These comments assume that use of ICT in agriculture are not inappropriate due to lack of not only the infra-structure it needs, but also other essential things like transport, extension services, irrigation, storage facilities, basic education and health care etc.

If we are to practise a holistic approach to nutrition, which after all is the fundamental purpose of agriculture, we must seriously think about the end-users, i.e., those who consume  the food produced.

Perhaps, one may establish farmer cooperatives and set up mailing lists so that its subscribers could be informed  of fresh produce for sale. This might enable both producers and consumers to engage in a mutually beneficial exchange without intermediaries so that farmers will get a fair reward while the customers could secure quality fresh food at a reasonable cost.

Of course, this is not possible everywhere, but when possible it could provide an inexpensive and simple way of using ICT to promote farmers' interests as well as those of the customers.

Even now, long term weather prediction remains a chancy business. Even if it is otherwise, previous knowledge of bad weather could spare the farmer the cost of wasted agro-chemicals and seed but not much more. True, this might be a fair saving, but it does not mitigate the problem to a significant degree.

At both ends, ICT has its greatest potential as an educational tool, particularly in helping people to understand the importance of fresh food and a balanced diet with reference to their food culture. The farmers likewise could learn about better methods, but I am sceptical about the suitability of high-yield variants, especially now, when the bio-diversity in agriculture and animal husbandry is dangerously low. Moreover, genetically modified crops can have disastrous consequences to our environment as it was shown in the nineties that  the pollen of such a Maize grown in the US was lethal to the local pollinators.

I wish I could sound more enthusiastic, but we have been too quick to use the novel things in agriculture in the past, so I would urge you to err on the side of prudence, especially as we have a long way to go in many areas of world before we can recommend them to make extended use of ICT.

At the risk of appearing a trifle pompous,  I'd like to sketch a holistic cenceptual framework in which ICT could be integrated into agriculture when suitable.

It will be generally agreed that our fundamental need for nutrition creates the need for agriculture as a means of satisfying the former.

Later in our social evolution, when division of labour was established, bartering food for goods and some services became common. Still later, bartering exchange was replaced by food and money changing hands. In both instances, it remains an exchange of values, though not always equitable.

When we emphasise introduction of ICT mainly to enhance the resilience of trade/monetary aspect of the transaction I cannot help feeling that we are doing more for the intermediaries, i.e., various buyers and sellers in the middle more than for the actual food producers and end.users.

True, they serve a certain function in a food system, but I think the food producers and the end-users have logical priority over them.

I do not know to what extent its suitability has been ascertained before ICT has been proposed as an adjunct to resilient agriculture.

Unless there is an adequate transport, storage and equitable sales facilities, ICT could make little contribution to agricultural resilieince.

Until now, we have neglected to examine how much our past activities both within and without  agriculture have contributed to increase the magnitude of events that threaten   a smooth practise of agriculture and animal husbandry. I need not mention events like the Disaster around Aral sea which nothing short of a miracle could mitigate.

Therefore, I suggest that we concentrate our efforts more to ascertaining how we could use ICT in identifying future potential threats to agriculture, and then disseminating information on the best possible means of mitigating them and replacing resilience-threatening methods by  more rational approaches.

Once this crucial step has been taken, we can ascertain how it may be used to help both end-users i.e., actual eaters of meals, and food producers, and the intermediaries.