The future of farming is not smart farms versus traditional farming
The future of farming is not smart farms versus traditional farming
Framing agriculture’s future as smart farms replacing traditional farming makes a complicated choice sound deceptively simple. Sensors and automation can support irrigation, ventilation, record-keeping and forecasting. They do not automatically create the ability to read a soil, understand a local variety, collaborate with neighbouring farms or interpret a season and a market. Equally, a practice is not sufficient for climate risk, labour scarcity, water management or traceability simply because it has been used for a long time.
The better question is: which problem should be addressed with which combination of technology and local knowledge, under whose responsibility? FAO’s Smart Farming approach couples affordable technology and efficient resource management with protected cultivation, good horticultural practices, local technical capacity, quality inputs and market orientation.[^fao] Technology is part of farming’s context, not a substitute for it.
What each approach contributes
Digital tools excel at repeated measurement, alerts, records and condition-based control. Regular observations of moisture, weather or the protected environment can make change easier to compare than memory alone. OECD identifies potential for remote sensing, GIS and precision-agriculture data to reduce information gaps and transaction costs in administration and policy.[^oecd] Potential, however, is not a promise of the same return for every farm.
Field-based knowledge is deeply place-specific. Airflow, drainage, disease timing, harvest cues and local customer preferences are accumulated through observation. This knowledge also decides what to measure and whether a number is plausible. Technology can preserve and share practical knowledge; it should not presume to erase it.
Five tests for a sensible balance
Start with the problem and the outcome. Name the source of variation—water use, night temperatures, post-harvest waste or worker safety—and record the baseline for water, energy, hours, yield and rejects before buying a solution.
Match scale to operating capacity. A small farm may benefit more from simple sensors, shared equipment and local support than from a complex integrated stack. Larger facilities may gain more from integrated control but must also maintain it. Count connectivity, subscriptions, calibration, consumables, training and downtime as costs.
Look beyond screen efficiency. Precision use of water or fertiliser can help, but an improved dashboard does not automatically resolve soil health, biodiversity or drainage. WUR’s food-systems approach considers production alongside processing, distribution and consumption, and alongside climate, soil, water, biodiversity and equitable returns.[^wur]
Protect data agency and resilience. Establish who owns the data, whether it can be exported, and how the farm operates if a connection or service fails. OECD highlights data quality, interoperability, confidentiality, skills and digital divides as central issues.[^oecd] Manual operating procedures and field records are not obsolete; they are part of resilience.
Ask who benefits. Automation can reduce hazardous work and support skill. It can also create dependency if a system is closed, poorly supported or imposed without training. Involve the people doing the work, and give them time and authority to interpret alerts and act.
Validate technology as a small experiment
Test in one plot, bay or process before changing the whole farm. Evaluate data reliability, labour time, yield and quality, faults and the user’s burden together. Decide what success means before purchase and retain a manual fallback. Connecting farmers, extension workers, repair and connectivity providers and buyers turns technology from a stand-alone product into local capability.
A practical conclusion
The most realistic future is hybrid farming: respect observation and experience, and use suitable tools where repetition, risk and waste are high. The test is not how new the technology is. It is whether the result for the farm, ecosystem and customer is visible, useful and durable.
[^fao]: FAO, “About Smart Farming”,
[^oecd]: OECD, Digital Opportunities for Better Agricultural Policies (2019),
[^wur]: Wageningen University & Research, “Food Systems”,