Search

Intelligent agriculture is increasingly shaped by automation, data platforms, decision-support tools, robotics, sensors, and algorithmic advisory systems. These technologies are promoted as ways to improve productivity, precision, efficiency, and sustainability in farming. Yet they also alter how agricultural decisions are made, who participates in those decisions, and whose knowledge is treated as authoritative. The central problem addressed in this article is that intelligent agriculture is often presented as a technical improvement while its implications for farmer agency remain contested. Farmer autonomy, judgement, dependency, skill, and voice can be strengthened by digital tools, but they can also be narrowed when systems become opaque, prescriptive, proprietary, or difficult to contest. This tension makes farmer agency a core question for responsible intelligent agriculture. This critical interpretive review examines how automation, platformization, and participatory design reshape farmer agency. It interprets agency not as an individual trait that farmers either possess or lose, but as a socio-technical capacity formed through relations among farmers, machines, platforms, data infrastructures, advisors, markets, and governance arrangements. The review therefore focuses on how agency is enabled, constrained, redistributed, and contested. The article examines key concepts, tensions, and assumptions in the reviewed literature. It does not report new primary empirical data, but critically synthesises existing scholarship to clarify how intelligent agriculture reorganises decision-making, knowledge, dependency, participation, power, and accountability. Particular attention is given to tensions between efficiency and autonomy, automation and situated judgement, platform convenience and dependency, data-driven advice and local knowledge, and participation and tokenism. The review argues that farmer agency is redistributed through socio-technical arrangements rather than simply preserved or removed by technology adoption. Responsible intelligent agriculture requires accountable automation, fair platform governance, participatory design, recognition of local knowledge, and institutional mechanisms that give farmers meaningful voice. Farmer agency should therefore be treated as a condition of technological legitimacy, not as an afterthought to innovation.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in agricultural decision support, farm platforms, automation, sensing, advisory systems, and data-driven management. These systems influence how farms interpret risk, allocate inputs, monitor environments, plan production, and respond to market and ecological uncertainty. As agricultural AI becomes more consequential, its governance must address not only technical performance but also the social conditions under which digital decisions are made, trusted, challenged, and revised. Agricultural AI governance is often framed around technical accuracy, transparency, regulatory compliance, or institutional oversight. While these are necessary, they are insufficient when farmers have limited influence over system design, data practices, model assumptions, recommendation logic, or dispute pathways. Governance weaknesses can produce exclusion, loss of autonomy, data misuse, algorithmic opacity, dependency on platforms, and digital decisions that affected users cannot meaningfully challenge. This article develops a participatory AI governance framework for agriculture centred on farmer voice, local knowledge integration, contestable digital decisions, and accountability safeguards. The framework treats governance as a socio-technical practice that connects design, deployment, monitoring, revision, and redress. It argues that responsible agricultural AI requires institutional mechanisms through which farmers and other affected actors can shape, interpret, evaluate, contest, and improve digital systems. The framework contributes to agricultural AI governance by showing how participation can strengthen legitimacy, trust, accountability, and contextual fit. It positions farmer voice as a condition of decision legitimacy, local knowledge as a condition of contextual accuracy, contestability as a condition of procedural fairness, and accountability safeguards as a condition of responsible institutional performance. Participatory governance is therefore presented as a practical foundation for agricultural AI that is more locally grounded, explainable, responsive, and accountable.

Intelligent agriculture increasingly relies on sensors, remote sensing, machine learning, automation, digital platforms, and decision-support systems to produce rapid agricultural insight. These systems promise earlier detection, faster response, and more precise management across crop, soil, water, livestock, and farm-business decisions. Their appeal is closely tied to the speed, volume, and apparent objectivity of agricultural data streams. Yet agricultural intelligence cannot be reduced to fast data alone. Farms are living, seasonal, historically shaped, and locally interpreted systems in which the meaning of data depends on field context, management history, ecological feedback, and farmer judgement. Rapid signals can be useful, but they can also encourage premature conclusions when detached from temporal and local conditions. This perspective argues that intelligent agriculture needs slow data to remain contextually valid, seasonally sensitive, locally meaningful, and responsibly updated. Slow data is defined here as context-rich, temporally grounded, locally interpreted, ecologically informed, and responsibly revised data that strengthens agricultural AI by preventing overfitting, decontextualised automation, and unexamined model drift. It complements rather than rejects fast sensing and predictive analytics. The article develops a slow data perspective for intelligent agriculture by connecting context, seasonality, local knowledge, farmer feedback, model revision, and governance safeguards. It argues that agricultural AI becomes more responsible when it slows down interpretation enough to recognise uncertainty, ecological variability, and the limits of model transfer. The contribution is a perspective on agricultural intelligence that is faster when needed, but patient enough to remain agronomically meaningful.