The agricultural sector involves various environmental impacts, related to soil exploitation, water consumption and greenhouse gasses emissions. The advent of 4.0 technologies could help reduce them, e.g., by using sensors that constantly control the field. However, these solutions are often implemented by big producers that can easily bear their costs. Thence, in the case of small holders, can the benefits achievable with 4.0 technologies justify their implementation costs? To answer this question, an Italian field with three rows of tomatoes has been investigated as a case study. A row with a traditional irrigation system has been compared to two rows with a 60% irrigation scenario monitored with 4.0 sensors. Overall, one environmental sensor, three crop analysis sensors, three flowmeters, three valves and one network infrastructure have been selected and introduced. The key findings of the work allow for quantifying the amount of water that small holders can save; the positive Net Present Value recommends the investment, with a Pay Back Period of 1.9 years. In the next steps, additional 4.0 sensors will be tested in the agricultural supply chain of some selected small holders in the Mediterranean area, to check whether the 4.0 implementation could not only reduce water consumption, but also improve storage conditions and reduce wastage.

Selection of 4.0 sensors for small holders: the compromise between the advantages and the costs of the implementation / Stefanini, Roberta; Preite, Luca; Bottani, Eleonora; Belli, Laura; Davoli, Luca; Ferrari, Gianluigi; Vignali, Giuseppe. - (2023). (Intervento presentato al convegno International Food Operations and Processing Simulation Workshop (FoodOPS 2023)) [10.46354/i3m.2023.foodops.007].

Selection of 4.0 sensors for small holders: the compromise between the advantages and the costs of the implementation

Roberta Stefanini
;
Luca Preite;Eleonora Bottani;Laura Belli;Luca Davoli;Gianluigi Ferrari;Giuseppe Vignali
2023-01-01

Abstract

The agricultural sector involves various environmental impacts, related to soil exploitation, water consumption and greenhouse gasses emissions. The advent of 4.0 technologies could help reduce them, e.g., by using sensors that constantly control the field. However, these solutions are often implemented by big producers that can easily bear their costs. Thence, in the case of small holders, can the benefits achievable with 4.0 technologies justify their implementation costs? To answer this question, an Italian field with three rows of tomatoes has been investigated as a case study. A row with a traditional irrigation system has been compared to two rows with a 60% irrigation scenario monitored with 4.0 sensors. Overall, one environmental sensor, three crop analysis sensors, three flowmeters, three valves and one network infrastructure have been selected and introduced. The key findings of the work allow for quantifying the amount of water that small holders can save; the positive Net Present Value recommends the investment, with a Pay Back Period of 1.9 years. In the next steps, additional 4.0 sensors will be tested in the agricultural supply chain of some selected small holders in the Mediterranean area, to check whether the 4.0 implementation could not only reduce water consumption, but also improve storage conditions and reduce wastage.
2023
9788885741997
Selection of 4.0 sensors for small holders: the compromise between the advantages and the costs of the implementation / Stefanini, Roberta; Preite, Luca; Bottani, Eleonora; Belli, Laura; Davoli, Luca; Ferrari, Gianluigi; Vignali, Giuseppe. - (2023). (Intervento presentato al convegno International Food Operations and Processing Simulation Workshop (FoodOPS 2023)) [10.46354/i3m.2023.foodops.007].
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11381/2960952
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact