Abstract
In the present era of agricultural digitalization, documenting on-farm operations is critical. These records contextualize other layers of data and underpin economic analysis and informed decision-making. On-farm recordkeeping is rooted in an ancient tradition and has evolved from pen and paper to digital means integrating diverse tools and methods. These tools vary widely in mode of data recording and this presents challenges in achieving complete, accurate and interoperable data. Assessing this diversity of existing recordkeeping systems is a key step toward the improvement in recordkeeping systems that enhance data quality and interoperability. Despite the importance, as of present, comprehensive studies addressing this challenge are lacking. A systematic review of existing on-farm recordkeeping systems was carried out to address their advantages and weaknesses and to analyze their features and traits, focusing on interoperability and adherence to efficient and comprehensive on-farm recordkeeping. Paper-based recordkeeping, a longstanding and reliable method, is gradually being replaced by digital platforms. Many universities and agencies have released farm management spreadsheets and interactive database forms representing the initial step toward intuitive recordkeeping. Furthermore, farm management software, web apps, and user-friendly smartphone apps are increasingly crucial for handling agricultural big data. Notably, among the surveyed software packages and apps, most of them are not free and only a few support data interoperability. The survey also indicates a scope for further development in open-source tools with automation in recordkeeping. Adopting digital on-farm recordkeeping tools can positively impact both on and off the farm, fostering data interoperability, controlled yet flexible data access, completeness, and appropriate accuracy.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Data is the foundation of digital agriculture and agricultural data are generated from various sources, such as human observations, sensors in the environment, unmanned vehicles and machinery, and satellites (Martos et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2020; Wolfert et al., 2017). Vast amounts of data are generated from the initial planning of farming when supplies are purchased; it continues during soil preparation, planting, within-season treatments, and continues after harvest. These data have the potential to weave a comprehensive narrative about production that can also be valuable downstream in processing. Descriptive agricultural metadata (often behind-the-scenes operational information) provide a deeper understanding of the entire operation. While cost, profit, and yield data are useful for financial optimization, many more agricultural data captured in farm records can provide valuable insights in logistics, traceability, and marketing. Such data, including detailed records of who is doing what activity, when, and on which field, can only be gleaned from on-farm records (Hess, 2022). However, the nature of this data is generally descriptive, relying on manual recording methods that introduce the potential for error and data gaps, and inconsistencies (Witkowski et al., 2024; Wixted, 1998). Consequently, the analytical process is impeded by the need for meticulous, and at times arduous, data cleaning procedures. Considering that such data is utilized in the development of agronomic models, decision support tools, and other domain-specific digital technologies for site-specific management, data accuracy and consistency emerge as vital concerns. Accuracy in on-farm data is necessary for precision in operational planning and farm management (Sreekanth et al., 2013). This precision, facilitated by the practice of regular on-farm recordkeeping, underscores the pivotal role of meticulous data maintenance in agricultural decision-making and long-term strategizing (Robinson, 2005).
Humans have been keeping written records since the early days of mass-cultivation of crops: some of the earliest evidence of writing, from ancient Mesopotamia in the Late Neolithic period, includes the tallying of grain and other forms of agricultural recordkeeping (Goody, 1986). As human civilizations grew and evolved, so did the complexity of our writing and methods for recording data. The development and maintenance of simple and easily usable on-farm recordkeeping schemes were recognized in the UK over one hundred years ago by Dymond (1903) as the main means of improving agricultural productivity.
Hand-written notes and paper-based records are still common in modern agriculture (Raturi, 2017), but the need for digital recordkeeping is being increasingly realized. As agricultural data begin to get integrated across a myriad of data sources and collected by cross-functional teams (e.g., farm managers, farm workers, service providers, crop advisors, and researchers), there is an increasing need for integrated and contextualize agricultural data with user-friendly and interoperable digital technologies (Raturi & Buckmaster, 2019). Farm management information systems (FMIS) and applications handle a lot of labor-intensive recordkeeping, resulting in a more seamless experience (Kaloxylos et al., 2012; Salami & Ahmadi, 2010). Digital platforms allow for easy storage, archival access, and distribution of data to team members (e.g., among a farm crew, within supply chains) and diverse audiences (e.g., regulators, consumers) (Tang et al., 2002).
Utilizing digital platforms for farm recordkeeping offers numerous advantages. The foremost benefit lies in enhancing collaboration among farm teams (Chauhan & Kumar, 2013). These platforms provide an accurate representation of the farm by visually mapping operational records across time and space. By following historical activity records, seamless activity scheduling and worker task assignments become more feasible (Lee et al., 2014). Reports on activities and efficient tracking of inventory or farm assets are vital for informed decision-making in farm management (Baumüller & Kah, 2019; Daum et al., 2021; Fabregas et al., 2019). Concurrently, the digital framework promotes interoperability (Runck et al., 2022) fostering comprehensive awareness among all stakeholders regarding field activities. In sum, the adoption of digital recordkeeping platforms presents a transformative landscape for agricultural management, augmenting collaboration, precision, and decision-making.
The evolution of farm recordkeeping systems portrays a scenario wherein both paper-based and digital methods coexist. The ongoing development of digital recordkeeping systems aims to resolve data interoperability challenges, enhancing the utility and shareability of on-farm activity records. This also minimizes errors and ensures the abundance of valuable information. To facilitate the transition and improvement of these systems, a thorough investigation into the diversity of existing recordkeeping practices is imperative. Hence, to address the diverse and evolving nature of on-farm recordkeeping systems, the objectives of this state-of-art study are to (1) characterize and categorize existing on-farm recordkeeping systems to overview their strengths and limitations comprehensively, (2) explore on-farm recordkeeping computer programs and smartphone apps and critically analyze their features and traits, focusing on interoperability and efficiency and (3) discuss an ideal data-taking system that addresses drawbacks identified in existing methods, emphasizing interoperability, accuracy, and completeness.
Current agricultural data systems lack the necessary plenitude to drive artificial intelligence. The data sets and streams from sensors, imagery, and machinery data collection platforms lack full context for robust analysis. This manuscript critically assesses the strengths and weaknesses of current farm recordkeeping systems and includes an effective solution to address identified challenges. The suggested system promotes interoperability through modern technologies, offering a significant contribution to the resolution of longstanding issues in agricultural recordkeeping.
Categorization of farm recordkeeping methods
Farm data acquisition falls into two categories: human and machine (Raturi & Basir, 2022). Although farm activity records could be interpreted from machine data (Sharma et al., 2013), currently farm activity records are incorporated in the human input section which is subdivided into paper-based and digital methods. According to Jones and Collins (1965), recordkeeping books differ in terms of their function, types, and the nature of the records. They can be cash books if financial components are included, labor books if labor engagement is a focus and labor wage calculation is an objective, or cropping records if all cropping operations are recorded (Jones & Collins, 1965). The record books might also change depending on their intended usage. For example, a farm manager’s recordkeeping notebook likely differs from a field worker’s notepad. Fountas et al. (2015) provided a comprehensive classification of FMIS, where they discussed various types of data records with distinct purposes. Daily farm records for monitoring essential agricultural operations and activities play a crucial role in evaluating past farming efforts and facilitating future planning. Additionally, the authors discussed farm implement and equipment records, which document the farm’s equipment inventory, purchase dates, and relevant descriptions. The study also emphasized the integration of production records, farm usage records, farm expenditure records, workforce and human resource records, transportation records, and sales records for effective whole-farm management and economic interpretations.
Digital modes of recordkeeping include online (remote or cloud) storage and local (computer hard disk, USB drive, local files) storage. Digital modes of recordkeeping may serve the same purpose of recordkeeping (tally events, inputs, etc.) but in the added traits of electronic, streamlined, and tidy, digital modes enable additional applications or repurposing.
Records of farm activity can be of different forms such as numeric, descriptive, textual, image, audiovisual, or audio (Doye, 2004; Junaid et al., 2021; Mahfuz et al., 2022). Images are used in support of the authentication of real conditions. Audio data collection makes record collection easier but requires more processing (whether human or AI) for interpretation and use. Descriptive and textual, ideally quantitative whenever appropriate forms can be readily aggregated and summarized to provide insights.
A framework representing a categorical clustering to understand the different types of agricultural recordkeeping methods is illustrated in Fig. 1. The color-coded areas represent different recordkeeping methods with some examples in white ovals. The axis arrows represent transitions.
Figure 1 depicts a transition from unstructured to structured method of recordkeeping and concurrently a similar trend of transition from paper-based to digital. The takeaways from Fig. 1 include:
An apparent shift from paper-based to digital recordkeeping methods Digital recordkeeping systems have advantages over paper-based systems in terms of ease in query, retrieval, transfer, and interoperability. These reasons encourage a transition from paper-based to digital recordkeeping systems that will likely persist into the future. To effectively navigate this transition, farmers and agricultural workers must have a readiness to embrace digitalization. It is imperative to provide them with appropriate education and resources to facilitate their adaptation to digital recordkeeping practices.
The transition from unstructured to structured recordkeeping poses challenges While unstructured methods offer convenience in field data collection, they make data retrieval more difficult than with structured methods. There is a growing trend towards structured means for long-term data storage alongside the continued use of unstructured recordkeeping systems, which anticipates a coexistence of both systems in the future. To address both systems’ efficacy, developers should emphasize tools with improved user-friendliness and accessibility. Collaborating between farm stakeholders, educators, and developers is imperative to understand their specific needs and develop tailored solutions.
Farm recordkeeping is moving toward an optimized system Digital recordkeeping outperforms paper-based systems, but unstructured and structured methods persist for their unique advantages. Ideally, the trend of on-farm recordkeeping will move toward a digital system having the ease of unstructured systems yet the advantages of structured methods. Engagement from farm stakeholders (who are related to farm work, i.e., workers, managers etc.) is essential to facilitate the transition to advanced digital technologies. Providing training and educational resources to facilitate technology adoption is imperative, with universities and extension agencies positioned to play a pivotal role. Additionally, being pivotal actors in this domain, software developers should endeavor to devise more robust and user-friendly digital tools that integrate the simplicity of unstructured methods with the efficacy of structured recordkeeping.
Approach to systematic technology review
This review encompasses paper-based and digital recordkeeping systems, including spreadsheets, software, web applications, and smartphone apps. The focus herein is to provide examples of these methods and tools, elucidate their purposes and identify use cases in agricultural recordkeeping.
The review process followed a systematic approach in three phases. In the initial phase, three prominent bibliographical archives, namely Scopus, Academic Search, and Web of Science, were explored due to their comprehensive coverage of relevant literature and advanced bibliometric features. Additionally, advanced third-party search tools such as Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and Academia were utilized to acquire pertinent documents. The search was conducted using a specific set of keywords relevant to the field of interest to comprehensively capture and encompass the domain under investigation. The keyword combination utilized included terms such as agriculture, farm, recordkeeping, bookkeeping, logbook, note taking, spreadsheet, activity, in-field operation, and notebooks.
In the second phase, information regarding digital platforms was sourced from their official websites and user manuals. Digital tools, often developed by universities and government agencies, are typically accessible through Cooperative Extension services and websites. This phase also involved reviewing grey literature (non-refereed but publicly available) and news releases. The keywords and their combination used in this phase were digital, agriculture, farm, spreadsheet, database integrated, form, 4-H, recordkeeping, and online form.
In the third phase, for smartphone apps, both the Google Play Store (Android) and App Store (iOS) were searched. Keywords used in this search were farming, app, recordkeeping, note taking, in-field, and agriculture. Additionally, web applications and software previously identified by the previous work of Capterra (2023) and Saiz-Rubio and Rovira-Más (2020) were also characterized. The search method is illustrated in Fig. 2.
Survey of existing recordkeeping systems
The recordkeeping systems derived from the survey outlined in section “Approach to systematic technology review”, are classified according to the theoretical framework depicted in Fig. 1. This section delves into the current recordkeeping systems, providing examples along with their respective advantages and disadvantages.
Paper-based recordkeeping system
Data acquisition by humans can be done on paper using free-form notes, structured tables (forms), questionnaires, sticky notes, or field logbooks (Fig. 1). While convenient to the record maker, the lack of automatic archive (copies) and high likelihood of not having access (at least temporarily) make paper-based systems problematic.
Free-form
Free-form recordkeeping refers to unstructured and non-predefined formats. In these recordkeeping methods, a wide variety of data such as numbers, text, or sketches describing conditions, settings, observations, inventories, etc., can be noted. The data structure might be descriptive, with headings or data labels, but that would not consistently be the case.
A documentary study by shows the recordkeeping methods of farm activities in France during the nineteenth century. The author mentioned diary-keeping as a pervasive practice on French farms. Farmers of small farms or household farms used to write down the agenda in a calendar notepad. Farm workers kept records of activity. Every farmer was given a pocket-sized memorandum-book in which to record every operation or event as it occurred, according to the date, irrespective of whether it related to cash, and the specific details should be documented in the proper book (Stephens, 1852). While there might have been a date structure to such records, that would be the only aspect of structure. Bookkeeping was also mentioned in that documentary study. If the log was organized by date and there was a blank page, it was considered to be “no work”. In the entry for Agriculteur, the 1921 Larousse Agricole: encyclopédie illustrée (Chancrin & Dumont, 1921) illustrates a farmer making his rounds in his field while carrying a notebook in his pocket to take several specific notes: labor hours, animal feed consumption, fertilizer doses, seeds, harvests, and many more. So, the farm activities were recorded using small pocket notebooks. Free-form recordkeeping provides the freedom to document information in a more natural and personalized way, enabling individuals to capture specific details that may not fit into standardized formats. It is often used when there is a need for flexibility and creativity in recording data as it allows for customization and adaptability to individual preferences and specific contexts. The downside of unstructured records is that the records are not adequately organized; to extract information, the manager must frequently comb through mounds of documents and perform all calculations manually (Roth, 2021) and this is not efficient at scale in space nor time. Free-form recordkeeping also leaves the data collection solely to the current thinking of the worker. It may very well be that something actually important does not come to mind as such and is never recorded (Wixted, 1998).
Templates and forms
Querying unstructured data for specific information is challenging, a problem mitigated by adopting structured recording formats. These systems may include tabular logbooks or forms, whether handwritten or printed, providing templates for data entry. Joly (2011) mentioned that structured notepads used in the late nineteenth century featured temporary forms with activities and objectives. In Germany, farmers used compact notebooks with multiple entries, column headers, and striped lines.
The 4-H youth development program offers agricultural activities where school-going students use structured 4-H farming forms to document tasks and expenses (4-H, 2023). 4-H record templates for crop management are also useful and handy means to document farm operations, expenses, and income; such formats also serve an educational function to highlight importance of certain elements of information. These templates for crop management are educational tools highlighting essential information elements. Oregon State University publishes horticulture record forms for flowers, ornamentals, vegetables, and herbs, combining operational data, crop status, and financial aspects (Bothum, 2018). Purdue University’s Extension-4-H Youth Development developed a crop planner and recordkeeping book for multiple crops, detailing field surveys, production practices, and financial records (4-H Youth Development, 2023). The University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign provides a comprehensive form for corn, soybean, and small grains, including soil data, weather data, labor, operations, storage, marketing, asset inventory, and crop yield records (University of Illinois Extension, 2016). These tools are designed for educational purpose but they can be good examples of integrated recordkeeping forms.
The added structure of data in templates or forms (compared to free-form text and numbers) is amenable to queries and creating insights (Robert & Atre, 2003). Structured farm books have the advantage of being simple to comprehend and well-organized for subsequent reference. These templates distinguish themselves from farm logbooks by their characteristic of short-term usage, serving as convenient and portable tools for on-the-go recordkeeping in the field. The drawback is that the information may not be presented in a preferred manner by the management, may be hard to track down, and since it is a manual-entry, handwritten accounting system, entering information may be time consuming (Roth, 2021).
Farm logbook
Recording farm activities on a farm logbook is an ancient recordkeeping process that is still utilized. The logbooks are the archive of field work by date, time, and person who conducted the operation to what extent. These books are either unstructured (free-form) or structured writing templates (Fig. 3).
Farm logbook sample for field 70 from Purdue ACRE (Raturi, 2021)
Farm logbooks offer several benefits in agricultural recordkeeping. They provide a systematic way to document farm activities, track trends over time, and comply with regulations. Logbooks aid in planning, decision-making, and troubleshooting by offering historical data for evaluation and analysis. They enhance communication and collaboration among farm team members and serve as a valuable source of knowledge and experience. By helping farmers assess performance, meet industry standards, and make informed decisions, logbooks contribute to improved productivity and profitability. However, maintaining logbooks can be time-consuming and requires consistent effort. There is a risk of incomplete or inaccurate entries if they are not diligently updated and inspected. Logbooks may lack standardization, making it challenging to compare data across workers, years, fields, farms, or systems. Additionally, logbooks may not capture all relevant information or provide comprehensive insights into complex farming operations. The manual nature of logbooks also increases the likelihood of errors and can be prone to damage or loss. As Buckmaster et al. (2018) noted, data quality decreases if not recorded in real-time. The infrequent access to the logbook, typically kept in the office, means that data quality heavily relies on the workers’ memory and motivation, leading to potential inaccuracies and inconsistencies.
Digital recordkeeping systems
In the era of digital agriculture, knowledge transfer is important, and the main driver is easily transferable and interoperable data. Digital agriculture systems must integrate data collection, transmission, warehousing, and digitally controlled agricultural equipment to inform decisions and automated operations (Tang et al., 2002). To meet the requisites of data-driven digital agriculture, agricultural data should transcend being paper-based, ensuring not only stationary usefulness but also facilitating fluidity, interoperability, and accessibility beyond limited ownership or authority (Brandusescu & Lämmerhirt, 2018).
Digital recordkeeping can be done by local storage records such as offline spreadsheets, software, and smartphone apps whereas cloud storage records using online spreadsheets, forms, web apps, online software, and smartphone apps yield added benefits of sharing among people and firms and availability at any place and any time provided there is connectivity.
Spreadsheets
Spreadsheets are a widely favored method of recordkeeping, serving as highly versatile software tools for data entry, storage, interpretation, and visualization (Broman & Woo, 2018). They are also widely employed as decision support tools, facilitating general problem-solving and the modeling of alternative scenarios for decision-making. Prominent spreadsheet software includes Microsoft Excel, Google Sheets, OpenOffice Calc, WPS Office Spreadsheets, Gnumeric, Spread32, and SSuite Accel, with Microsoft Excel and Google Sheets being the most prevalent choices. While spreadsheet-based data structures are flexible, certain universities and agricultural organizations provide templates tailored for agricultural applications. Purdue University released a webinar series named “Dig into Data with Spreadsheets” (Purdue Agriculture, 2020). In that webinar, the speaker shows a demo on how to maintain an interactive spreadsheet record book for livestock farming. Cornell Cooperative Extension of Cornell University provides some templates of a crop expense calculator and field crop record management tool (Hadcock et al., 2017). The spreadsheet tools help farmers to record field-by-field tasks and expenses, so in the end, it can calculate the profit, expense, and income. Those tools also help with crop rotation planning, manure management, and soil sampler. Those tools are more intensified for decision support but could be adapted for metadata recording.
Apart from the universities, Carolina Farm Stewardship Association (Riddle & Ford, 2012) developed farm recordkeeping templates that keep the record of farm activities and provide economic decision support. Curtis Stone, a Canadian urban farmer made a set of learning materials that is shared through the authors urban farming blog, YouTube videos, and a book. In those videos, the creator shows how spreadsheets are used for on-farm records (Off-Grid with Curtis Stone, 2017).
Spreadsheets offer several advantages for farm recordkeeping. They provide an organized structure for managing and retrieving data; with built-in calculation and analysis functions, they can be both a database and a computing tool to provide insights (Malcolm, 1990). Spreadsheets also allow for data visualization through charts and graphs, enabling easy interpretation of trends. They are flexible and customizable to fit specific recordkeeping needs, and offer data manipulation capabilities for sorting, filtering, and extracting information. Spreadsheets can be shared to facilitate teamwork and real-time access to data (Kalbers, 1984).
While offering advantages in farm recordkeeping, spreadsheets come with certain drawbacks. Their effective use necessitates users, particularly farmers, possessing adequate skills in spreadsheet software, primarily in algebraic operations. Moreover, the flexibility of manipulating data within spreadsheets can potentially lead to inaccuracies or data integrity issues if not handled with care. Without diligent adherence to proper data protocols, such as making copies of original data, data corruption can occur. Users must exercise caution, implement rigorous data validation, and maintain comprehensive documentation when employing spreadsheets for farm recordkeeping (Powell et al., 2009; Streit et al., 2008).
Cloud-enabled spreadsheet integrated forms
Cloud-enabled spreadsheet integrated forms offer functionality of online spreadsheet applications (e.g., Google Sheets) with the addition of forms within the spreadsheet environment. Google Forms offers spreadsheet-integrated forms. Forms are interactive and editable and can be managed without typing a single line of code. Google Forms offers a user-friendly data entry environment and a spreadsheet for data storage and visualization. Community Supported Agriculture shares a tutorial for making Google Forms-based farming data collection forms (Hickson, 2020). The cloud-based spreadsheet integrated forms and generated data in a spreadsheet illustrated by Hickson (2020) is shown in Fig. 4.
![figure 4](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs11119-024-10172-7/MediaObjects/11119_2024_10172_Fig4_HTML.png)
(Source: Hickson, 2020)
Example of cloud-enabled spreadsheet integrated forms: a recordkeeping using forms and b generated cloud spreadsheet by
The Farmer Spreadsheet Academy offers a set of demos on how to make and use Google Forms and visualize the on-farm data using Google Sheets (Brisebois, 2020).
Cloud-enabled spreadsheet integrated forms offer advantages in farm data collection and management by providing a user-friendly interface for respondents to directly input data, reducing errors and duplication. Additionally, the data are stored centrally in the cloud-based spreadsheet, enabling easy access and efficient organization. Real-time collaboration is another benefit, allowing multiple users to contribute simultaneously and ensuring up-to-date information (Agarwal, 2011). However, data security risks exist with cloud storage, requiring appropriate security measures. Dependence on internet connectivity may limit data collection and access. Finally, there may be a learning curve for users unfamiliar with spreadsheets or online forms, requiring time to adapt to the platform.
Hybridized database integrated forms
Hybridized database integrated forms offer a unique combination of database functionality and form-based data collection. These systems provide the benefits of both structured databases and user-friendly form interfaces. Airtable, for example, makes a spreadsheet with a flavor of database where forms can be generated with a linked and fetchable database (Airtable, 2022b; Meijer, 2022). The use of Airtable in field operational data opens a new horizon of digitizing activity or event records in a simple and effortless way. Purdue Digital Agriculture provides a set of demos on the use of Airtable for field records (Digital Agriculture, 2022). Purdue University provided an Airtable-based field record system that includes an interactive form that was automated to make it easy to use for farmers.
Similar to Airtable, the Kobo toolbox offers data record forms integrated into databases. Precision Sustainable Agriculture (2020) in their demo video, shows how to use their format of recordkeeping using the Kobo toolbox. Kobo can also be used for recording data from sensors and can be integrated into form-based data collections. Both Airtable and Kobo provide data in interoperable format. Both offer an API to communicate with other applications and data can be pulled for further use. The difference is, Kobo can work offline and it is open-source (Kobo Inc., 2022) while Airtable only offers online availability and it is not open-source (Airtable, 2022a).
A paid survey form builder platform that offers similar scope to Airtable and Kobo is NestForms (Nest Design Limited, 2022). The use of NestForms in digital farming recordkeeping was documented by Campbell on NestForms’ official website. It offers recording voice annotations and images as an extension of regular recordkeeping forms that can be built using NestForms’ drag-and-drop tool. Forms built by this tool can be operated offline and synchronized with a remote database (Campbell, 2022).
An open-source tool named SurveyStack (2023) is being used for data acquisition in different agricultural aspects; from recordkeeping of farm activities to agricultural research. This tool is being used for gathering and accumulating data from different sources too (Proofing Future, 2021). The tool was developed for supporting the community collecting agricultural data with a huge collaboration of farmers, extension workers, researchers, agronomists, soil health coaches and anyone who wants to contribute as an agriculture community member.
NocoDB (2023), Mathesar (2023), Rowy (2023) and Grist (2023) exemplify open-source tools that offer functionalities akin to Airtable and Kobo. Although these open-source platforms currently lack widespread recognition among end-users of farm recordkeeping systems, especially within the farming community, they harbor substantial potential to garner attention in the future.
Hybridized database-integrated forms offer a structured and organized approach to data collection and management, resulting in enhanced data accuracy and integrity. They minimize the need for manual data entry, reducing the potential for errors and inconsistencies. These systems also provide flexibility, allowing users to design forms with various field types to capture specific data accurately. Real-time collaboration features simplify teamwork by enabling multiple users to work simultaneously on data entry and management. However, challenges arise when creating complex forms, and ensuring seamless connectivity to cloud databases is often an issue, though some tools do offer synchronized online and offline modes (e.g., Airtable).
Farm management software and web apps
Farm management software and web apps are preferred over paper-based recordkeeping due to their seamless database integration and user-friendly interfaces, enhancing record accessibility efficiency. As agriculture undergoes digital transformation, farmers are faced with the task of collecting and analyzing data from diverse sources and devices to boost production and operational efficiency (Csótó, 2010). Managing the vast and interconnected dataset generated in modern farming necessitates robust database integration. Effective interaction with databases relies on user-friendly and efficient front-end interfaces provided by software and web apps. The digitalization of agriculture is exemplified by the introduction of FMIS software and web apps, which offer comprehensive farm recordkeeping capabilities. Some popular software and web apps are described below.
Ag Gateway’s Agricultural Data Application Programming Toolkit, ADAPT, an open-source program, is designed to facilitate the integration of machine control systems and FMIS (“A Boost to Interoperability in Precision Agriculture:AgGateway’s Agricultural Data Application Programming Toolkit (ADAPT),” 2019; ADAPT, 2022). With a primary focus on enhancing data interoperability, ADAPT offers free accessibility. Its functionality enables seamless communication between diverse hardware and software applications, ultimately eliminating barriers to the extensive adoption of precision agricultural data.
Agrivi 360 Farm Insights (AGRIVI, 2023) was made by Agrivi as a decision support tool that enables easy recordkeeping, efficient crop planning, crop traceability, and farm administrative support. It provides a facility to manage multiple crops and multiple farms. The data can be downloaded in interoperable data formats.
Farmio (ForFarming, 2023) was developed by ForFarming, USA and it is basically an artificial intelligence-based decision support tool. It provides a module for manual on-farm activity recording and uses a smartphone app for real-time recordkeeping. This tool uses a smartphone app for real-time field data collection and provides analyzed data in an interoperable format.
Traction (Traction, 2023), made by Traction, USA is a policy and legislation support for users and a collaborative platform with John Deer Operations and Climate FieldView. This tool provides asset traceability and automatic record of activities but does not provide data to the user. Users who are using the collaboration tools can download the collected data using this software from those tools.
Agroptima (Agroptima, 2023) is usable both online and offline and provides the user a facility to store 1-month data offline and monthly cloud synchronization. It provides decision support and facilitates multiple crops and multiple farm management. It uses a mobile interface for real-time data collection.
Fieldmargine (Fieldmargin, 2023) was built by Fieldmargine, Australia and it is primarily an automatic farm condition recorder and irrigation scheduler. It offers a manual farm activity recording interface. It allows data export but in pdf format only. This tool is subscription based.
Smartphone apps in recordkeeping
The adoption of smartphones in agriculture has grown in recent years, albeit more slowly compared to other industries. Studies indicate increasing acceptance of smartphone apps and software in farm management as technology advances. For instance, Michels et al. (2020) reported a 50% adoption rate of smartphones among German farmers for farming purposes. A survey of British and French farmers found an 84% smartphone usage rate in agriculture among 57 respondents (Dehnen-Schmutz et al., 2016). The United States Department of Agriculture reported a 77% smartphone adoption rate among farmers in 2021, with over 90% using them for farming (USDA, 2021). Smartphones, equipped with various sensors and applications, offer real-time data recording and facilitate advanced farming activities cost-effectively, generating substantial data volumes (Aker & Mbiti, 2010; Jensen, 2010; Mendes et al., 2020). Smartphone apps cover diverse agricultural tasks, including asset tracking, decision support, field mapping, and financial analysis. While many focus on financial and sensor data, a few farm management apps integrate recordkeeping features. Selected popular smartphone apps based on FIMS supporting farm recordkeeping are briefly described below.
Farm Management Pro (Farm Management Pro, 2017) is a farm management tool designed for Android by SmartFarm Software, an Ireland-based company. Farm Management Pro offers recordkeeping environment for multi-crop and multi-farm with data interoperability. This 2017-released paid app does not have any web integration and was designed for keeping notes about farm activities, cost and profit, and data visualization.
Farmable: Farm Management App (Farmable, 2023) was built by Farmable, a Norway-based company in 2020. It was developed for both Android and IOS with website integration. It can be used for multiple crops and farms but does not include any animal farming module. This app offers partially automatic recordkeeping of on-farm activities as it has traceability and mobile sensor usage. It was designed for business purposes, so it works only on system subscriptions though the app is free to download. It does not provide decision support for precision agriculture but includes a financial recordkeeping facility with data export in an interoperable format.
Farm Records (FAO, 2022) is a Lebanese recordkeeping app providing an English language interface developed by Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). This app was developed only for manual recordkeeping of farm activities and financial activities. It does not include decision support but offers multiple farms and multiple crop record facilities. The recorded data can be exported in PDF format which is hardly interoperable. The operating system for this app is Android and it was released in 2022.
BushelFarm (BushelFarm, 2022), previously known as FarmLogs, was developed by USA-based Bushel Farm Inc. in 2012. This farming tool is focused on precision farming and decision support. It has an on-farm recordkeeping module as an integration, but these data are not reported. It serves an interoperable format for the collected interoperable data. It allows manual note-keeping of farm activities with an activity scheduler and offers financial recordkeeping and decision support. This smartphone app is an integration to BushelFarms webapp.
Crop Tracker (Croptracker, 2023) was developed by CropTracker, a Canadian company in 2016. It was designed as a web application and includes smartphone apps as an integrated field companion. This app offers multi-crop and multi-farm management facilities. It is a module-based paid application, i.e., it is charged per module installation and on-farm recordkeeping is also a module that allows manual recordkeeping of farm activities. It does not allow getting data locally so it is not supporting data interoperability, but data can be exported through an on-purchase module.
xFarm (xFarm, 2023) was released in 2020 by an Italian company named xFarm. It is a digital agriculture platform for integrating IoT, decision support, management, mapping, and many more of precision agriculture. This digital agriculture tool is a web-based platform that can be used on both Android and IOS. The app is free to download but can be used on-subscribe. It offers data interoperability and allows multi-crop and multi-farm management.
Granular Insights (Corteva, 2023) is an application for Android and IOS acts as an integration of the Granular farming app. It is a web application launched by Corteva (USA) and the app was first released in 2019. The app is capable of providing a precision agriculture solution in terms of mapping fields, decision-making with data-driven insights, risk management, field planning, in-season scouting, and farm management. It offers a manual on-farm data recording module. This application is free to use but the generated data are not exportable for free.
FarmCommand (Farmers Edge, 2023), released in 2017 is a precision agriculture tool that provides decision support, satellite imagery, asset tracking, and prediction analysis developed by FarmersEdge, Canada. It contains an automated field activity recording module based on traceability and database integration. This smartphone app is an integration of a web application and can be operated on Android and IOS platforms. The app does not support open data or data interoperability.
Open source and interoperable tools are the essentials that make a smooth way for data-driven digital agriculture. To meet the demand for open-source technology in precision agriculture, FarmOS (USA) developed an open-source web application, FarmOS Field Kit (FarmOS, 2020) for farm management, planning, and recordkeeping. As a mobile integration of the FarmOS web application, FarmOS launched FarmOS Field Kit for offline field activity recording. It can be used both online and offline. FarmOS data can be exported in interoperable formats, and it is free to use.
Unstructured means of digital recordkeeping
There are some other means of recordkeeping that are being used less frequently but have potential positive impact. Text messages using texting applications such as Slack and WhatsApp are also used for farm recordkeeping (Senkomago, 2021). Slack offers channels that can facilitate note taking. Also, smartphones and tablets have note taking applications such as Sticky Notes, OneNote, Notion, which can be good platforms for notes of on-farm activities. Since smartphones have cameras and voice recorders, they can be used to improve records of an event via voice recordings, images, and videos as metadata. The unstructured aspect of these text-type tools makes retrieval of data tedious and difficult, but it is possible.
An analysis of digital systems used for farm recordkeeping
Analysis approach
This analysis encompasses computer software, web apps, and mobile apps that include a system of in-field activity recordkeeping as a focus feature or a supportive module. From the survey, 29 computer software and web applications and 31 smartphone apps having farm recordkeeping module were reviewed. These tools were evaluated based on some attributes described in Table 1. The aim of this analysis was to characterize the interfaces, services, and mode of data presentation of existing software and web and smartphone apps in farm recordkeeping.
To analyze the categorical data, the percentage contingency (Knapp, 2015) of the variables was calculated. This assessment aimed to determine the inclusiveness of the criteria described in Table 1 and to explore the cross-association of features, particularly assessing whether tools featuring one criterion in columns includes another criterion in rows (refer to Tables 3, 5).
Analysis of computer software and web apps
The surveyed software and web apps are listed in Table 2 with their evaluated criteria with their organization and country of origin.
The survey result evaluating 29 farm recordkeeping software and web apps is shown in contingency analysis in Table 3. Among the software and web apps, only 17% have automated recordkeeping systems that support partially automatic data entry systems. Most of the applications include a financial recordkeeping system and decision-support modules. All of them support multi-crop management and only 3% of applications do not support multiple-farm management. More than 89% of the applications allow users to access their data but only 55% of them provide an easy interoperable/exportable data format (excluding pdf). 24% of the applications facilitate data exportation in pdf format only whereas 10% of them do not allow users to export the report (other than in image form via screen capture). 10% of the applications are open-source and 24% are free to use. Most of the open-source software and applications are free.
Software and web apps need mobile integration for real-time recordkeeping. It is logical, therefore, that 86% of the applications use mobile interfaces as pocket data collection tools and support data accessibility from anywhere and anytime if the internet is available.
Table 3 presents the contingency analysis that provides insights into the co-occurrence of specific features in surveyed software and webapps. Each cell in the table represents the percentage of tools having a particular trait in columns that also possesses the intersecting trait in rows. This table reveals that 29% of free software and web applications provide partial support for automatic recordkeeping, with half of all freeware tools boasting mobile integration capabilities. Notably, the surveyed computer software and web applications are predominantly commercial since only 24% were freeware and 10% were open-source tools. The online-biased methodology of this survey may have led to prioritizing commercial tools. Among the open-source tools, a majority (62%) facilitate data export in interoperable file formats.
The table also shows that among the surveyed tools, all the open-source tools are freeware but not all freeware tools are open source. Only half of the freeware tools are open-source. None of the open-source software surveyed in this study offers automatic recording functionality. Open-source software developers should take note of this opportunity to improve recordkeeping. The open-source and freeware tools provide support for decision-making and financial recordkeeping (Table 3). Of apps that support automatic recordkeeping, 80% provide financial features. However, of apps supporting financial recordkeeping, only 16% support automatic or semi-automatic recordkeeping.
Analysis of smartphone apps
The smartphone application survey encompassed an examination of 31 distinct smartphone applications designed to facilitate on-farm recordkeeping. The tabulated survey results, as presented in Table 4, delineate the distribution of apps according to their operational compatibility. Notably, a percentage breakdown reveals that a minority of apps operate exclusively on the iOS platform (6.7%), a substantial fraction is exclusive to the Android operating system (23.3%), a noteworthy portion caters to both iOS and Android users (13.7%), while the majority are accessible as web applications (56.2%). The web applications occupy the majority portion of the survey because of the apps’ integration with a parent web farm management tool. Furthermore, in alignment with the evaluation process applied to online platforms and web applications, the assessment of these apps was contingent upon their adherence to the criteria delineated in Table 1.
Table 5 shows a contingency analysis result and the percentage of specific feature-inclusive apps among the 31 surveyed apps. The analysis shows that around 23% of the apps provide automatic on-farm activity recording, especially operators’ names, activity locations, and time. Also, some advanced apps provide activity suggestions based on previous records and plans (for example, Farmable, Norway). But most of them have manual input systems. About 65% of apps provide financial recordkeeping and just over half (55%) offer decision support on either farm activity or financial management. Almost 97% of the apps provide the facility to keep activity records for multiple farms, but a few (16%) of them support crop and animal data recording in a single app. Around 68% of the apps have a data export option. Most for-fee apps allow data export. Among the apps that can export data, only 45% yield data in an easily interoperable format (not PDF). About 35% of apps are free to use.
The contingency analysis table for smartphone apps (Table 5) reveals that only 36% of free apps are open-source, and conversely, all open-source tools are free to use. The predominance of freeware open-source tools originated from government agencies or research centers rather than commercial entities.
A notable observation is that within the freeware and open-source categories, 9% and 0%, respectively in this survey offer automatic recordkeeping; this is a noticeable gap and a potential area for development.
The survey underscores that freeware and open-source tools exhibit proficiency in data export and interoperability, with approximately 64% of freeware and 75% of open-source tools supporting data export. Further analysis reveals that 44% and 50% of freeware and open-source tools export data in an interoperable format, respectively. Conversely, of the apps that offer data export facility, only 33% and 15% of them are freeware and open-source tools, respectively. This analysis posits a significant proportion of non-commercial applications designed with a focus on data interoperability and user accessibility. It indicates a potential avenue for non-commercial applications to enhance their integration of data interoperability features.
Additionally, a majority of the surveyed apps, whether free-to-use, open-source, or neither, offer decision support and financial recordkeeping functionalities. The percentage of apps offering decision support and financial recordkeeping functionalities is moderate across all categories.
Discussion
Current landscape of on-farm recordkeeping: opportunities and gaps
Farm recordkeeping plays a vital role in efficient farm management. Traditional paper-based methods are simple, reliable, and offer inherent provenance. However, paper records are susceptible to loss or misplacement (Quality Info Center, 2021). Despite appearing to be cost-effective initially, paper-based records entail substantial long-term costs (Kayla Ferguson, 2018). Thriemer et al. (2012) reported that paper-based approaches cost 25% more than digital methods, and data discrepancies decreased from 7 to 1% when digital platforms were used. Experiments with paper-based records may incur costs 49–62% higher than when digital approaches are used (Pavlović et al., 2009). Increased expenses in paper-based collection stem from errors during manual transcription into digital platforms (Kayla Ferguson, 2018). Lombardini and Tomkys (2015) aimed to minimize errors in recordkeeping and found that data entry is typically performed twice by distinct data-entry personnel, with a third check to identify inconsistencies. This process accounts for approximately 10% of the total data collection cost. These studies highlight the inefficiencies and challenges of using paper-based records for interoperability, data transport, model development, and analysis.
In contrast, the problem of data mobility is largely solved by digital methods. Spreadsheets and other digital tabular methods are easy to manage, and data in these formats can easily be shared and interpreted. But these tools may lack data authenticity as there is flexibility to edit the data and manipulate it. In the chronology of technology development, spreadsheets appear to be a viable alternative to paper-based methods when one considers cost, management efficacy, interoperability, and data mobility. However, as big data has emerged and enabling artificial intelligence in agriculture and farm management is a reality, there is a need for integration of different types of data from assorted sources. Data based tools are needed to enable data synchronization, remote access, and efficient data management including data security (Project Breakthrough, 2017).
The survey findings indicate that most of the software and applications in the agricultural domain are web-based, and they facilitate management across multiple users, farms, and crops. Common constraints are a paid or subscription-based user model and limited flexibility in accessing data in desired and interoperable formats. While smartphone apps serve as valuable standalone tools, they are frequently utilized as integrated extensions of their parent web apps. A limited number of tools are available as open-source and free-to-use solutions.
The technology survey has revealed a notable trend wherein only a limited number of tools emphasize or prioritize data collection within agricultural operations; those that do include data collection have a very narrow focus. Operational or field activity data provide crucial context behind production data and offer valuable insights for the development of machine learning models. Decision support tools must prioritize metadata recording to enhance the long-term value proposition in agricultural data. To that end, the survey identified that open-source and free-to-use tools have more emphasis on data interoperability and data access to users than commercial tools.
A common feature among most apps and web platforms is the provision of manual data entry modules resembling spreadsheet-style input. Unfortunately, this approach often results in data redundancy, inaccuracies, and/or missing records. Given that these applications serve multifaceted purposes, including traceability, GPS utilization, and virtual field mapping, there is an opportunity to design automated systems capable of recording activity locations, timestamps, and images. Integration of automated mechanisms that reduce human involvement in recordkeeping can be a solution to reduce missing and/or faulty data and thereby enhance data accuracy while improving the user experience.
Navigating the future: integration of advanced technologies in on-farm recordkeeping
Advancements in machine learning and AI offer opportunities to elevate recordkeeping systems to decisive or self-predictive units. Machine learning algorithms can mitigate data inconsistency and missing data in recordkeeping as natural language processing and large language models proving effective in voice-to-text translation (Gao et al., 2020; Uchihira & Yoshida, 2020). Li et al. (2021) discussed the utility and prospectus in agricultural information exchange using text-to-speech translation where deep learning can be used for information extraction. Leveraging these modern technologies can enhance the efficiency and accuracy of agricultural recordkeeping in a more effortless manner. Bunn (2020) explored AI implementation in recordkeeping for improved transparency and interdisciplinary usage. Azman et al. (2021) proposed AI implementation in automatic bookkeeping for medium and small enterprises. Cacciamani et al. (2023) suggested that models like Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) and Large Language Model (LLMs) could be effective in healthcare sector recordkeeping. To facilitate interoperability, Balmos et al. (2022) discussed publisher-subscriber based atomized data transfer in IoT-based agricultural communication system, where data is transferred as bytes instead of structured file formats. Gkoulis et al. (2021) proposed an event-based microservice system to enhance interoperability in smart farming system. Although these examples were not focused on agricultural recordkeeping, they illuminate the potential for leveraging AI in agricultural recordkeeping and achieving interoperability.
Based on the discussion on technological advancement in digital on-farm recordkeeping, a visionary recordkeeping system can be proposed with automatic context recording, easy recording with natural language such as human speech, intelligent translator using ontology and data storage and data access and interoperability with proper authentication. A theoretical framework of the visionary on-farm recordkeeping system is shown in Fig. 5.
The rapid progress of AI presents substantial growth potential for agricultural recordkeeping, but these technologies necessitate high-quality data, which is contingent on in-field recordkeeping. Consequently, manual and/or ground-truth digital recordkeeping remains indispensable for the development of advanced AI-driven recordkeeping systems.
Conclusion
The comprehensive review of contemporary on-farm recordkeeping methods reveals a rich tapestry of practices employed to date. The entire landscape of recordkeeping systems can be distinctly divided into two categories: paper-based and digital. Despite a shift toward structured digital systems, traditional paper-and-pen methods remain in common use for on-farm recordkeeping. Digital approaches, including spreadsheets, offer distinct advantages over their analog counterparts, yet there remains a critical need for data consistency and streamlined information flow. In response, innovative database-integrated forms, web apps, and smartphone apps have emerged. Smartphone apps offer more flexibility in recordkeeping. However, manual data entry remains prevalent, resulting in issues of data redundancy, inconsistency, and omission. Nevertheless, interoperability, integrity, and data plenitude challenges persist, hindering the realization of digital agriculture’s full potential. The survey highlights a substantial range of emerging open-source record-keeping tools fostering interoperability and automation. Commercial tools are increasingly providing data access in interoperable formats; but the analysis shows that open-source tools offer higher interoperability, so open-source development of data formats may facilitate better connections across all platforms. Most digital tools still require extensive manual input and are error prone; incorporation of GPTs and AI may help to reduce errors and increase data quality and consistency. Systems founded on principles of interoperable data architectures, intuitive data access, and increased automation will likely prevail.
Data Availability
This publication does not use exturnal/not inclusive data. The data used for analysis are already included in tables, so the data availability statement is not applicable.
References
4-H. (2023). National 4-H Council. Retrieved November 17, 2023, from https://4-h.org/programs/agriculture/
4-H Youth Development. (2023). Purdue University—Extension. Retrieved January 30, 2023, from https://extension.purdue.edu/county/hendricks/4h-youth/index.html
A boost to interoperability in precision agriculture:AgGateway’s Agricultural Data Application Programming Toolkit (ADAPT). (2019). Resource Magazine, 26(4), 8–9. https://elibrary.asabe.org/abstract.asp?aid=50759&t=11
ADAPT. (2022). Retrieved January 26, 2023, from https://github.com/ADAPT
Aegro. (2023). Aegro. Retrieved February 27, 2024, from https://aegro.com.br/sobre
Agarwal, A. (2011). Why Google forms are perfect for creating online surveys. Digital Inspiration. Retrieved June 21, 2023, from https://www.labnol.org/software/google-docs-forms-for-surveys/10056/
AgCinect. (2021). AgCinect. AgCinect. Retrieved February 27, 2024, from https://agcinect.com/products/
AgDNA. (2021). AgDNA. Precision Ag Reviews. Retrieved February 27, 2024, from https://www.precisionagreviews.com/products/agdna
AgKonect. (2023, July 14). AgKonect custom farm management systems. Retrieved February 27, 2024, from https://agkonect.com/
AgNote. (2024). Features. AgNote. Retrieved February 27, 2024, from https://agnote.com/features/
Agri Tracking Systems. (2017, April 5). Farm Management Software | Crop Management. Agri Tracking Systems; Agri Tracking Systems. Retrieved February 27, 2024, from https://agritrackingsystems.com
Agricultural Data Systems. (n.d.). DataTrack. Adssystems. Retrieved February 27, 2024, from https://www.touchmemory.com/about2
AGRIVI. (2023). AGRIVI 360 Farm Insights. AGRIVI. Retrieved November 17, 2023, from https://www.agrivi.com/products/360-farm-insights/
AgriXP. (2024). The Field NoteBook (8.1.6) [Computer software]. AgriXP. Retrieved February 27, 2024, from https://agrixp.com/
Agroptima. (2023). Agroptima. Agroptima. Retrieved November 17, 2023, from https://www.agroptima.com/en/features/
Agworld. (2024). Data driven Farm Management Software for all Farms | Agworld. Agworld Farm Management Software. Retrieved February 27, 2024, from https://www.agworld.com/us/
Airtable. (2022a). Offline access—Overview | Airtable support. Airtable. Retrieved September 26, 2022, from https://support.airtable.com/docs/offline-access
Airtable. (2022b). What is airtable & why should you use it? | Airtable guides. Airtable. Retrieved September 23, 2022, from https://www.airtable.com/guides/start/what-is-airtable
Ajireloja, J. (2022). Farm record store [Computer software]. Retrieved March 5, 2024, from https://github.com/josephajire/farm-record-store
Aker, J. C., & Mbiti, I. M. (2010). Mobile phones and economic development in Africa. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(3), 207–232. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.24.3.207
Azman, N. A., Mohamed, A., & Jamil, A. M. (2021). Artificial intelligence in automated bookkeeping: A value-added function for small and medium enterprises. JOIV: International Journal on Informatics Visualization, 5(3), 224–230. https://doi.org/10.30630/joiv.5.3.669
Balmos, A. D., Castiblanco, F. A., Neustedter, A. J., Krogmeier, J. V., & Buckmaster, D. R. (2022). ISOBlue Avena: A framework for agricultural edge computing and data sovereignty. IEEE Micro, 42(1), 78–86. https://doi.org/10.1109/MM.2021.3134830
Baumüller, H., & Kah, M. (2019). Going digital: Harnessing the power of emerging technologies for the transformation of Southern African agriculture. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429401701-23
Bivatec Ltd. (2024a). Farmer’s wallet. Retrieved March 5, 2024, from https://www.bivatec.com/apps/farmers-wallet
Bivatec Ltd. (2024b). My crop manager—Farming app [Computer software]. Retrieved March 5, 2024, from https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bivatec.crop_manager&hl=en_US
Blue Compass Interactive. (2018). Pesticide and field records II [iOS]. Blue Compass Interactive. Retrieved March 6, 2024, from https://apps.apple.com/us/app/pesticide-and-field-records-ii/id1167102779
Bothum, C. (2018, May 30). Record books [Subpage]. 4-H Youth Development (Statewide); Oregon State University Extension Service. Retrieved September 22, 2022, from https://extension.oregonstate.edu/4h/record-books
Brandusescu, A., & Lämmerhirt, D. (2018). Open data charter measurement guide (SSRN Scholarly Paper 3331162). Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3331162
Brisebois, D. (2020). Farmer Spreadsheet Academy. The Farmer Spreadsheet Academy. Retrieved September 26, 2022, from https://www.farmerspreadsheetacademy.com/
Broman, K. W., & Woo, K. H. (2018). Data organization in spreadsheets. The American Statistician, 72(1), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2017.1375989
Buckmaster, D., Krogmeier, J., Ault, A., Noel, S., Wang, Y., Yaguang, Z., Layton, A., & Balmos, A. (2018). Use cases for real time data in agriculture. International Society of Precision Agriculture, 1–12. Retrieved October 2, 2023, from https://www.ispag.org/proceedings/?action=abstract&id=5394&title=Use+Cases+for+Real+Time+Data+in+Agriculture
Bunn, J. (2020). Working in contexts for which transparency is important: A recordkeeping view of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). Records Management Journal, 30(2), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1108/RMJ-08-2019-0038
BushelFarm. (2022). BushelFarm—Best Farm Management Software. Bushel Farm. Retrieved November 28, 2023, from https://bushelfarm.com/
Butler, S., Gamalielsson, J., Lundell, B., Brax, C., Mattsson, A., Gustavsson, T., Feist, J., & Lönroth, E. (2020). Maintaining interoperability in open source software: A case study of the Apache PDFBox project. Journal of Systems and Software, 159, 110452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.110452
Cacciamani, G. E., Siemens, D. R., & Gill, I. (2023). Generative artificial intelligence in health care. Journal of Urology, 210(5), 723–725. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003703
Campbell, D. (2022). Harvesting your data in the field of agriculture. NestForms. Retrieved December 21, 2022, from https://www.nestforms.com/blog/116/Harvesting-your-data-in-the-field-of-agriculture
Capterra. (2023). Best Farm Management Software 2023 | Reviews of the Most Popular Tools & Systems. Retrieved January 26, 2023, from https://www.capterra.com/farm-management-software/
Chancrin, E., & Dumont, R. (1921). Larousse agricole : encyclopédie illustrée. HathiTrust. Retrieved November 2, 2023, from https://hdl.handle.net/2027/chi.096074958?urlappend=%3Bseq=11
Chauhan, R., & Kumar, A. (2013). Cloud computing for improved healthcare: Techniques, potential and challenges. In 2013 e-health and bioengineering conference (EHB) (pp. 1–4). https://doi.org/10.1109/EHB.2013.6707234
CNH. (2023). Case IH AFS Connect Farm [Computer software]. CNH Industrial. Retrieved March 6, 2024, from https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cnhind.caseih.farm.mkt&hl=en_US
Conservis. (2024). Conservis Farm Business Management Software. Retrieved February 27, 2024, from https://conservis.ag/
Corteva. (2023). Granular Insights | Corteva Agriscience. Retrieved November 28, 2023, from https://www.corteva.us/products-and-solutions/digital-solutions/granular-insights.html
Croptimistic Technology inc. (2024). SWAT RECORDS [Android, iOS]. Croptimistic Technology inc. Retrieved March 6, 2024, from https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.croprecords.mobileapp&hl=en_US&gl=US
Croptracker. (2023). Croptracker—Farm Management Software. Retrieved November 28, 2023, from https://www.croptracker.com/
Croptracker. (2024). Croptracker—Farm Management App [Computer software]. Retrieved March 5, 2024, from https://www.croptracker.com/product/farm-management-apps.html
Csótó, M. (2010). Information flow in agriculture—Through new channels for improved effectiveness. Journal of Agricultural Informatics, 1(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.17700/jai.2010.1.2.17
Daum, T., Villalba, R., Anidi, O., Mayienga, S. M., Gupta, S., & Birner, R. (2021). Uber for tractors? Opportunities and challenges of digital tools for tractor hire in India and Nigeria. World Development, 144, 105480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105480
Decisiver Farming. (2024). Farm at hand. Retrieved March 6, 2024, from https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.decisivefarming.scoutingapp&hl=en_US
Dehnen-Schmutz, K., Foster, G. L., Owen, L., & Persello, S. (2016). Exploring the role of smartphone technology for citizen science in agriculture. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 36(2), 25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0359-9
Digital Agriculture. (2022, April 8). Digital field records: An easy way. Purdue University - College of Agriculture. Retrieved September 23, 2022, from https://ag.purdue.edu/news/2022/04/digital-field-records.html
Doye, D. (2004). The use of electronic technology in teaching farm record keeping. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(3), 762–766. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0002-9092.2004.00621.x
Dymond, T. S. (1903). State-aid to agriculture: An example. Fabian Society.
eAgronom. (2024). eAgronom. Retrieved March 6, 2024, from https://www.eagronom.com/
Fabregas, R., Kremer, M., & Schilbach, F. (2019). Realizing the potential of digital development: The case of agricultural advice. Science, 366(6471), eaay3038. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay3038
FAO. (2022). Farm records—Apps on Google Play. Retrieved November 28, 2023, from https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.greenplan.farmerrecord&hl=en
Farm in ONE. (2021). Farm in ONE Farm Management App. Farm in ONE Complete Farm Management. Retrieved February 27, 2024, from https://farminone.com.au/
Farm Management Pro. (2017). [Computer software]. Retrieved November 28, 2023, from https://download.cnet.com/farm-management-pro/3000-2064_4-78203321.html
Farmable. (2023). Farmable: Farm Management App—Apps on Google Play. Retrieved November 28, 2023, from https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=tech.farmable.farmable&hl=en
Farmbrite. (2024). Farm Management Software for your whole farm. Farmbrite. Retrieved February 27, 2024, from https://www.farmbrite.com
Farmdoc. (2024). Farmdok [Android, iOS]. Farmdoc. Retrieved March 5, 2024, from https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.farmdok.android&hl=en
FarmERP. (2023). Smart Farm Management Software | Agriculture Software. Retrieved February 27, 2024, from https://www.farmerp.com/
Farmers Edge. (2023). FarmCommand: Manage data to boost returns across every acre. Farmers Edge. Retrieved November 28, 2023, from https://farmersedge.ca/farmcommand/
Farmis. (2023). Field navigator [Computer software]. Retrieved March 6, 2024, from https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=lt.noframe.farmisfieldnavigator.free&hl=en_US
FarmLogic. (2019). FarmLogic. FarmLogic. Retrieved February 27, 2024, from https://farmlogic.com/
Farmlogic. (2019). FarmPad. FarmLogic. Retrieved March 6, 2024, from https://farmlogic.com/
FarmOS. (2020). Field Kit—farmOS.org. Retrieved November 28, 2023, from https://v1.farmos.org/guide/app/
FARMserver. (2020). FARMserver. Precision Ag. Simplified. Retrieved February 27, 2024, from https://www.farmserver.com/
fieldmargin. (2023). Retrieved November 17, 2023, from https://www.fieldmargin.com/
ForFarming. (2023). ForFarming. FarmIO by ForFarming. Retrieved November 17, 2023, from https://www.forfarming.co/farmio/features/
Fountas, S., Carli, G., Sørensen, C. G., Tsiropoulos, Z., Cavalaris, C., Vatsanidou, A., Liakos, B., Canavari, M., Wiebensohn, J., & Tisserye, B. (2015). Farm management information systems: Current situation and future perspectives. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 115, 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2015.05.011
Gao, G. R. K., Vinoth Kumar, B., Uma Maheswari, J., & Gao, X.-Z. (Eds.). (2020). Smart cyber physical systems: Advances, challenges and opportunities. Chapman and Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429321955
Gkoulis, D., Bardaki, C., Politi, E., Routis, I., Nikolaidou, M., Dimitrakopoulos, G., & Anagnostopoulos, D. (2021). An event-based microservice platform for autonomous cyber-physical systems: the case of smart farming. In 2021 16th international conference of system of systems engineering (SoSE) (pp. 31–36). https://doi.org/10.1109/SOSE52739.2021.9497471
Goody, J. (1986). The logic of writing and the organization of society. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621598
Grist. (2023). Grist. Grist. Retrieved October 2, 2023, from https://www.getgrist.com/product/
Hadcock, S., Yin, J., Gabriel, A., Maxwell, D., & Ford, T. F. (2017, January 31). Crop record keeping spreadsheets. Capital Area Ag. and Hort. Program. Retrieved April 26, 2022, from https://blogs.cornell.edu/capitalareaagandhortprogram/2017/01/31/crop-record-keeping-spreadsheets/
Hess, P. T. (2022). Building a spatial database for agricultural record keeping and management on a regenerative farm [M.S., University of Southern California]. In ProQuest dissertations and theses. Retrieved January 12, 2023, from https://www.proquest.com/docview/2713561761/abstract/BCE233029A0342B2PQ/1
Hickson, N. (2020). Using Google forms for crop recording. Community Supported Agriculture Logo. Retrieved September 26, 2022, from https://communitysupportedagriculture.org.uk/resources/using-google-forms-for-crop-recording/
Jensen, R. T. (2010). Information, efficiency, and welfare in agricultural markets. Agricultural Economics, 41(s1), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2010.00501.x
John Deere. (2024). John Deere Operations Center. Retrieved July 3, 2024, from https://www.deere.com/en/technology-products/precision-ag-technology/data-management/operations-center/
Joly, N. (2011). Shaping records on the farm: Agricultural record keeping in France from the nineteenth century to the liberation. Agricultural History Review, 59(1), 61–80.
Jones, E. L., & Collins, E. J. T. (1965). The collection and analysis of farm record books. Journal of the Society of Archivists, 3(2), 86–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00379816509513819
Junaid, M., Shaikh, A., Hassan, M. U., Alghamdi, A., Rajab, K., Al Reshan, M. S., & Alkinani, M. (2021). Smart agriculture cloud using AI based techniques. Energies, 14(16), Article 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14165129
Kalbers, L. P. (1984). Electronic spreadsheets: Powerful and flexible educational tools. Journal of Accounting Education, 2(2), 163–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/0748-5751(84)90015-0
Kaloxylos, A., Eigenmann, R., Teye, F., Politopoulou, Z., Wolfert, S., Shrank, C., Dillinger, M., Lampropoulou, I., Antoniou, E., Pesonen, L., Nicole, H., Thomas, F., Alonistioti, N., & Kormentzas, G. (2012). Farm management systems and the Future Internet era. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 89, 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2012.09.002
Kayla Ferguson. (2018, November 6). 3 myths about paper-based data collection. Atlan | Humans of Data. Retrieved March 4, 2022, from https://humansofdata.atlan.com/2018/11/myths-paper-based-data-collection/
Knapp, T. R. (2015). “Percentaging” contingency tables: It really does matter how you do it. Research in Nursing & Health, 38(4), 323–325. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21666
Kobo Inc. (2022, March). What is KoboToolbox—KoboToolbox documentation. What Is KoboToolbox. Retrieved September 26, 2022, from https://support.kobotoolbox.org/welcome.html
Lee, J., Kao, H.-A., & Yang, S. (2014). Service innovation and smart analytics for industry 4.0 and Big Data Environment. Procedia CIRP, 16, 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.02.001
Li, X., Ma, D., & Yin, B. (2021). Advance research in agricultural text-to-speech: The word segmentation of analytic language and the deep learning-based end-to-end system. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 180, 105908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2020.105908
Lombardini, S., & Tomkys, E. (2015, September 29). Going digital: Using digital technology to conduct Oxfam’s Effectiveness Reviews. Oxfam Policy & Practice. Retrieved March 7, 2022, from https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/going-digital-using-digital-technology-to-conduct-oxfams-effectiveness-reviews-578816/
Mahfuz, S., Mun, H.-S., Dilawar, M. A., & Yang, C.-J. (2022). Applications of smart technology as a sustainable strategy in modern swine farming. Sustainability, 14(5), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052607
Malcolm, B. (1990). Fifty years of farm management in Australia: Survey and review. Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.12283
Martos, V., Ahmad, A., Cartujo, P., & Ordoñez, J. (2021). Ensuring agricultural sustainability through remote sensing in the era of agriculture 5.0. Applied Sciences, 11(13), Article 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11135911
Mathesar. (2023). Mathesar. Mathesar. Retrieved October 2, 2023, from https://mathesar.org/
Meijer, L. (2022, May 18). What is airtable & what makes it great? Softr. Retrieved September 26, 2022, from https://www.softr.io/learn/airtable/what-is-airtable
Mendes, J., Pinho, T. M., Neves dos Santos, F., Sousa, J. J., Peres, E., Boaventura-Cunha, J., Cunha, M., & Morais, R. (2020). Smartphone applications targeting precision agriculture practices—A systematic review. Agronomy, 10(6), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10060855
Mfes Sol. Co. Ltd. (2021). Farm story (agriculture tools) (1.3) [iOS]. Mfes Solution Company. Retrieved March 6, 2024, from https://apps.apple.com/tr/app/farm-story-agriculture-tools/id1571669371
Michels, M., Fecke, W., Feil, J.-H., Musshoff, O., Pigisch, J., & Krone, S. (2020). Smartphone adoption and use in agriculture: Empirical evidence from Germany. Precision Agriculture, 21(2), 403–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-019-09675-5
My Ag Report. (2018). My Ag Report. Retrieved March 6, 2024, from https://www.myagreport.com/
Nest Design Limited. (2022). Nest forms—Mobile forms app—Mobile data collection app [Computer software]. Nest Design Limited. Retrieved December 21, 2022, from https://www.nestforms.com/index.html
NocoDB. (2023). NocoDB | Turns your SQL database into a Nocode platform. Free & Open Source. Retrieved October 2, 2023, from https://NocoDB.com
Off-Grid with Curtis Stone (Director). (2017, July 19). How I use spreadsheets to be effective on the farm. Retrieved September 22, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2hXlswMwZQ
Pavlović, I., Kern, T., & Miklavcic, D. (2009). Comparison of paper-based and electronic data collection process in clinical trials: Costs simulation study. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 30(4), 300–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2009.03.008
PFC Crop (Director). (2014, March 7). eCropScout weed, insect and disease scouting app. Retrieved March 6, 2024, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPsajMVAuHs
Powell, S. G., Baker, K. R., & Lawson, B. (2009). Errors in operational spreadsheets: A review of the state of the art. In 2009 42nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 1–8). https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2009.197
Precision Sustainable Agriculture (Director). (2020, October 19). PSA On Farm Kobo Online Tutorial. Retrieved September 26, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4ZHzMlyh8WezIWcFdt5gwQ/featured
Project Breakthrough. (2017). Digital agriculture: Feeding the future. Project Breakthrough. Retrieved October 2, 2023, from http://breakthrough.unglobalcompact.org/disruptive-technologies/digital-agriculture/
Proofing Future. (2021, December 6). SurveyStack serves communities collecting data—An interview with Greg Austic. Proofing Future. Retrieved March 6, 2023, from https://proofingfuture.eu/2021/12/06/survey-stack/
Purdue Agriculture (Director). (2020, November 10). Digging into your data with spreadsheets. Retrieved April 26, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxQiqhBIhq4
Quality Info Center. (2021, November 18). Is paper-based data collection putting you at non-compliance risk? Retrieved March 7, 2022, from https://www.qualitymag.com/articles/96767-is-paper-based-data-collection-putting-you-at-non-compliance-risk
Raturi, A. (2017). Modeling sustainable agriculture [UC Irvine]. Retrieved June 5, 2023, from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/64n882qb
Raturi, A. (2021). ag-informatics-course/module4/lab4 at f66edad8762469ffd28fc00c2f53128356347949 · sudokita/ag-informatics-course · GitHub. Retrieved June 20, 2023, from https://github.com/sudokita/ag-informatics-course/tree/f66edad8762469ffd28fc00c2f53128356347949/module4/lab4
Raturi, A., & Basir, Md. S. (2022). ag-informatics-seminar/5-data-acquisition at main · mbasir25/ag-informatics-seminar. GitHub. Retrieved March 24, 2023, from https://github.com/mbasir25/ag-informatics-seminar
Raturi, A., & Buckmaster, D. (2019). Growing plants, raising animals, and feeding communities through connected agriculture: An IoT challenge. IEEE Internet of Things Magazine, 2(4), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1109/IOTM.0001.1900105
Riddle, A., & Ford, J. E. (2012). Organic transition and production handbook. Carolina Farm Stewardship Association. Retrieved May 9, 2022, from https://www.carolinafarmstewards.org/organic-transition-handbook/
Robert, B., & Atre, S. (2003). Blumberg, Robert, and Shaku Atre. The problem with unstructured data. Dm Review, 13(62), 42–46.
Robinson, W. I. (2005). Farm recording: A manual for woreda specialists, development agents and researchers. Canolfan Astudiaethau Tir Cras = Centre for Arid Zone Studies.
Roth, M. (2021). Guide to farming in New York State. Record Keeping. Retrieved July 20, 2024, from https://smallfarms.cornell.edu/guide/guide-to-farming/record-keeping/
Rowy. (2023). Rowy—Low-code backend on Google Cloud and Firebase. Rowy. Retrieved October 2, 2023, from https://www.rowy.io/
Runck, B. C., Joglekar, A., Silverstein, K. A., Chan-Kang, C., Pardey, P. G., & Wilgenbusch, J. C. (2022). Digital agriculture platforms: Driving data-enabled agricultural innovation in a world fraught with privacy and security concerns. Agronomy Journal, 114(5), 2635–2643.
Saiz-Rubio, V., & Rovira-Más, F. (2020). From smart farming towards agriculture 5.0: A review on crop data management. Agronomy, 10(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10020207
Salami, P., & Ahmadi, H. (2010). Review of Farm Management Information Systems (FMIS). New York Science Journal, 3(5). http://www.sciencepub.net/newyork/ny0305/
Senkomago, S. M. (2021, June 30). Tech tip: WhatsApp groups for record keeping purposes. Stephen Musoke Senkomago. Retrieved March 6, 2023, from https://ssmusoke.com/2021/06/30/tech-tip-whatsapp-groups-for-record-keeping-purposes/
Sharma, S., Raval, J., & Jagyasi, B. (2013). Mobile sensing for agriculture activities detection. In 2013 IEEE global humanitarian technology conference (GHTC) (pp. 337–342). https://doi.org/10.1109/GHTC.2013.6713707
Sreekanth, P. D., Soam, S. K., Kumar, K. V., & Rao, N. H. (2013). Spatial decision support system for managing agricultural experimental farms. Current Science, 105(11), 1588–1592.
Stephens, H. (1852). The book of the farm (2nd ed., Vol. 1). W. Blackwood. https://books.google.com/books?id=aILbMNwjl_AC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Streit, A., Pham, B., & Brown, R. (2008). A spreadsheet approach to facilitate visualization of uncertainty in information. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 14(1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2007.70426
SurveyStack. (2023, February 28). our-sci/software/surveystack · GitLab. GitLab. Retrieved March 6, 2023, from https://gitlab.com/our-sci/software/surveystack
Tang, S., Zhu, Q., Zhou, X., Liu, S., & Wu, M. (2002). A conception of digital agriculture. IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 5, 3026–3028. https://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS.2002.1026858
Tanibox OU. (2022). Tania (1.7.0) [Go; Windows, Linux]. Tanibox. Retrieved February 27, 2024, from https://usetania.org/roadmap/
Tend. (2024). Tend smart farm. Tend Smart Farm. Retrieved February 27, 2024, from https://www.tend.com/
Thriemer, K., Ley, B., Ame, S. M., Puri, M. K., Hashim, R., Chang, N. Y., Salim, L. A., Ochiai, R. L., Wierzba, T. F., Clemens, J. D., von Seidlein, L., Deen, J. L., Ali, S. M., & Ali, M. (2012). Replacing paper data collection forms with electronic data entry in the field: Findings from a study of community-acquired bloodstream infections in Pemba, Zanzibar. BMC Research Notes, 5(1), 113. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-5-113
Traction. (2023). Traction. Retrieved November 17, 2023, from https://www.tractionag.com/
Trimble. (2024). Trimble Ag Software. Retrieved February 27, 2024, from https://agriculture.trimble.com/en/products/software/trimble-agriculture-software
Uchihira, N., & Yoshida, M. (2020). Agricultural knowledge management using smart voice messaging systems: Combination of physical and human sensors (arXiv:2008.03711). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2008.03711
University of Illinois Extension. (2016). Illinois 4-H crops and soils record. University of Illinois Extension. Retrieved January 20, 2023, from https://extension.illinois.edu/sites/default/files/cropsrrecordform2020.pdf
USDA. (2021). Farm computer usage and ownership. USDA Economics, Statistics and Market Information System. Retrieved June 5, 2023, from https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/h128nd689
Wang, Y., Liu, H., Krogmeier, J., Reibman, A., & Buckmaster, D. (2020). ISOBlue HD: An open-source platform for collecting context-rich agricultural machinery datasets. Sensors, 20(20), Article 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20205768
Witkowski, N., Buckmaster, D., Basir, M., & Sakata, H. (2024). Facilitating digital agriculture with simple databases. Journal of the NACAA, 17(1). Retrieved July 3, 2024, from https://www.nacaa.com/journal/5250c03c-9fc8-4a2e-afd2-3dcb2c572cca
Wixted, J. T. (1998). Remembering and forgetting. In K. A. Lattal & M. Perone (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in human operant behavior (pp. 263–289). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-1947-2_9
Wohlers, A., Le, E., Stewart, M., & Frame, M. (2021, April). LiteFarm sustainability assessment framework. https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0397466
Wolfert, S., Ge, L., Verdouw, C., & Bogaardt, M.-J. (2017). Big data in smart farming—A review. Agricultural Systems, 153, 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.023
xFarm. (2023). xFarm—The app for farm management! Retrieved November 28, 2023, from https://xfarm.ag/en/?lang=en
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), Grant Number EEC-1941529.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Statement of usage of generative AI
During the preparation of this work the authors used ChatGPT (a generative AI-assisted language model) to rephrase text drafted by authors to enhance the readability of the article. After using this tool, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Basir, M.S., Buckmaster, D., Raturi, A. et al. From pen and paper to digital precision: a comprehensive review of on-farm recordkeeping. Precision Agric (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-024-10172-7
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-024-10172-7