First, is the need to develop a more comprehensive and systemic approach to reasonable innovation for the fourth agricultural revolution. This should focus primarily on feasible instruments and actions to improve responsible development at the "R&D projects" stage and discrete technological developments in intelligent dairy and intelligent farming. This represents in part the framework of proven accountable development frameworks that, for excellent reason, have been attracted to concentrate attention on contentious emerging technologies where important adverse effects and responsibilities might be expected to occur. However, it is suggested that the frame of reasonable development should also be expanded.
The fourth agricultural revolution is connected with many developments in sustainable agriculture, some emerging and some more established, interacting and co-evolving in a broader "innovation ecology;" or in "industrial innovation schemes" where many distinct actors (e.g. farmers, consultants) are influential. Such an innovation ecology involves "large" emerging smart technologies (e.g., AI, Internet of Things, cloud computing, robotics), as well as "smaller" farmers and/or community-led innovations to more mundane or low-tech sustainable farming alternatives.
In the hurry to adopt intelligent agri-tech, we risk forgetting the wider network of other technologies that play a significant part, but can also impact societies in various respects.Second, there is a need to broaden concepts of "integration" in reasonable development to address the various ways in which societal actors are already engaging on their own terms with intelligent farming technologies. This is a specific blind spot in reasonable development frameworks and a significant omission in the "inclusion" suggestions that have been put forward in relation to intelligent farming so far.
Agricultural research continues to be dominated by top-down, non-inclusive methods, and at an early point it rarely involves appropriate stakeholders like farmers. Responsible innovation promotes us to think about what technology is for, who it serves, and who drives the process. Inclusion has sometimes been considered problematic by innovators, who see government participation as possibly enhancing market time and publicly releasing sensitive data. But study has also shown that it can be complementary to open innovation and sensible innovation. Third, study requires evaluating whether reasonable frameworks for innovation make a difference in practice. This is a point madein the genetic modification framework. It claims that reasonable frameworks for innovation must "prove their capacity to shape current technological trajectories.
We should ask in the context of the fourth worldwide agri-tech revolution what the direction of travel is and whether we want to goas a community there. All these fresh techniques are altering stakeholders ' way of thinking and especially the government is thinking of the agricultural industry that gives hope to solve the issue of hunger and food scarcity. Government's role is one that cannot be overestimated. Reading it believes that, given the increasing risk of climate change, natural resources, shortagesand demographic pressure, it will increasingly be necessary to step up to the plate and promote techniques that make up agriculture 4.0.