kamilaris, A. Fonts, F.X. Prenafeta-Boldύ. The rise of blockchain technology in agriculture and food supply chains. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019; 91: 640-652.

2. A. Lajoie-O’Malley, K. Bronson, S. Van der Burg, L. Klerkx. The future(s) of digital agriculture and sustainable food systems: an analysis of high-level policy documents. Ecosystem Services. 2020; 45.

3. A. Mönnig, T. Maier, G. Zika. Economy 4.0–digitalisation and its effect on wage inequality, Journal of Economics and Statistics. 2019; 239(3): 363-398.

4. A. Wildridge, P. Thomson, S. Garcia, E. Jongman, K. Kerrisk. Transitioning from conventional to automatic milking: effects on the human-animal relationship. J. Dairy Sci. 2020; 103(2): 1608-1619.

5. Al-Babili, Salim, and Peter Beyer. Golden Rice – Five Years on the Road – Five Years to Go? Trends in Plant Science. 2005; 10(12): 565–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2005.10.006.

6. Barrows, Geoffrey, et al. Agricultural Biotechnology: The Promise and Prospects of Genetically Modified Crops. The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2014; 28(1): 99–119, https://doi.org/10.1257/jep. 28.1.99.

7. C. Pylianidis, S. Osinga, I.N. Athanasiadis, Introducing digital twins to agriculture, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 2021; 184: 105942.

8. C. Verdouw, B. Tekinerdogan, A. Beulens, S. Wolfert, Digital twins in smart farming, Agricultural Systems. 2021; 189: 103046

9. C. Zhang, J.M. Kovacs. The application of small unmanned aerial systems for precision agriculture: a review, Precis. Agric., 2012; 13(6): 693-712.

10. Clegg, John, and Rob Lucas. Three Agricultural Revolutions. The South Atlantic Quarterly. 2020; 119(1): 95–111, https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-8007677.

11. D.C. Rose, J. Chilvers. Agriculture 4.0: broadening responsible innovation in an era of smart farming. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2018; 2(87).

12. D.C. Rose, R. Wheeler, M. Winter, M. Lobley, C.A. Chivers. Agriculture 4.0: making it work for people, production, and the planet. Land Use Pol. 2021; 100.

13. Deepali Rani Sahoo and Sukanta Ku. Dwibedi. A Study of Corporate Social Responsibility towards Enhancement of Employment Through Skill Development: An Empirical Study. International Journal of Reviews and Research in Social Sciences. 2020; 8(1): 17-30.

14. G. Vanloqueren, P.V. Baret. How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations. Res. Pol. 2009; 38(6): 971-983

15. Gemechu Bekana Fufa. Cooperation for Innovation and its impact on Technological and Non-technological Innovations: Empirical Evidence for Western Ethiopian Manufacturing SMEs. Research Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2020; 12(2): 71-79

16. J. Steinke, J. van Etten, A. Müller, B. Ortiz-Crespo, J. Vandeveld, S. Silvestri, J. Priebe. Tapping the full potential of the digital revolution for agricultural extension: an emerging innovation agenda. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2020,

17. K. Bronson. Smart farming: including rights holders for responsible agricultural innovation. Technology Innovation Management Review. 2018; 8(2): 7-14.

18. K. Rijswijk, L. Klerkx, J.A. Turner. Digitalisation in the New Zealand Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System: initial understandings and emerging organisational responses to digital agriculture. NJAS - Wageningen J. Life Sci. 2019; 90–9.

19. L. Klerkx, E. Jakku, P. Labarthe. A review of social science on digital agriculture, smart farming and agriculture 4.0: new contributions and a future research agenda. NJAS - Wageningen J. Life Sci. 2019; 90–91.

20. L. Townsend, A. Sathiaseelan, G. Fairhurst, C. Wallace. Enhanced broadband access as a solution to the social and economic problems of the rural digital divide. Local Econ. 2013; 28(6): 580-595.

21. Lova Kumar P, Sreedhar Reddy B, Tulasi Das V. Mediating Effect of Job Resources on Psychological Wellbeing and Employee Engagement- Centric to Public Sector Telecom in Pandemic, India. Asian Journal of Management. 2023; 14(3): 216-224.

22. M. Shepherd, J.A. Turner, B. Small, D. Wheeler, Priorities for science to overcome hurdles thwarting the full promise of the ‘digital agriculture’ revolution. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2020; 100: 5083-5092.

23. M. Thorsøe, E. Noe, D. Maye, M. Vigani, J. Kirwan, H. Chiswell, E. Tsakalou. Responding to change: Farming system resilience in a liberalized and volatile European dairy market. Land Use Pol. 2020; 99: Article 105029.

24. N. Tantalaki, S. Souravlas, M. Roumeliotis. Data-driven decision making in precision agriculture: the rise of big data in agricultural systems. J. Agric. Food Inf. 2019; 20(4): 344-380.

25. N.M. Trendov, S. Varas, M. Zeng. Digital Technologies in Agriculture and Rural Areas-Status Report. 2019. http://www.fao.org/3/ca4985en/ca4985en.pdf, Google Scholar.

26. Nayeema B, Sreedhar Reddy B, Tulasi Das V. Mediating Role of Organisational Commitment on Organisational Citizenship Behaviour and its Impact on Job Satisfaction. Asian Journal of Management. 2021; 12(1): 23- 27

27. R. Helliwell, R.J.F. Burton. The promised land? Exploring the future visions and narrative silences of cellular agriculture in news and industry media. Journal of Rural Studies. 2021; 84: 180-191.

28. R. Sparrow, M. Howard Robots in agriculture: prospects, impacts, ethics, and policy, Precis. Agric. 2021; 22: 818-833.

29. Roser, Max, and Ritchie, Hannah. Hunger and Undernourishment. Published online at OurWorldInData.org. 2019. Retrieved from: ('https://ourworldindata.org/hunger-and-undernourishment')

30. Ruzzante, Sacha, et al. Adoption of Agricultural Technology in the Developing World: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature. World Development. 2021; 146: 105599.

31. S. Rotz, E. Duncan, M. Small, J. Botschner, R. Dara, I. Mosby, M. Reed, E.D.G. Fraser. The politics of digital agricultural technologies: a preliminary review, Social. Rural. 2019; 59: 203-229.

32. S. Rotz, E. Gravely, I. Mosby, E. Duncan, E. Finnis, M. Horgan, J. LeBlanc, R. Martin, H.T. Neufeld, L. Pant, V. Shalla, E. Fraser. Automated pastures and the digital divide: How agricultural technologies are shaping labour and rural communities. J. Rural Stud. 2019; 68: 112-122.

33. S. Wigboldus, L. Klerkx, C. Leeuwis, M. Schut, S. Muilerman, H. Jochemsen. Systemic perspectives on scaling agricultural innovations. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 2016; 36.

34. S. Wolfert, L. Ge, C. Verdouw, M.J. Bogaardt, Big data in smart farming – a review. Agric. Syst. 2017; 153: 69-80,

35. World Bank, ICT in Agriculture: Connecting Smallholders to Knowledge, Networks, and Institutions, (Updated Edition), Washington, DC 2017.

Received on 01.04.2024 Modified on 11.05.2024

Asian Journal of Management. 2024;15(3):231-237.

DOI: 10.52711/2321-5763.2024.00036