In addition, the facility layer shares data and information with information system layer and the control layer.Control Layer: This layer provides modules for command transmission and remote control, including data collector, PLC ,DCS , FCS , remote controller,etc. The Control Layer is connected to the perception layer and the facility layer through LAN, Ethernet, WIFI and other networking methods.Perceptual Layer: This layer provides all kinds of hardware facilities perceiving data sources of RFID, vehicles, sensors, lab equipment and gateways. This layer provides the sensing and access to multi-source devices and interconnects with the Control Layer. The intensive and intelligent pig-raising model is gradually emerging. The intelligent pig farming fully applies information and telecommunication technology,artificial intelligence, and the Internet of Things into pig production management for improving farming efficiency and reducing farming costs. Although the traditional pig industry has entered the on-stock stage, there are still many pain points in the industrial supply chain.
Based on a review of existing reports on modern pig research and practice, this paper defines an Industrial Internet-based Platform for Massive Pig Farming through integrating advanced artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, cloud computing, industrial Internet.We analyzed the requirements for the IIP4MPF in detail with a case study, and designed and practiced the IIP4MPF system using software engineering methods. Reconciling food security with conserving biodiversity is of utmost importance, mobile vertical grow tables but a difficult task. Two opposing strategies have emerged in the ecological and agriculturalist literature to address this challenge: Land Sparing and Land Sharing .Land Sparing Hypothesis is based on the idea that greater yields driven by technological land intensification could provide more food and still spare natural areas from being converted to agriculture.On the other hand, Land Sharing Hypothesis is underpinned by the evidences that non-intensive agricultural, biodiversity-friendly, and ecosystem-preserving agricultural systems should be pursued to balance conservation with environmentally and socially sound agriculture. LSH has proven effective for cases such as shade cocoa , shade coffee , home gardens and organic farming.
Given a fixed production target that can be meet by farming expansion or yield increase via agricultural intensification,LSP proponents posit that high-input systems decrease the need for farmland enlargement , leaving more space for biodiversity protection. As gross yield is considered the major bottleneck for food security by this framework, LSP defenders suggest that agriculture intensification can reconcile food and farming. Additionally, LSP proponents assume that most species follow a concave adjustment, declining steeply with the increasing of agriculture intensification and intermediate levels of intensification have relatively low conservation potential .On the contrary to LSP, LSH proponents see agriculture intensification as one of the major causes of water and air pollution, as well as depletion of ecosystems services from local to global scales. For example,pesticides and nitrogen fertilizers are amongst the greatest cause of water contamination. Critiques on LSP concern the fact that there is a positive effect of yield increase on farmland expansion ; the dynamic relationship among production and economic aspects ; the high productivity of some non-intensive methods; the fact that significant biodiversity can be held in intermediate intensive systems; and the importance of social aspects that affects food security beyond gross yield .
In this light, non-intensive agricultural systems benefit ecosystems services, such as carbon storage, pollination and pest control. Furthermore, non-intensive methods such as agroforestry systems maybe more adapted to climatic change than mono-specific plantations .The LSP-LSH debate has been very prominent in literature with nearly 829 papers published up to January2016, as shown by an exploratory search in Science Direct . Despite of the flourishing of the LSP-LSH debate, there also has been a call for moving beyond the sharing vs. sparing divide. Some authors point out the need to go over the dichotomy highlighting that land sharing and sparing approaches are not mutually exclusive. In a recent review Kremen supports that the dichotomy of the land-sparing vs. land-sharing frameworks limits the realm of possibilities to only two, largely undesirable, options for conservation. Further more, many questions are still to be addressed in the sparing and sharing debate. Among of them are comprehension of the complex relationship among agriculture intensification, land use and ecological responses. One of the few studies to address such issue was carried by Green in which the authors take some assumptions that were latter subjected to critiques .