CONTEXT

There are high hopes that digital tools can reduce constraints to livestock development, which in turn promises to alleviate poverty, improve food and nutrition security, and reduce environmental footprints. Yet, little systematic evidence exists on the state of digital livestock in low- and middle-income-countries. Thus, it remains unclear whether such high hopes are justified.

OBJECTIVE

Focusing on India and Kenya, we aim to better understand, among others, the degree of technological sophistication of the digital tools used, the types of value chains and constraints addressed, the types of business models pursued, and more broadly the opportunities and challenges of digital tools for agricultural development.

METHOD

We combine a review of digital tools in India and Kenya with three “on-the-ground” case studies: Herdman, a tool for Indian dairy organizations working with small-scale livestock keepers, facilitating data collection and supervision of field agents; Farmtree, a tool supporting medium-scale livestock keepers in India to manage their herds, and iCow, an e-extension tool for farmers in Kenya. For the review, we develop a conceptual framework that distinguishes different types of tools: 1) “simple digital tools”, providing generic information, 2) “smart digital tools”, providing tailored information based on data entered by livestock keepers, 3) “smart digital tools”, using data from sensors, 4) “digital tools for value chains”, enabling the integration of value chain actors, 5) “automated digital systems”, which are coupled with robots, allowing for automation.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Digital tools provide many new options to address constraints to livestock development. So far, most tools are “simple digital tools”, followed by “smart digital tools” using manual data and tools for value chains. Such tools that only require smartphone ownership are the “sweet spot” for supporting digital livestock development; however, even embodied “smart digital tools” using sensors can be of relevance for small-scale livestock keepers with appropriate organizational models. Most digital tools focus on dairy production, suggesting neglect of other types of livestock, and there are few tools for pastoralists.

SIGNIFICANCE

The conceptual framework as well as many of the lessons learned are of relevance to understanding the contribution of digital tools to livestock development - and agricultural development more broadly - in low- and middle-income-countries. While digital tools are no silver bullets – and come with some new challenges such as data security and sovereignty concerns - they are likely to become a key pillar of agricultural and livestock development in the near future.

中文翻译：

---

连接奶牛和网络鸡？肯尼亚和印度数字畜牧工具的盘点和案例研究

语境

人们寄予厚望，数字工具可以减少对畜牧业发展的限制，从而有望减轻贫困、改善粮食和营养安全并减少环境足迹。然而，关于低收入和中等收入国家的数字牲畜状况的系统证据很少。因此，目前尚不清楚这种寄予厚望的理由是否合理。

客观的

以印度和肯尼亚为重点，我们的目标是更好地了解所用数字工具的技术复杂程度、价值链的类型和所解决的限制、所追求的商业模式类型，以及更广泛的机遇和挑战。农业发展的数字工具。

方法

我们将印度和肯尼亚的数字工具审查与三个“实地”案例研究相结合：Herdman，一种用于与小规模牲畜饲养者合作的印度乳制品组织的工具，促进数据收集和现场代理的监督；Farmtree，一种支持印度中等规模牲畜饲养者管理畜群的工具，以及iCow，肯尼亚农民的电子扩展工具。为了审查，我们开发了一个概念框架来区分不同类型的工具：1）“简单数字工具”，提供通用信息，2）“智能数字工具”，根据牲畜饲养员输入的数据提供量身定制的信息，3）“智能数字工具”，使用来自传感器的数据，4）“价值链数字工具”，实现价值链参与者的整合，5）“自动化数字系统”，与机器人相结合，实现自动化。

结果和结论

数字工具为解决畜牧业发展的制约因素提供了许多新的选择。到目前为止，大多数工具是“简单的数字工具”，其次是使用手动数据和价值链工具的“智能数字工具”。这种只需要拥有智能手机的工具是支持数字畜牧业发展的“甜蜜点”；然而，即使是使用传感器的“智能数字工具”也可能与具有适当组织模型的小规模牲畜饲养者相关。大多数数字工具都专注于乳制品生产，这表明忽视了其他类型的牲畜，而牧民的工具很少。

意义

概念框架以及许多吸取的经验教训与了解数字工具对低收入和中等收入国家的畜牧业发展——以及更广泛的农业发展——的贡献有关。虽然数字工具不是灵丹妙药——并且会带来一些新的挑战，例如数据安全和主权问题——但它们很可能在不久的将来成为农业和畜牧业发展的关键支柱。