See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335640616

Towards the integration of lean principles and optimization for agricultural

production systems: a conceptual review proposition

Article · January 2020

DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.10018

CITATIONS READS

26 582

3 authors:

Nestor Enrique Caicedo Guisselle Adriana García Llinás

University del Magdalena Universidad del Norte (Colombia)
47 PUBLICATIONS 69 CITATIONS 19 PUBLICATIONS 137 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jairo R. Montoya-Torres
Universidad de La Sabana
243 PUBLICATIONS 3,641 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Nestor Enrique Caicedo on 27 October 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

1 Towards the integration of lean principles and optimization for

2 agricultural production systems: a conceptual review proposition
3
4 Nestor E. Caicedo Solanoa,1 Guisselle A. García Llinása, Jairo R. Montoya-Torresb,
5 a Department of Industrial Engineering, Universidad del Norte Km 5 Antigua vía a Puerto Colombia,

6 Barranquilla, Colombia
7 E-mail: [email protected], [email protected].
8 b Department of Industrial Engineering, Universidad de la Sabana. Km 7 Autopista norte, Bogotá, D.C.,

9 Chía, Colombia
10 E-mail: [email protected].
11
12 Abstract
13
14 Background. Historically, the operative planning of agricultural production has been developed with

15 the objective of improving yields and quality. Sowing, cropping and harvesting operations have worked

16 independently; however, waste and the sustainability of operations have not been integrated in a

17 methodology for operational planning of agricultural production.

18 Results: This study showed that there is a need to have a clear and precise methodology to minimize

19 waste in agricultural production systems to ensure sustainability. This need is replaced by a novel

20 methodological guide to minimize waste in agricultural operations, crop maintenance and harvesting.

21 The proposed methodology is founded on the use of lean manufacturing as a waste management tool.

22 By using lean manufacturing principles, it is possible to identify agricultural operations, the variables

23 that represent wastes, build mathematical models, define constraints and finally illustrate the waste

24 costs that must be minimized through an objective function. As a guide for implementation, we propose

25 a conceptual model, which explains the construction of a mathematical model that represents the

26 achievement of the decision variables on agricultural operations, the elements to consider, the

27 constraints and the theoretical proposal of the objective function.

1
Corresponding author:
E-mail address: [email protected]. Phone: (57) – 3004796638. Barranquilla, Colombia.
 2

28 Conclusions: The proposed conceptual model and the construction of the methodology provides a

29 novel development within agricultural production systems that could be used by administrators and

30 farmers.

31 Keywords: Model, production, sustainability, agricultural chains, lean, operations research.

32 1. Introduction

33 Global demand for agricultural products has been growing due to the increase of world population;

34 therefore, agriculture has undergone some changes in the stages of sowing and harvesting, inspired by

35 manufacturing techniques and methods applied by purely industrial companies. Given the need to

36 increase the production and quality of agricultural products for human consumption and industry,

37 scientific research applied to this field has reached an important place, in international institutions like

38 FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) and developing countries.

39 In this regard, agriculture always had problems with operation costs and prices. The common reality in

40 agriculture is that of price and income variability. There are two economic problems which stand out:

41 (1) a general income problem for farmers and (2) uncertainty in farming. Particularly, Cochrane argued

42 that between the price and income variations there is no "golden mean" for agriculture1.

43 Cochrane explains two possible solutions to this; the first is for a continuation of the 1957 farm program

44 by which society as a whole "chooses to de fray indefinitely the costs of price and income support in

45 agriculture." The second is Cochrane's own choice for a system of market and production controls.

46 Studies based on agricultural processes optimization began with applications of Operations Research

47 (OR) techniques that agricultural companies developed to improve their own operations and

48 administrative areas2, reducing cost and prices. This approach is coinciding with Cochrane in his view

49 on possible solutions. Early applications of OR included crop rotation, selection and location of areas

50 for planting crops, growing a combination of fruits and vegetables and applying industrial agricultural
 3

51 products3. Such studies have been important for agricultural planning for activities such as the use of

52 water, soil management, sowing, demand for products, life cycles and maturation, amongst others.

53 These factors are important for the development of models that can describe the behavior of

54 agricultural planning from the strategic, tactical and operational perspectives4,5.

55 Developing countries suffer more food losses in the agricultural production stage, while in more

56 developed countries, waste tends to be higher in the retailing and consumption stages. This waste

57 occurs at all stages of production; handling, storage, processing and distribution, with the production

58 stage being the one with the greatest losses 33% of total food produced6.

59 Natural disasters are also phenomena that affect agricultural production. As mentioned by the FAO,

60 that one of the most direct ways in which natural disasters affect the agricultural sector is by reducing

61 production. This results in direct economic loss to farmers, which cascade along the entire value chain

62 affecting agricultural growth and rural livelihoods7.

63 One of the common management philosophies extended towards the minimization of waste in

64 production systems is lean manufacturing (LM). Since J. Womack published a book, “The Machine That

65 Changed The World,” this philosophy has become a solution for problems in operations of companies 8.

66 For this reason, several manufacturers have adopted LM strategies their economic benefits. Lean

67 manufacturing has achieved the position of being one of the most important tools in manufacturing

68 companies across different sectors.

69 The aim of this paper is to review research on the application of LM principles and OR in agricultural

70 production and also to develop a methodology for the integration of these (LM principles with OR) in

71 order to reduce waste. The methodology is contained in a conceptual model that illustrates a clear

72 vision for building a mathematical model. This mathematical model aims to find the minimum costs
 4

73 associated with agricultural production and wastes. The conceptual model outlines a step by step

74 process for the implementation of the integration tool.

75 The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section 1 introduces the background agricultural

76 production including issues regarding its complexity and the management of agricultural chains as well

77 as an overview of previous related literature. Section 2 presents the methodology for searching,

78 selecting and analyzing the literature. The findings are summarized in Section 3. Section 4 introduces

79 the proposed and methodology. The paper ends with Section 5, by presenting some concluding remarks

80 and outlining some opportunities for future research.

81 1.1 Background and positioning of this paper

82 1.1.1 About the key aspects of agricultural production and agricultural chains management

83 Agricultural production is an activity in constant growth, whose success depends on its supply chain 9.

84 There are three main sources of growth in crop production viz; increased cropland, increased frequency

85 of crops (watering frequency) and increased yields. Indeed, according to the Growth Report of the

86 World Agriculture 2030, in the coming years, developing countries will need about 120 million of

87 additional hectares for crops, representing an overall increase of 12.5%10.

88 Studies by the FAO show that there is a total irrigation potential of about 402 million ha in developing

89 countries, of which only half is currently in use. However, water resources will be an important factor

90 constraining expansion especially South Asia where the demand for water resources is expected to

91 increase by about 41% of the current available water. East and North Africa are expected to require

92 about 58% more of the current total available water by 2050. These regions will have to use water more

93 efficiently10.

94 Since the 1990’s there have been a decrease in crop yields. For example, wheat yields grew at an annual

95 average rate of 3.8% between 1961 and 1989, but only 2% annually in the period 1989 to 1999. The
 5

96 growth rates of rice decreased to less than half, from 2.3% to 1.1% in the same period. In the first

97 decade of the 2000’s, increases in world cereal production were minimal. Most of 2019/2020 projected

98 decline is expected to result from a contraction in coarse grain production as forecasted by FAO.

99 According to the FAO, 2019/2020 yield is expected to be nearly 1,350 million metric tons and this is

100 about 36.6 million metric tons below the record output gathered in 2017/20187.

101 The yield growth will remain the dominant factor of underlying increases in crop production in the

102 future. Overall, it is estimated that approximately 80% of future increases in crop production in

103 developing countries will have to come from intensification with higher yields, increased multiple

104 cropping and period’s shorter fallow, coupled with resource and wastes optimization obtained from

105 the operation of agricultural chains11.

106 For a mid-size and developing country, such as Colombia, the National Planning Department (DNP, for

107 its name in Spanish) and the Association of Food Banks (ABACO, for its name in Spanish) conducted a

108 study that found that about 9.7 metric tons of food (fruits, vegetables, tubers, cereals, grains, etc.) was

109 wasted or lost each year. This corresponded to about 34% of the total food available in the country.

110 About 22% of the total losses corresponded to the stages of agricultural production, post-harvest and

111 storage and industrial processing. The remaining (3.4 million metric tons) was lost to waste at

112 distribution, retail and consumption12.

113 These wastes are generated in agri-chains, which have special features such as perishing risks, freshness

114 requirements, physical and aesthetic attributes13,14, optimal delivery times, external uncertainty factors

115 (i.e. climatic factors and market conditions)15,16,17 and crop characteristics18 all of which explicitly

116 account for the complexity of managing these chains. Decision-making processes under such

117 uncertainty is as such one of the main issues to be resolved19.

 6

118 According to previous highlights, there is an urgent need for efficient and effective decision-making

119 processes in agricultural production. A basic illustration of activities that require critical decision –

120 making in agricultural chains is shown in figure 1. This figure shows an agricultural operations logistics

121 chart showing the activities of sowing, cultivating, harvesting and the processes of making decisions at

122 tactical and operational level.

123

Sowing Cultivating Harvesting

124

Crop/Labor Soil Machinery

125 Money/Tools Fertilizing Pesticides
Machinery Water Cutting/Pruning
Water/Soil Tools / Labor Labor
126 Time Movements Quality
Movements/ Transport Transport Movements / Transport

127

128 Figure 1. Agricultural operational logistics

129 The agricultural production as referred to this article focuses the operational logistic plan used for

130 sowing, cultivation and harvesting. Each of the activities depends on resources that must be optimized.

131 At the same time, these resources unless optimized can generate waste and consequently, increase

132 costs. All production systems can be described as a set of inputs and relationships, that not only include

133 the food system, but also the food production. Indeed, programming production under certain financial

134 risks20 or setting the production volumes in line with market behavior 21 require the use of decision-

135 making models for agricultural chains22,23,24. In general, agricultural chains require a structured analysis

136 to find possibilities for optimization and improvement at all stages being the science, data and

137 mathematical model a great option for solving problems about operations, products and agricultural

138 process 25,26,27.

 7

139 1.2. Previous related reviews and positioning of this paper

140 Because it is such a complex production system, the analysis of agricultural production through

141 optimization techniques has been of great interest from the academic community. Several reviews on

142 applications of Operations Research and the Management Sciences (OR/MS) have been published.

143 Those review papers either show limited issues of the complexity of agricultural production or refer to

144 a single agricultural product. Early works studied the production of peas and corn 2 and applications for

145 the agricultural market3. Recent papers focused on the management of forests and flora 28, decision

146 making systems in tactical and strategic farm management29,30,31, improved crop and transport

147 planning32,33,34, movements growing operation35, basic applications of OR in agriculture36, and the

148 inclusion of reverse logistics flows and sustainable operations27,37. Some papers considered factors such

149 as maturation of fruits or vegetables for production in agri-industries, for example, tomatoes38 or

150 grapes for wine production39.

151 Lean manufacturing as a philosophy concentrates on minimizing waste generated in production

152 systems. Waste is considered as any activity or condition of product that does not satisfy customers.

153 Waste can be classified into seven types viz: overproduction, waiting, transporting, inappropriate

154 processing, motion/movements, unnecessary inventory and defects. LM waste types can be found in

155 agricultural production processes and are represented in crop performance, operations, labor, natural

156 resources, climatic factors and quality, amongst others. For this reason, we consider that LM is a great

157 tool for reducing waste and achieving high levels of quality, productivity and sustainability.

158 Applications of Lean Systems have however been much less studied for agriculture production, despite

159 the great extent of applications in goods manufacturing. As stated previously, the principles of LM have

160 been extensively applied in manufacturing where companies seek to build measurement systems using

161 mathematical and statistical methods to achieve so that high standards of competitiveness40. In some
 8

162 cases, LM had been integrated with Six Sigma and the Balanced Scorecard36. The commitment with

163 continuous improvement41, process flexibility, decision support models and operations planning42 is

164 essential especially when approaching customers43. Studies relating these systems have intensified in

165 the past decade and follow a growth trend. However, this can be considered a relatively new field with

166 many gaps to be filled; one of these gaps is found in the agricultural sector, where no studies relating

167 Lean and Green have been identified44.

168 In agriculture, production conditions are often difficult because of the informality of decision making.

169 Therefore, working with LM principles is a challenge from a scientific standpoint, due to the possibility

170 of facing obstacles in gathering data for planning and control, human resource management and

171 relations with customers and suppliers amongst other considerations45.

172 Considering the benefits of LM a bibliographical search was conducted on agricultural supply chains

173 and it was found that no significant literature reviews existed on LM developments in agricultural

174 production systems. The most recent systematic review was about trends and recent applications of

175 Lean Thinking in the service sector (i.e., banking/finance, public sector and education) 46.

176 To the best of the authors knowledge, no reviews have been published on the applications of LM in

177 agricultural production chains. Consequently, a review on the applications of Lean Thinking in

178 agriculture and agri-chains can make be a significant important contribution towards these systems in

179 that efficient production processes could be redesigned to seek both operational efficiency47 and

180 performance improvement48.

181 Ufua et al., had suggested a systemic implementation of lean principles linked with OR in agriculture49.

182 However, these researchers (Ufua et al.49) do not include operations research as a means to minimize

183 waste through mathematical modelling.

 9

184 2. Materials and Methods

185 The authors searched and selected papers related to planning, production, harvest, postharvest,

186 quality, processing of agricultural products and environment using Operations Research techniques as

187 solution methods. The search was carried out between October 2015 and March 2019 in the following

188 bibliographical databases: ISI Web of Science/Knowledge, Science Direct, JSTOR, Emerald and Informs.

189 The keywords were “planning”, “sowing”, “cultivation”, “harvesting”, “quality”, “Lean Manufacturing”,

190 “Sustainable Manufacturing”. Operations Research¨ and ¨Management Science” in “Agriculture” were

191 used as search areas. Also, Boolean operators (“OR”, “AND”) were used. The review process is described

192 in Figure 2.

193

194 Figure 2. Concept map of the literature review

195 A total of 168 papers were found, 74 papers in agriculture and 97 papers about lean manufacturing.

196 After reading them, a list of 49 papers in agriculture, agroindustry and food were chosen, 11 papers

197 related with lean manufacturing and 20 papers presenting reviews of literature and others. In addition,

198 this paper cites 10 technical documents issued by global and governmental organizations and papers

199 on general aspects as well as two books.

 10

200 3. Results

201 Through the review, the authors found papers aimed at solving problems of planning and production.

202 At the end it was found that these papers, however, only covered the area of logistics in agricultural

203 chains, without considering the use of LM principles. A total of 92 references are cited in this paper, 85

204 from engineering, operations research, management science and agriculture. A few of papers were

205 from computer science, electronics and food production and sustainability. Journals were classified

206 according to “Management Sciences”, “Operations Research” and “Agriculture”, as well as other areas.

207 On the other hand, LM papers were found that covered topics on agricultural process, agroindustry and

208 processed food amongst others. Knowledge transfer and innovation processes and assessment of the

209 economic impact of lean production systems were some other works found in the literature. Figure 3

210 shows the distribution of papers as are ordered by the classification area.

Engineering / Management Science

Agriculture
Operations research
Computers / Electronics
Food

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
211

212 Figure 3. Papers per journal area.

213 An additional contribution to the quality of the literature review is presented in Figure 4 where a

214 summary of the rankings of consulted journal is presented. The journals were ranked according to the

215 indicators Journal Citation Report (JCR) and Scientific Journal Ranking (SJR).
 11

Q1 (JCR - SJR)
Q3 (JCR) - Q1 (SJR)
Q2 (JCR) - Q1 (SJR)
Q1 (SJR)
Q4 (JCR) - Q2 (SJR)
Q2 (JCR) - Q2 (SJR)
No Quartil
Q3 (SJR)
Q3 (JCR) - Q3 (SJR)
Q3 (JCR) - Q2 (SJR)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
216

217 Figure 4. Number of papers per quartile - Journal Rankings (JCR-SJR)

218 In figure 4, Considering the frequency of publication, the current review of the literature began in 1990,

219 but it can be noted that application of OR techniques in agriculture can be dated back to the 1950´s.

220 Figure 5 shows that 71 of the papers related to OR applied to agriculture (OR/AG) and 14 papers to LM.

221 As indicated in Figure 5, there were no papers that were found to integrate OR and LM. Besides can

222 notice it that literature review was made in highest impact journals, in which found research gaps for

223 these issues.

7
Number of papers

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1997
1953
1958
1995
1996

1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019

Papers / Year
AG / OR LM
224

225 Figure 5. Distribution of papers by year.

 12

226 The authors are of the view that if there was a study on the integration between these areas (OR + LM),

227 the agricultural production systems could receive significant benefits and improve the use of natural

228 resources and reduce production cost.

229 3.1. Problems addressed in agriculture planning based in Operations Research

230 Planning problems in agriculture are diverse and complex to solve through traditional mathematical

231 techniques50,51. Some mathematical models resolved the optimal consumption of resources such as

232 water 52, considering, for example, the use rainwater to optimize consumption on crops53 or to establish

233 consumption policies for agricultural use54. The literature also presented studies on crop mix problems

234 15 and modeling of biological conditions of perishables55. The literature also presented models for

235 decision-making on cereal crop, sugar beet, alfalfa and vegetables56. There was also research on the

236 scheduling orange fruits57 and modeling of crop planning considering minimization of inputs 58. Other

237 models included that for the minimization of operations times and use of machinery in manual and

238 mechanical harvesting operations59 and also work on the minimization of gas emissions used in

239 greenhouses60.

240 Other problems in agricultural production systems have been addressed, such as rock removal

241 operations, planting, irrigation61,62, improvement processes involving harvesting sugar cane34 and the

242 implementation of techniques and process improvement of agricultural planning63. Quality of products

243 has been other research area, which has allowed for the study of the quality of the product harvested38,

244 regarding delivery dates and product deterioration64 and the evaluation of costs associated with

245 operations in fields65. Some research has studied the quality control in chemical and biological

246 preparation of plantations regarding traceability and logistics activities of production 66,67.

247 The agricultural production conditions have been studied and categorized18,68 in conditions of complex

248 production systems such as the cherries production system30. Operations Research has become
 13

249 important in agricultural studies, contributing to planning and production with optimization and

250 mathematical modeling69,70. The simulation models were developed for comparing manual operations

251 and mechanical operations in vineyards71 and perishable products72.

252 Some research about quality of products was also reviewed with a focus on temperature conditions73

253 and times of maturation56. Considering the condition of perishables, research to solve costs associated

254 with waste was also conducted74.

255 Mathematical models for decision-making in agricultural planning 23 were found, including multi-

256 objective models to make cropping decisions75, crop season planning tools for minimizing weather

257 impact76 and evaluation of water conservation effects77. Other papers estimated costs to find the

258 optimum time of maturity 65,78,79.

259 The operations and production planning for Agri-industrial products have also been studied, including

260 the knob of apples and pears to control production 80, subsequently were modeled tactical and

261 operational planning crops with theorical models and some real approaches81. Rural areas have also

262 been the subject of research where studies have estimated social benefits, food security, ecological

263 balance and job stability82. Other studies have also been conducted for operations planning in crops

264 with geological deformation62 and operations and tactical planning models in horticulture and

265 viticulture83.

266 Recently, new approaches to production control have been proposed, for example, several studies have

267 optimized the quantity harvested and yields on scheduling operations84,85, and production volumes for

268 cooperative work of vegetables21. Papers on planning, cultivation, harvesting and packaging of

269 agricultural produce still lack in integration of the different domains that sum up agri-chains86, for

270 example, aspects such as uncertainty about environmental and climatic factors, quality of products,
 14

271 waste, and operational efficiency are not studied simultaneously. Also, there is wide variety among the

272 topics and differing opinions among the researchers who attempt to solve problems in agriculture.

273 3.2. Taxonomy of reviewed papers on OR in agriculture

274 This section illustrates a taxonomic analysis of the papers reviewed which describes strategic, tactical

275 and operational aspects. The taxonomy indicates the relationships with decisions on supply chain

276 considering the number of echelons addressed. Moreover, the taxonomy indicates the quality on

277 perishable and non-perishable products. For a better understanding of the Table 1, inspired by

278 Ahumada and Villalobos (2009), it is necessary to illustrate each abbreviation:

279 I. Planning Scope: S: Strategic; T: Tactical; O: Operational.

280 II. (FM): Farmer Application of Models (A); (Y/Y): Applied and Implemented Model; (Y/N): Applied

281 Model; N: Hypothetical model

282 III. Perspective decision – making (DM): (P): Planner; (MG): Manager or advisor.

283 IV. Decision Variables: P: Production variables / decisions; H: Harvesting variables / decisions.

284 To build the taxonomy was necessary to organize the solution methods which are included some

285 optimization techniques, data analysis and modeling. This taxonomy is described in V:

286 V. OPT (Optimization Tools): MIP: Mixed integer programming; LP: lineal Programming, SP: Stochastic

287 Programming; SDP: Stochastic dynamic programming; Mul: Multi objective programming; FOP: Fuzzy

288 object programming; DP: Dynamic programming; RP: Robust programming; PSO: Particle swarm

289 programming; NLIP: Nonlinear integer programming; OOP: Object oriented programming; SIM:

290 Simulation.

291

292
 15

293 Table 1. Taxonomy modeling techniques and Operations Research in Agriculture

Variables/
Planning Scope QUAL OPT Main Aspects of the paper
Author (s) Year Decisions

S T O A DM P H

Weintraub and Bare 1996 X X X Y/Y P/MG X X N LP New Issues in forest land management from an operations research perspective (Some Cases)

Tijskens and Polderdijk 1996 X FM X Y LP Develop a model for estimating the quality of harvested products affected by temperature, chilling damage, and different levels of initial quality.

Abdulkadri and Ajibefun 1998 X Y/N FM X N LP Generate a model for crop plan alternatives that are close to optimal decisions for farmers with different objectives

Leutscher et al. 1999 X X N FM X N SIM Design a model of production with operational and tactical decisions with the objective of increasing profitability

Higgins A. 2002 X X Y/N P X Y MIP Schedule the roster for harvest inf a sugar cane region with the objective of reducing cost in transportation and in the processing plant

Itoh et al. 2003 X X N FM X N LP To design a model for crop planning with uncertain values with the objective of maximizing minimum value of revenue

Recio et al. 2003 X Y/N MG X N MIP To develop a farm plan that includes scheduling field task and analysis investment with the objective of minimizing cost

Hester and Cacho 2003 X P X N SIM Simulation model of Apple orchard system

Vitoriano et al. 2003 X Y/Y P X N LP Model for the optimal planning of crops and resources needed, to minimize cost

Karlsonn et al. 2004 X N P X N MIP Optimization model for planning annual harvest

To develop a framework for integrating harvesting a transportations decision

Higgins et al. 2004 X Y/N P X Y P-median
in the Australian sugar value chain to minimize cost

Biswas and Baran 2005 X X Y/N MG X N FOP Model for determining the land allocation for production of seasonal crops that considers multiple goals.

Higgings and Laredo 2006 X X Y/N P X N P-median To develop a model for harvesting and transporting crops, with the objective of minimizing total cost

J. Caixeta-Filho. 2006 X X Y/N P X X Y LP, ILP To develop a model that links biological, chemical and logistics constraints to the quality of the fruit to harvest, with of maximizing revenue

Ferrer et al. 2008 X X Y/Y P /FM X X Y LP To determine a plan for the optimal scheduling of the harvest of wine grapes with the objective of minimizing operational and grape quality cost

Lodree and Uzochukwu 2008 X X P X X Y MIP To develop a inventory model for fresh products that considers product deterioration, stochastic demand and nonzero lead time

Cittadini et al. 2008 X X Y/Y P/AD X X N DP To develop an optimization model for farm-level strategic and tactical decision-making in fruit production

A model to determine the harvest and distribution planning of fresh products that minimizes the total cost, including quality loss from harvest to
Blackburn and Scudder 2009 X Y/N P X X Y LP
retailer

Bravo and Gonzalez 2009 X Y/N P X N SP To development a optimization model for water use planning

Wang et al. 2009 X Y/N P X X Y SIM Optimization model of traceability and operations planning for perishable food production

Bohle et al. 2010 X Y/N P X N SP Model for determining harvest scheduling, labor allocation and routing decision that take into account quality loss

Model for determining the schedule and routing of harvesters and trucks for forage for a cooperative that minimize total working time of the
Blanco et al. 2010 Y/Y P X X N MIP
machinery

Arnaout and Maatouk 2010 X N P X X Y MIP To develop a optimization model for minimizing quality loss and operational costs through improved scheduling of harvest operations

Carpente et al. 2010 X Y/N P X N IP To determine the routing of harvester machines for forage that take into account harvesting time window constraints
 16

Ahumada and Villalobos 2011 X Y/N P X X Y MIP To develop an operational model for harvest and distribution planning for fresh products that maximizes the net revenue of the grower

Rong et al. 2011 X Y/N P X Y MIP To develop an optimization model for managing fresh food quality throughout the supply chain

Marquez et al. 2011 X Y/Y P X X N LP To develop a method to solve a multi-objective crop planning problems

Ahumada et al. 2012 X Y/N P X X N SP Model for Tactical planning of the production and distribution of fresh agricultural products under uncertainty

Amorim et al. 2012 X N P X Y Mul Model for Multi-objective integrated production and distribution planning of perishable products

Gan-qiong et al. 2012 X N P X N Regression Regression model for estimating prices of agricultural products

Janová J. 2012 X Y/N P X N SP Optimization model for improving the plan of crops and harvest

Catalá et al. 2013 X Y P X X N MILP Optimization model for planning of agricultural products

Jena and Poggi 2013 X X Y/Y P /MG X N MIP To determine the routing of cutting crews and the routing of transportation vehicle during harvest period of sugar cane that maximize profit

Sha et al. 2013 X X X Y/N P X N SDP Optimization model for agricultural planning

Zhou et al. 2014 X N FM X N LP Simulation model for sequential in-field machinery operations in agricultural production system

Xua et al. 2014 X X Y/N P X X Y FOP Optimization model for agricultural farming planning and water resources management

Thuankaewsing et al. 2015 X X Y/N P X N MIP To develop a harvest scheduling algorithm to equalize supplier benefits

Mason and Villalobos 2015 X X Y/N P/MG X X N MIP Model of Coordination of perishable crop production using auction mechanisms

Da Silva et al. 2015 X X Y/N P X X N Mul Optimization model for uncertainty in sugarcane harvest planning

González et al. 2015 X X Y/Y P X X Y MIP Optimization model for harvest planning (A case: Apples)

Edwards et al. 2015 X Y/N P X X Y Tabu Search Optimization model for programming of agricultural operations

Zhou et al. 2015 X Y/N P X X Y SIM Simulation model for operations machinery in field

Sethanan and
2016 X X Y/N P X N PSO To develop a Multi-Objective particle swarm optimization model for mechanical harvester route planning of sugarcane field operations
Neungmatcha

Adham et al. 2016 X Y/N P X N SP To develop a water harvesting model for optimizing rainwater harvesting

James et al. 2017 X X X N N N N Analysis of the state of agricultural systems science

Ampuh et al. 2017 X Y/N P X X N Conceptual A framework for managing sustainable supply chain operations: a conceptual model

De Keizer et al. 2017 X Y/N P Y MIP

To develop an integrated network model to show how product quality decay as well as its heterogeneity

Perondi et al. 2019 X Y/Y P / FM X N SIM Design of a tool for crop season planning

Mardania et al. 2019 X Y/Y P/FM X N RP Mathematical programming model for optimization cropping patterns decisions

294 (Y): Yes

295 (N): No
296

297
 17

298 Table 1 illustrates the researches that have been addressed for solving problems about agricultural

299 production planning. With this taxonomy was possible to identify research opportunities on issues

300 optimization, the mathematical models, agricultural operations and quality for integrating the stages

301 of sowing, cultivating and harvesting with lean manufacturing. In this table is noticed the mathematical

302 solution methods, scopes planning, main objective for each research and if was possible applied or not

303 the solutions.

304 3.3. Issues addressed with LM in agricultural production systems

305 The literature on LM reveals the importance of customer focus43 which promoting the use of

306 measurements and methods for ensuring customer satisfaction based on LM principles40.

307 The success of the implementation of LM in companies depends on several conditions such as company

308 size and age and the influence of unions on the resistance to changes generated by innovation 48. The

309 closest research to the agricultural food sector based in LM refers to the use of Kanban transport

310 mechanisms for controlling cotton cultivation87.

311 Cox and Chicksand, concluded in their study that lean approach is not always the most appropriate way

312 to manage internal processes or external relationships. The lean approach operates best where there

313 is high volume of production and predictable demand with supply certainty. Agricultural systems,

314 however, are complex and can be characterized by low volume and highly volatile supply chains where

315 customer requirements are often unpredictable and supplier capabilities and innovations difficult to

316 control. Some types of agri-chains are less complex, but not easy either as this depends on the products,

317 operational management and commitment to quality. It is important to note that crops such as sweet

318 potatoes, onions, turnips, potatoes, radishes, table beets, and carrots have stable production systems

319 whilst that of mangoes, bananas, tomatoes, coffee, and apples have greater instability. This is due, in

320 part, to environmental conditions that these crops are exposed to. In this respect, due to having greater
 18

321 variability in their performance, activities of planting, cultivating, and harvesting may require greater

322 controls, technical efforts and investments that would increase production cost88. Using lean thinking,

323 Cox and Chicksand found opportunities for reducing costs in the livestock and red meat supply chain88.

324 Some authors mention that the performance of food supply chains could be improved with LM

325 techniques such as Value Stream Mapping (VSM) that could be used to determine the amount of waste

326 and scrap48. Other authors suggest the use of special LM techniques for production, transport and

327 distribution of food products89. Quantitative analyses for decision-making in the harvest season of the

328 products is however, still missing.

329 Barth and Melin developed a green lean implementation framework for agricultural sector90. The aim

330 of the framework was to increase production and profit whilst supporting environmental sustainability

331 at the same time.

332 Vinicius et al., on the other hand, provides a non-subjective means to establish the maturity index of

333 the Lean and Green systems within the coffee sector44.

334 Souza et al., proposed a conceptual framework that helps in understanding the concepts and

335 relationships involved in the lean and green performance assessment system 91.

336 In general, these studies have contributed significantly to sustainable development, farm operations

337 and the quality of agricultural products, strengthening competitiveness and reducing waste and costs.

338 Table 2 illustrates studies and implementation of LM programs in sectors but with a special focus on

339 agricultural enterprises and food production systems, classified as perishables (PER) and non-perishable

340 (NOPER). Lean Manufacturing tools are not used in production systems in agriculture, although crop

341 management and maintenance thereof, require great manual activity and resource investment.

342
 19

343 Table 2. Taxonomy lean manufacturing techniques in agricultural systems

Product
Authors (s) Year Company Main aspects of the paper
PER NOPER

Oksanen et al. 1995 ---- X Consulting Firm To develop a model for product development with customer focus

Pool A et al. 2011 X Food To design a Model of scheduling in a pull system.

Yang et al. 2011 ---- ---- Manufacturer To develop a method for assessment the impact of the lean techniques in business

Dora et al 2013 X ---- Food Impact study of using Lean or ISO, GMP and HACCP

Felines et al. 2013 X Agroindustry To develop a model for using of lean techniques in Agri chains

Lin et al. 2013 X Agriculture To develop a model for implementing Kanban mechanism in transport operations in farms

Ufua et al. 2018 X Food and Agriculture Enhancing lean with operations research

Barth and Melina 2018 X Agriculture Implementation of Green Lean approach

Analysis of trends and challenges on implementation of lean manufacturing and sustainable

Henio et al. 2019 X General
performance

A conceptual framework that helps in understanding the concepts and relationships involved
Souza et al. 2019 Agriculture
lean and green performance assessment system

344

345
 20

346 3.3 A proposal for a conceptual model

347 The previous sections have shown that OR and LM have not been studied as an option for managing

348 and improving agricultural production systems hence, this article proposes a conceptual model for

349 integrating LM with OR techniques.

350 it is important to build a conceptual model for implementation in this sector as operations research and

351 lean manufacturing have had success in other industrial sectors yet, it is potential in agriculture is not

352 known. The importance of this conceptual model is based in the need to provide a guide for the

353 application of scientific, technical and philosophical principles of this methodology, given that it is a

354 novel proposal for agricultural production. The model shows the relationships between variables that

355 have the objective of minimizing production costs through reduction of waste. With this conceptual

356 model, preconceptions and assumptions or intuitions are avoided, making a clear step by step process

357 towards the achievement of objectives.

358 The model is novel to farmers and decision makers that want to manage farms as manufacturing

359 companies, as it provides a framework for operational planning processes. Figure 6 outlines the

360 conceptual model for achieving the integration between LM and OR.
 21

361

362 Figure 6. Conceptual model

363 The conceptual model presented in Figure 6 has the primary objective to support the decision-making

364 process on how to minimize waste in agricultural production systems. This conceptual model can be

365 interpreted as a guideline for making decisions in farming/for farmers, which helps through the

366 formulation of mathematical model that represents reductions of waste expressed as an objective

367 function.

368 The key elements of the methodology, the relationships, objectives as well as how it can be applied to

369 agricultural production are also explained in this section.

370 This research has identified the different types of waste generated in agricultural production and these

371 match the seven wastes described in LM. Relationships between these wastes can therefore, as a
 22

372 starting point, be determined. According to the above mentioned, LM and OR integrated in

373 mathematical model can work as a tool for solving waste problems in agricultural production and

374 reducing cost. To develop the methodology is not easy due to data, variables and constraints to design

375 the mathematical model that describe the operational planning problem in agricultural production. The

376 following requirements must be considered:

377 ● Parameters: the decision maker, who should know/be familiar with the managing of the farm,

378 defines these.

379 ● Variables: This represent the production. Variables could represent quantities, qualities, times,

380 workforce, distances, movements and any of the different kinds of waste.

381 ● Data: The data represent the real information for processing and making decision.

382 ● Mathematical model: In this point, it is very important to find relationships between variables,

383 parameters and objective function. In this stage an objective function is built that includes the costs

384 of each type of waste. The objective function and constrictions are made up of Transport, Inventory,

385 Motion, Waiting, Over-processing, Overproduction and Defects costs.

386 ● Solution method: It is important to have clarity on the type of mathematical model, computational

387 complexity and/or efficiency to provide a solution. The mathematical model expresses the costs of

388 waste through the objective function.

389 ● Solutions for model: in this case, one can find a unique solution or multiple solutions. An optimal

390 solution is, however, better.

391 ● Experimentation and validation: to evaluate this model, design of experiments must be carried along

392 with a formal analysis of results. Validation could be done in two ways viz, using real data so results

393 can be compared against the actual system or using randomly-generated data, so numerical

394 simulations provide some insights about the expected system behavior.
 23

395 4. Discussion

396 Upon review of literature, the authors can conclude that the approach has limitations, and this is across

397 every echelon of the supply chain. Some research integrates the different echelons of supply chain

398 whilst others propose an integration of the decision-making process. Most of the reviewed models in

399 this research focus on solving problems within the harvest, production and transportation scope. Only

400 a of these studies considered quality parameters and perishable products. Based on the review it can

401 be suggested that some factors such as quality of products, environmental issues, biological conditions,

402 waste and costs, interfere with the reliability and validation of models.

403 Historically agricultural production has always had problems with costs, the influence of uncertainty

404 and modes of production that are adapted by experience or convenience. In many cases, decisions

405 about the organization of the farms is not based on data, so that increase costs and affecting the

406 economic stability.

407 In addition, modern philosophies of quality management and productivity have been infrequently used

408 because of the skepticism that exists about the possibilities of success in agriculture, despite the success

409 that several management philosophies have had in other sectors. However, even with some limitations,

410 a methodology of operations management such as lean manufacturing can be successful in agricultural

411 production processes. This success can be obtained with a work guide that is proposed in this

412 conceptual model. The evidence needs to be transformed into costs minimization function for

413 implementation. In many reviewed works conceptual and mathematical or analytical models have been

414 developed to solve specific problems within the elements of the production system. The methodology

415 that is proposed in this research only involves the phases of the agricultural production system that

416 directly affect quality and productivity of farms. The phases are sowing, maintenance of crops and

417 harvesting. Looking for different solutions to the problem of formalizing a waste management
 24

418 methodology, the literature indicated that lean manufacturing could be an inspiring source for the

419 identification of types of waste in agriculture, given the nature of its implementation. Even with

420 limitations in the identification of crops and agricultural chains for appropriate implementation, lean

421 manufacturing allows users to identify overproduction, delays, defects, movements, transportation and

422 all types of waste in agricultural production.

423 On the other hand, it was necessary to have a mathematical model that could be built from the

424 combination of the resources necessary for production. The mathematical modeling of agricultural

425 chains as a tool to support the decision-making process is an important area of research, since

426 simultaneous problems can be solved in economic, environmental and social contexts. This integration

427 of solutions would allow the design of production systems that are productive, competitive and

428 committed to sustainable development. For this reason, the combination of lean manufacturing and

429 operations research through mathematical modeling offers us a robust methodology that could be used

430 to reduce waste, decrease costs, increases quality and to obtain sustainability. In the 1950´s, Cochrane

431 developed the first approach to solving the problem of agricultural production systems, where he

432 determined interactions between price, cost and production control. In this conceptual work, the

433 researchers outline a versatile modern methodology that could be used for reducing cost, improving

434 quality and productivity whilst also focused on sustainability.

435 If the agricultural industry is seen as a manufacturing industry92, LM can be a good strategy for

436 controlling and managing agricultural production systems, especially when used to support operations

437 research.

438 5. Conclusions and opportunities for future research

439 This paper describes a formal methodology that can be applied for developing the improvement of

440 processes and reducing waste.

 25

441 The models currently used are restricted in their definition and rely heavily on assumptions; thus, they

442 have reduced usability. Upon reflection of the literature review, we summarize/conclude that the

443 studies show a slight increase in the use of OR and business management in agriculture, which is

444 reflected by the increased number of papers published, but studies do not show the lean manufacturing

445 principles, reduction of wastes or operational conditions applied to agricultural productivity.

446 Because of the success of OR/LM application in other industries, we find it possible to use this tool for

447 quality management and productivity in agriculture. . The current conditions of agricultural production

448 require techniques and effective tools that increase the yields while minimizing costs, wastes and the

449 use of natural resources.

450 The opportunity to work ion the integration of these approaches in future research is significant and

451 promises huge results and benefits for individuals and the companies in the agricultural sector. The

452 integration of LM and OR approaches could minimize the amount of waste generated and natural

453 resources used in agricultural production systems.

454 It is important to direct future research to the use of LM principles in agricultural production systems,

455 defining work methodologies that illustrate systematic processes to reduce, minimize or eliminate the

456 seven types of waste identified in any production system, which are also evident in agriculture. A

457 potential reduction of waste could be obtained from the use of operations research and statistical

458 methods, estimating production scenarios with reliability levels that allow tactical decisions and

459 strategies to face changes in global markets and environmental conditions.

460 Acknowledgements

461 This work was funded by Departamento del Atlántico and Colombian Department of Science,

462 Technology and Innovation (Colciencias) through a scholarship from the Program for High-Level

463 Training (Grant number 673 – 2014).

 26

464 References

465 1. Cochrane W, Farm Prices: Myth and reality. Agric Hist 32 (4):267-268 (1958).
466 2. Thornthwasite CW., Operations Research in Agriculture. J Oper Res Soc 1(2):33-38 (1953).
467 3. French C., Application of operations research in farm operations and agricultural marketing. Oper
468 Res 6(5):766-775 (1958).
469 4. Ahumada O, Villalobos JR, Operational model for planning the harvest and distribution of
470 perishable agricultural products. Int J Prod Econ 133:677-687 (2011).
471 5. Dominik S, Poggi M, Harvest planning in the Brazilian sugar cane industry via mixed integer
472 programming. Eur J Oper Res 230:374 – 384. (2013)
473 6. Fao, Food Wastage footprint impacts on natural resources, summary reports. Rome: Food and
474 Agriculture Organization, 2013. Available from: http:\\www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3347e.pdf
475 (accessed 8 November 2015).
476 7. Fao, Cereal supply and demand brief. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization, 2018. Available
477 from: http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/ (accessed 6 May 2018).
478 8. Womack J, Jones D, Roos D. The machine that changed the world: the story of lean production.
479 New York: Free Press; 1990.
480 9. Soto W, Nadal E, González M, Plá L, Operational research models applied to the fresh fruit supply
481 chain. Eur J Oper Res 251:345-355 (2016).
482 10. Fao, Agricultura Mundial: hacia los años 2015/2030. Informe resumido. ISBN 92-5-304761-5.
483 Available from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y3557s/y3557s00.htm (Accessed 3 October
484 2015).
485 11. Fao, The impact of disasters and crises on agriculture and food security. ISBN: 978-92-5-130359-7.
486 Rome, Italy 2018. Available from: http//www.fao.org/3/I8656en.pdf (Accessed 10 December,
487 2018)
488 12. Departamento de Planeación nacional de Colombia (DNP). Pérdidas y desperdicios de Alimentos
489 en Colombia. Bogotá, 2016.
490 https://colaboracion.dnp.gov.co/CDT/Prensa/Publicaciones/P%C3%A9rdida%20y%20desperdicio
491 %20de%20alimentos%20en%20colombia.pdf (Accessed July 7 2016).
492 13. Lodree A, Uzochukwu E, Production planning for deteriorating item with stochastic demand and
493 consumer choice. Int J Prod Econ 116:219-232 (2008).
 27

494 14. Amorim P, Gunther H, Almada B, Multi-objective integrated production and distribution planning
495 of perishable products. Int J Prod Econ 138:89-101. (2012)
496 15. Itoh T, Ishii H, Nanseki T, A model of crop planning under uncertainty in agricultural management.
497 Int J Prod Econ 81:555-558 (2003).
498 16. Ahumada O, Villalobos JR, Mason N, Tactical planning of the production and distribution of fresh
499 agricultural products under uncertainty. Agr Syst 112:17-26. (2012).
500 17. Da Silva AF, Silva FA, Ximenez E, Addressing uncertainty in sugarcane harvest planning through a
501 revised multi-choice goal-programming model. Appl Math Model 39:5540 – 5558. (2015).
502 18. Riveiro JA, Marey MF, Marco JL, Alvarez C, Procedure for the classification and characterization of
503 farms for agricultural production planning: application in the northwest of Spain. Comput Electron
504 Agric 61:169-178 (2008).
505 19. Borodin V, Bourtembourg J, Hnaien F, Labadie N, Handling uncertainty in agricultural supply chain
506 management. Eur J Oper Res 254:348-359 (2016).
507 20. Osaki M, Batalha MO, Optimization model of agricultural production system in grain farms under
508 risk, in Sorriso, Brazil. Agr Syst 127:178-188 (2014).
509 21. Mason AN, Villalobos JR, Coordination of perishable crop production using auction mechanisms.
510 Agr Syst 138:18-30 (2015).
511 22. Weintraub A, Romero C, Operations research models and the management of agricultural and
512 forestry resources: a review and comparison. Interfaces 36(5):446-457 (2006).
513 23. Cardin M, Alvarez C, Model for decision-making in agricultural production planning. Comput
514 Electron Agric 86:131-139 (2012).
515 24. Tselikas N, Keramydas C, Toka A, Aidonis D, Iakovau E, Agrifood supply chain management: a
516 comprehensive hierarchical decision-making framework and a critical taxonomy. Biosys Eng
517 129:47-64 (2014).
518 25. Sopegno A, Busato P, Berruto R, Romanelli T, 2016. A cost prediction model for machine operation
519 in multi-field production systems. Sci Agr 73(5):1-14 (2016).
520 26. James J, Antle J, Basso B, Boote K, Conant R, Foster I, et al., Toward a new generation of agricultural
521 systems data, models, and knowledge products: State of agricultural systems science. Agr Syst
522 155:269-288 (2017).
523 27. Rika A, Tjahjono B, A framework for managing sustainable palm oil supply chain operations: a case
524 of Indonesia. Prod Plan Control 28(13):1093-1106 (2017).
 28

525 28. Weintraub A, Bare B, New Issues in forest land management from an operations research
526 perspective. Interfaces 26(5):9-25 (1996).
527 29. Leutscher K, Renkema J, Challa H, Modeling operational adaptations of tactical production plans
528 on pot plan nurseries: A simulation approach. Agr Syst 59: 67-78. (1999).
529 30. Cittadini ED, Lubbers MT, De Ridder N, Van Keulen H, Claassen G., Exploring options for farm-level
530 strategic and tactical decision-making in fruit production systems of South Patagonia-Argentina.
531 Agr Syst 98: 189-198 (2008).
532 31. Plá L, Sandars D, Higgings A, A perspective on operational research prospects for agriculture. J Oper
533 Res Soc 65:1078-1089 (2014).
534 32. Karlsson J, Rönnqvist M, Bergström J, An optimization model for annual harvest planning. Can J
535 For Res 34(8):1747-1754 (2004).
536 33. Biswas A, Pal B.B, Application of fuzzy goal programming technique to land use planning in
537 agricultural system. Omega 33:391-398. (2005).
538 34. Higgings AJ, Laredo LA, Improving Harvesting and Transport Planning within a Sugar Value Chain. J
539 Oper Res Soc 37(4):367-376 (2006).
540 35. Higgins A, Anthony G, Sandell G, Davies I, Prestwidge D, Andrew B, A framework for integrating a
541 complex harvesting and transport system for sugar production. Agr Syst 82; 99-115. (2004).
542 36. Womack J, Jones D. Lean thinking: banish waste and create wealth in your corporation. New York;
543 Free Press; 2003.
544 37. Jaehn F, Sustainable operations. Eur J Oper Res 253:243-264 (2016).
545 38. Miller WA, Leung LC, Azhar TM, Sargent S, Fuzzy Production Planning model for fresh tomato
546 packing. Int J Prod Econ 53:227-238 (1997).
547 39. Ferrer JC, MacCawley A, Maturana S, Toloza S, Vera J, An optimization approach for scheduling
548 wine grape harvest operations. Int J Prod Econ 112:985-999 (2008).
549 40. Warnecke HJ, Huser M, Lean Production. Int J Prod Econ 41:37-43 (1995).
550 41. De Treville S, Antonakis J, Could lean production job design be intrinsically motivating? Contextual,
551 configurational, and levels-of-analysis issues. J Oper Manag 24:99-123 (2006).
552 42. Pool A, Wijngaard J, Van der Zee D, Lean planning in the semi-process industry, a case study. Int J
553 Prod Econ 131:194-203 (2011).
 29

554 43. Yang M, Hong P, Modi S, Impact of lean manufacturing and environmental management on
555 business performance: An empirical study of manufacturing firms. Int J Prod Econ 129:251-261
556 (2011).
557 44. Vinícius L, Mahlmann L, Giraldo F, Hofmannc N, Frozzaa R, Aldana S, et al., A model for Lean and
558 Green integration and monitoring for the coffee sector. Comput Electron Agric 150:62-73 (2018).
559 45. Dora M, Kumar M, Van Goubergen D, Molnar A, Gellynck X, Trends Food Sci Technol 31:156-164
560 (2013).
561 46. Danese P, Manfè V, Romano P, Systematic Literature Review on Recent Lean Research: State-of-
562 the-art and Future Directions. Int J Manag Rev 20(2):579 – 605 (2018).
563 47. Henao R, Sarache W, Gómez I, Lean Manufacturing and sustainable performance: trends and future
564 challenges. J Clean Prod 208:99-116 (2019).
565 48. Folinas D, Aidonis D, Triantafillou D, Malindretos G, Exploring the greening of the food supply chain
566 with lean thinking techniques. HAICTA 2013, Procedia Technology 8:416-424 (2013).
567 49. Ufua D, Papadopoulos T, Midgley G, Systemic lean Intervention. Enhancing lean with community
568 operational research. Eur J Oper Res 268(3):1134 -1148 (2018).
569 50. Abdulkadri A, Ajibefun I, Developing alternative farm plans cropping system decision-making. Agr
570 Syst 56(4): 431-442 (1998).
571 51. Janová J, Crop planning optimization model: the validation and verification processes. Cent Eur J
572 Oper Res 20(3): 451–462 (2012).
573 52. Xua Y, Huanga G, Shao L, Agricultural farming planning and water resources management under
574 fuzzy uncertainty. Eng Optimiz 46(1): 270-288 (2014).
575 53. Adham A, Wesseling J, Riksen M, Ouessar M, Ritsema C, A water harvesting model for optimizing
576 rainwater harvesting in the wadi oum zessar wathershed, Tunisia. Agric Water Manag 176:191-202
577 (2016).
578 54. Bravo M, Gonzalez I, Applying stochastic goal programming: a case study on water use planning.
579 Cent Eur J Oper Res 196:1123-1129 (2009).
580 55. Hester S, Cacho O, Modelling Apple orchard system. Agr Syst 77:137-154. (2003).
581 56. Recio B, Rubio F, Criado JA, A decision support system for farm planning using AgriSupport II. Decis
582 Support Syst 36:189-203 (2003).
583 57. Caixeta-Filho J, Orange harvesting schedulling management: A case Study. J Oper Res Soc 57(6):
584 637-642 (2006).
 30

585 58. Biswas A, Pal BB, Application of fuzzy goal programming technique to land use planning in
586 agricultural system. Omega 33:391-398 (2005)
587 59. Sethanan K, Neungmatcha W, Multi-Objective particle swarm optimization for mechanical
588 harvester route planning of sugarcane field operations. Eur J Oper Res 252:969-984. (2016).
589 60. Pongopat P, Gheewala S, Silalertruksa T, An assessment of harvesting practices of sugarcane in the
590 central region in Thailand. J Clean Prod 142(3):1138-1147 (2017).
591 61. Edwards G, Sørensen C, Bochtis D, Munkholm L, Optimised schedules for sequential agricultural
592 operations using a tabu search method. Comput Electron Agric 116:102–113 (2015).
593 62. Zhou K, Jensen A, Bochtis D, Sørensen C, Simulation model for sequential in-field machinery
594 operations in a potato production system. Comput Electron Agric 116:173–186. (2015).
595 63. Lowe T, Preckel J, Decision technologies for agribusiness problems: a brief review of selected
596 literature and a call for research. Manuf Serv Op 6(3):201-208 (2004).
597 64. Alfonso-Lizarazo E, Montoya-Torres J, Gutiérrez-Franco E, Modeling reverse logistics process in the
598 agro-industrial sector: The case of the palm oil supply chain. Appl Math Model 37(23):9652-9664
599 (2013).
600 65. Arnaout J, Maatouk M, Optimization of quality and Operational costs through improved scheduling
601 of harvest operations. Int Trans Oper Res 17 (5): 595-605 (2010).
602 66. Tijskens L, Polderdijk J, A generic model for keeping quality of vegetable produce during storage
603 and distribution. Agr Syst 51(4):431-452 (1996).
604 67. Wang X, Lia D, O’Brien C, Optimisation of traceability and operations planning: and integrated
605 model for perishable food production. Int J Prod Res 47(11): 2865–2886 (2009).
606 68. Vitoriano B, Ortuño M, Recio B, Rubio F, Alonso A, Two alternatives models for farm management:
607 discrete versus continuous time horizon. Eur J Oper Res 144:613-628. (2003).
608 69. Ahumada O., Villalobos J.R., Application of planning models in the agri-food supply chain: A review.
609 Eur J Oper Res 195:1-20 (2009).
610 70. Higgins A, Miller C, Archer A, Ton T, Fletcher C, McAllister R, Challenges of operations research
611 practice in agricultural value chains. J Oper Res Soc 61(6):964-973. (2010).
612 71. Bohle C, Maturana S, Vera J, A robust optimization approach to wine grape harvesting scheduling.
613 Eur J Oper Res 200:245-252 (2010).
614 72. Leung S, Lai K, Ng W, Wu Y, A robust optimization model for production planning of perishable
615 products. J Oper Res Soc 58(4):413-422 (2007).
 31

616 73. Rong A, Akkerman R, Grunow M, An optimization approach for managing fresh food quality
617 throughout the supply chain. Int J Prod Econ 131:412-429 (2011).
618 74. Thuankaewsing S, Khamjam S, Piewthongngam K, Pathumnakul S, Harvest scheduling algorithm to
619 equalize supplier benefits: a case study from the Thai sugar cane industry. Comput Electron Agric
620 110:42-55 (2015).
621 75. Marquez A., Banos R., Montoya M., Manzano F., Montoya F., Multiobjective crop planning using
622 Pareto- based evolutionary algorithms. J Agric Econ 42:649-656 (2011).
623 76. Perondi D, Fraisse C, Staub C, Cerbaro V, Barreto D, Pequeno D, et al., Crop season planning tool:
624 Adjusting sowing decisions to reduce the risk of extreme weather events. Comput Electron Agric
625 156:62-70 (2019).
626 77. Mardani M, Ziaee S, Nikouei A, Ahmadpour M, Mathematical programming model (MMP) for
627 optimization of regional cropping patterns decisions: A case study. Agr Syst 173:218-232 (2019),
628 78. González M, Soto W, Gómez J, Caroca D, Modelos de optimización para la planificación de cosecha
629 en huertos de manzanas. XLVII SBPO, Simposio Brasilero de Pesquisa Operacional 634- 644 (2015).
630 79. De Keizer M., Akkerman R., Grunow M., Bloemhof J., Haijema R., Van der Vorst J., Logistics network
631 design for perishable products with heterogeneous quality decay. Eur J Oper Res 262: 535-549
632 (2017).
633 80. Gan-qiong L, Shi-wei X, Zhe-min L, Yi-guo S, Xiao-xia D, Using quantile regression approach to
634 analyse price movements of Agricultural products in China. J Integr Agric 11(4):674-683 (2012).
635 81. Catalá L, Durand G, Blanco A, Bandoni J, Mathematical model for strategic planning optimization in
636 the pome fruit industry. Agr Syst 115:63-71 (2013).
637 82. Lucas M, Chhajed D, Applications of location analysis in agriculture: a survey. J Oper Res Soc
638 55(6):561-578 (2004).
639 83. Blackburn J, Scudder G, Supply chain strategies for perishable products: the case of fresh produce.
640 Prod. Oper. Manag 18(2):129-137 (2009).
641 84. Blanco V, Carpente L, Hinojosa Y, Puerto J, Planning for agricultural forage and trucks: model,
642 heuristics and case study. Netw Spat Econ 10:321-343 (2010).
643 85. Sha-sha L, Yan-sui L, Hua-lou L, Xing-liang G, Agricultural production structure optimization: A case
644 study of major grain producing areas, China. J Integr Agric 12(1):184-197 (2013).
645 86. Dyah R, Van Donk D, Teunter R, Crop-related harvesting and processing planning: a review. Int J
646 Prod Econ 174:76-92 (2016).
 32

647 87. Lin Y, Ping S, Cao H, Liu N, Control of crop harvesting and transport process by kanban mechanism.
648 The Open Automation and Control System Journal 5:67-72. (2013).
649 88. Cox A, Chicksand D, The limits of lean management thinking: multiple retailers and food and
650 farming supply chains. Eur. Manag. J 23(6):648-662 (2005).
651 89. Higgins A., Australian sugar mills optimize harvester rosters to improve production. Interfaces
652 32(3):15-25 (2002).
653 90. Barth H, Melin M, A green lean approach to global competition and change climate in the
654 agricultural sector – A Swedish case study. J Clean Prod 204: 183-192 (2018).
655 91. Souza L, Costa L, Gohr C, Carvalho L, Da Silva M, Criteria and practices for lean and green
656 performance assessment: Systematic review and conceptual framework. J Clean Prod 218: 746-762
657 (2018).
658 92. Carr G., The future of agriculture, Factory fresh. The Economist 1-38 (2016).
659 http://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2016-06-09/factory-fresh (accessed 7 July
660 2016).
661

View publication stats