English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Any technology – such as precision farming – that is in line with the concept of sustainable intensification can contribute to achieving a sustainable food system. However, these possibilities can only be achieved if the associated benefits can be properly measured and at the same time farmers perceptions and behaviour are better understood. Modern precision agriculture (PA) started after 2000, when GPS signals were made available to the public. In the last ten years, PA has moved from state-of-the-art science to standard practice and already 70-80 per cent of new farm equipment sold contains some form of PA component (CEMA, 2014). Precision farming can be considered as an agricultural innovation. It has been shown that young, wellcapitalised farmers with large land areas and higher levels of education tend to be more willing to apply new technologies. PA technologies require significant investment of both capital and time, but provide both productivity and profitability benefits. The data generated by these technologies have been one of the reasons that farmers adopt PA (Griffin et al., 2017). Conversely, among the main barriers are the high investment cost, cost of specific precision services, lack of IT knowledge, insufficient communication and co-operation between actors and, very importantly, a gap in knowledge transfer between science and practical applications. (Fountas et al., 2005; DEFRA, 2013; Antolini et al., 2015; EIP-AGRI, 2015). Currently, the biggest share of PA use takes place in the USA. The results of the most recent farm-level study in the USA show that the proportion of non-adopters has significantly declined, especially over the last six years, to 33 per cent by 2016 (Griffin et al., 2017). It is important to note that in this case high labour costs encourage the spread of technology. Furthermore, significant state subsidy also promotes its broader application (Technavio, 2015). Even so, USDA’s Agricultural Resource Management Survey (Schimmelpfennig, 2016) shows that adoption rates vary significantly across different types of PA technology and uptake also depends on the crop. For example, maize and soybeans have higher shares of cropped area (above 30 per cent) using yield mapping than other crops, guidance was used by 45-50 per cent of all crops, while the adoption of variable-rate technology (VRT) in maize, soybeans and rice were all above 20 per cent. In Australia, 20 per cent of maize producers used precision cultivation in 2012 (OECD, 2016), but this proportion is much higher among farmers with large land areas. Llewellyn and Ouzman (2014) reported that 77 per cent of farmers growing more than 500 hectares of grain use automatic steering and 33 per cent carry out yield mapping. Thirty-five per cent of farmers have variable-rate fertiliser capability, but only 15 per cent of them use VRT. PA has been making its way into farms across Europe, but the uptake is still very slow, and there is great variation among European Union (EU) Member States. According to a survey completed in 2012 (DEFRA, 2013), in England only TAKÁCSNÉ GYÖRGY Katalin**1, LÁMFALUSI Ibolya*2, MOLNÁR András*, SULYOK Dénes***,

Precision agriculture in Hungary: assessment of perceptions and accounting records of FADN arable farms