Authors:
József Popp Hungarian National Bank – Research Center, John von Neumann University, 6000 Kecskemét, Hungary
College of Business and Economics, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2006, South Africa

Search for other papers by József Popp in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Judit Oláh Hungarian National Bank – Research Center, John von Neumann University, 6000 Kecskemét, Hungary
College of Business and Economics, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2006, South Africa

Search for other papers by Judit Oláh in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Miklós Neményi Department of Biosystems Engineering and Precision Technology, Albert Kázmér Mosonmagyaróvár Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Széchenyi István University, H-9200 Mosonmagyaróvár, Hungary
Vienna University of Technology, Vienna 1040, Austria

Search for other papers by Miklós Neményi in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Anikó Nyéki Department of Biosystems Engineering and Precision Technology, Albert Kázmér Mosonmagyaróvár Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Széchenyi István University, H-9200 Mosonmagyaróvár, Hungary

Search for other papers by Anikó Nyéki in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5388-2241
Open access

Abstract

The article evaluates how well the goals of the European Green Deal are justified, especially considering the risks to energy and food security arising from the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. We agree with the objectives of the European Green Agreement as a whole, but whether some of the objectives which feature in the EASAC study can be achieved by 2030 is questionable, and the description of the tools necessary to achieve the objectives is incomplete. Among other things, there is hardly any mention of the role played by precision farming with digitalization, which is a revolutionary change from an ecological and economic point of view, in reducing the use of synthetic inputs, in regenerating the original state of the soil, in reducing GHG emissions, thus in increasing biodiversity, and at the same time in intensifying production, and finally in expanding the application of biotechnology. We examine these areas in our analysis. Some of the objectives of the EASAC study to be achieved by 2030 are subject to debate, and the description of the information and communication conditions necessary to achieve the objectives is incomplete. The IoT (Internet of Things) responds to global and local challenges: it integrates the precision technologies, WSNs (Wireless Sensor Networks), artificial intelligence, mobile field (Smart Small Robots) and remote data loggers (UAVs: Unmanned Air Vehicles and satellites), Big Data, and cloud computing. Consequently, decision support is increasingly developing into unmanned decision making. IoT (Internet of Things) is the basis of “Farm to Fork” and “Lab to Field” monitoring approaches.

This article evaluates the implementation of European Green Agreement objectives in light of energy and food security risks arising from the Russia-Ukraine conflict. While overall support for the agreement exists, the feasibility of certain EASAC study objectives by 2030 is called into question due to insufficient tools specifications. Notably absent is the emphasis on precision farming with digitalization, which is a transformative ecological and economic practice. Our analyses look into its function in reducing synthetic inputs, soil regeneration, GHG emission reduction, biodiversity enhancement, production intensification, and biotechnology development. Debates surround EASAC study objectives for 2030, despite limited information and communication restrictions. The Internet of Things (IoT) arises as a solution, combining precision technology, WSNs (wireless sensor networks), AI (artificial intelligence), smart small robots, UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles), satellites, big data, and cloud computing. As a result, decision support turns toward unmanned decision-making, with IoT laying the groundwork for “Farm to Fork” and “Lab to Field” monitoring systems.

Abstract

The article evaluates how well the goals of the European Green Deal are justified, especially considering the risks to energy and food security arising from the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. We agree with the objectives of the European Green Agreement as a whole, but whether some of the objectives which feature in the EASAC study can be achieved by 2030 is questionable, and the description of the tools necessary to achieve the objectives is incomplete. Among other things, there is hardly any mention of the role played by precision farming with digitalization, which is a revolutionary change from an ecological and economic point of view, in reducing the use of synthetic inputs, in regenerating the original state of the soil, in reducing GHG emissions, thus in increasing biodiversity, and at the same time in intensifying production, and finally in expanding the application of biotechnology. We examine these areas in our analysis. Some of the objectives of the EASAC study to be achieved by 2030 are subject to debate, and the description of the information and communication conditions necessary to achieve the objectives is incomplete. The IoT (Internet of Things) responds to global and local challenges: it integrates the precision technologies, WSNs (Wireless Sensor Networks), artificial intelligence, mobile field (Smart Small Robots) and remote data loggers (UAVs: Unmanned Air Vehicles and satellites), Big Data, and cloud computing. Consequently, decision support is increasingly developing into unmanned decision making. IoT (Internet of Things) is the basis of “Farm to Fork” and “Lab to Field” monitoring approaches.

This article evaluates the implementation of European Green Agreement objectives in light of energy and food security risks arising from the Russia-Ukraine conflict. While overall support for the agreement exists, the feasibility of certain EASAC study objectives by 2030 is called into question due to insufficient tools specifications. Notably absent is the emphasis on precision farming with digitalization, which is a transformative ecological and economic practice. Our analyses look into its function in reducing synthetic inputs, soil regeneration, GHG emission reduction, biodiversity enhancement, production intensification, and biotechnology development. Debates surround EASAC study objectives for 2030, despite limited information and communication restrictions. The Internet of Things (IoT) arises as a solution, combining precision technology, WSNs (wireless sensor networks), AI (artificial intelligence), smart small robots, UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles), satellites, big data, and cloud computing. As a result, decision support turns toward unmanned decision-making, with IoT laying the groundwork for “Farm to Fork” and “Lab to Field” monitoring systems.

Introduction

The EASAC (European Academies' Science Advisory Council) study entitled “Regenerative Agriculture in Europe” was published in April 2022. The article offers an in-depth examination of the key elements of regenerative agriculture and presents suggestions for policy makers and other interested parties. The EASAC team investigated whether agriculture could play a role in conserving biodiversity and protecting the climate. They also assessed if existing EU policies support the adoption of regenerative farming practices. Given the European Green Deal's focus on the Biodiversity Strategy and the Farm-to-Fork Strategy, this examination is timely. The shared aim is to mitigate agriculture's negative impacts on biodiversity and climate while rejuvenating the biodiversity of farmlands. Furthermore, the EASAC researchers proposed enhancements to specific aspects of the Common Agricultural Policy, underlining the significance of varying agricultural production spatially and temporally, as well as the necessity of revitalizing natural ecosystems. These measures are crucial not only for biodiversity conservation but also for the long-term viability of farming practices. We generally agree with the objectives of the European Green Agreement, but whether some of the objectives which feature in the EASAC study can be achieved by 2030 is questionable, and the description of the tools necessary to achieve the objectives is incomplete. We will examine these below.

Global food systems versus food security

Chapter 2 of the EASAC study (Challenges in the Global Food System) briefly touches on the challenges of global food supply systems (EASAC report, 2022), but a more detailed analysis is required for a deeper understanding of the connections. According to the UN forecast, the world's population will grow from today's 8 billion people to 9.7 billion people by 2050. China is the only country in the world to have introduced birth control measures. Previous longer-term forecasts have generally underestimated global population growth. The reason for this is that the annual growth rate of the world's population has decreased much more slowly than expected in the last ten years, and is still around 1% per year today, so by 2050 the Earth's population is expected to exceed ten billion people. The fastest population growth is forecast in sub-Saharan Africa, with smaller growth expected in Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, while relatively little change is expected in Europe and North America (United Nations, 2019).

Between 2020 and 2030, about 1.4 billion children will be born and 1.2 billion 15–24-year-olds will enter adulthood; this will significantly influence changes in diet (Secretary-General & UN, 2021). Currently, over 50% of the global population resides in urban areas, and predictions indicate that this figure will rise to encompass two-thirds of the world's inhabitants by the year 2050. All these processes are connected to the rapid change in eating habits, and in fact, changes in diet are an even bigger problem from the point of view of food production than population growth. Current approximations by the FAO (The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) propose that if the rate of increase in hunger continues, the rate of undernourishment in Africa will rise from 19.1% in 2019 to 25.7% in 2030 (in Asia this rate is 8.3%). The number of undernourished people has decreased in recent decades, but in 2019, 8.9% of the world's population was still undernourished (World Health Organization & FAO, 2020). In countries poor in natural resources, access to food with sufficient energy content is the main challenge, and in high-income countries, social, cultural and economic factors have contributed to the development of an unhealthy, inadequately nutritious food selection (Clark et al., 2020).

Since the 1960s, the increase in worldwide agricultural output has exceeded the rate of population growth. The success achieved so far in enhancing agricultural production has come at a high price. Food supply systems already exceed limits on critical global resources, and substantial quantities of food are lost or wasted, accounting for 25–30% of global food production and 8–10% of global GHG emissions (World Health Organization & FAO, 2020). Two important drivers of recent dietary change have been rising incomes and urbanization. Estimations suggest that over three billion individuals globally cannot afford a nutritious diet (Mannar et al., 2020). Particularly in economically developing nations, there is a significant deficiency in essential micronutrients – iron, zinc, vitamins, folate and iodine – as these are the most difficult to provide without a varied diet. In 2017, approximately 8% of global deaths were attributable to overweight and obesity (Stanaway et al., 2018). The spread of sustainable food production suggested by the EASAC study is associated with price increases that also reflect the costs of externalities, while at the same time encouraging the rational use of resources, the reduction of food loss and the curbing of demand for certain foods; however, they may limit the poor's access to food (Secretary-General & UN, 2021; World Health Organization & FAO, 2020).

Climate change is also increasingly affecting food security (heat waves, severe storms, floods, droughts, etc.). The circumstances are especially critical in nations with lower and middle economic standings, where a significant portion of the population relies on farming for survival and exhibits minimal levels of food stability and resilience to change. Moreover, in numerous countries with lower economic resources, the present intake of foods derived from animals falls short of fulfilling the micronutrient requirements, particularly for young kids. All this means that promoting dietary change in different regions requires a nuanced approach because, in richer countries, it is recommended to reduce the consumption of animal-derived foods to achieve health and ecological objectives (Panel, 2020). 70% of the EU's food imports come from developing countries affected by climate change. Rising temperatures are associated with migration in countries where the size of the agricultural sector is decisive in the economy, and one of the serious consequences of climate change has significant decrease in yields. All these processes further increase the refugee crisis and, at the same time, the challenges facing the EU.

Food supply systems have become globalized and specialized in the production, processing, and trade of the products of fewer and fewer species of plants and animals, primarily through the production of foods of animal origin. Almost a quarter of the food produced in the world goes into world trade and meets the daily food needs of at least one billion people. Global food trade affects 24% of agricultural land, 23% of agricultural water use and 35% of marine food. The EU is the leading exporter of agricultural and food products and the third largest importer (including seafood imports). As a result of extensive international trade, the location of food production and consumption is gradually separated in space (and time), so consumers have no knowledge of the production practices of food-exporting countries, and this process also increases the risk of food security (see the Russian-Ukrainian war). In parallel with the increasing consumption of meat and dairy products, the use of land is also changing in favor of fodder production, which also leads to increasing deforestation. In the EU, two-thirds of the agricultural area is occupied by animal husbandry; at the global level this proportion already reaches 70%, mainly thanks to extensive grazing (Conchedda & Tubiello, 2020).

The bottleneck of EU agriculture: agricultural land and yields per unit area

The EASAC's analysis in Chapter 3 (Challenges and Opportunities in European Agriculture) does not address the specific challenges and opportunities of EU agriculture (EASAC report, 2022). The bottleneck for satisfying the growing food demand is the available agricultural area, including the arable and plantation areas, as well as the yield per hectare. There are limits to the increase in agricultural land, but in addition to the growing population, the process of urbanization and motorization is also taking valuable agricultural land away from agriculture. The global agricultural area per capita has decreased by 30%, or 0.6 ha, since 1990. This also means that the productivity of agricultural land has increased in parallel with the growth of the global population. While in 1960, one hectare of arable land and plantations produced enough food for only 2 people, in 2020 it was already enough for 5 people; in 2050 the food needs must be produced for at least 6 people, while the locations of food production and consumption are moving further and further apart. In the EU, there is 0.35 ha of agricultural land per person, which is much less than the 0.6 ha used at the global level. It is clear from this that sustainable intensification of agricultural production in the EU is the only viable path in the future. In the EU, one hectare of arable and plantation land contributes to the food needs of 4 people (on a global level, this value is 5 people). In the EU, the per capita arable and plantation area of 0.24 ha is slightly higher than the world average of 0.2 ha, while the agricultural area per capita is much lower than the world average (0.35 and 0.6 ha). The reason for this is that the proportion of grassland in the agricultural area in the EU is much lower (31%) than the global average (66%). The preponderance of arable and plantation land also strengthens the role of sustainable intensification (European Commission, 2020). According to the EASAC study, agriculture accounts for more than 30% of water use in the EU (EASAC report, 2022). According to various sources, agriculture accounts for 24–40% of water use in the EU. This rate is far from the 70% of water used by agriculture globally. The proportion of the agricultural area equipped with an irrigation system is 6.5% in the EU, but 22% globally. Based on these facts, it is advisable to increase the irrigated area, especially by expanding the regenerative agricultural model; otherwise, it will be difficult to maintain specific yields (European Commission, 2020).

Maintaining agricultural productivity versus increasing biodiversity

Chapter 4 of the EASAC study (Regenerative farming: Enhancing carbon sequestration, biodiversity, and food production in European agricultural practices.) emphasizes that, in addition to maintaining agricultural productivity, it is justified to increase biodiversity and ecosystem services, but at the same time, it does not detail how to maintain agricultural productivity in addition to achieving the biodiversity goals that have been set, while the 0.35 ha of agricultural land per person in the EU is lower than the global average (0.6 ha/person). Precision farming and agricultural digitization also contribute to increasing biodiversity by reducing the use of specific inputs. If we gradually replace the use of fossil-derived inputs with renewable inputs by 2050, we will achieve the greatest result in biodiversity (European Commission, 2019).

The EU has undertaken to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 compared to 2005, and by 2025, the CO2 emission trading system will be extended to the transport sector and the construction industry in addition to heavy industry. The price of CO2 emissions in the EU emissions trading system rose from 6 euros to 80 euros per ton between 2017 and 2022 (October), but in the first months of 2022, it approached 100 euros (Ember, 2022). The EASAC study highlights the role of the soil in carbon sequestration and carbon storage (carbon farming); however, the committee has so far not dealt with the inclusion of agricultural production (tillage) in the trading system for CO2 emissions. According to the latest research published since the publication of the EASAC study, compared to previous calculations, surprising results were obtained regarding the GHG emissions calculated along the food chain. Between 1990 and 2019, the share of global emissions from the food chain decreased from 40% to 31% of all GHG emissions, while in the EU it increased from 23% to 31% of total EU emissions. Within the food chain, the share of global emissions of agricultural production fell from 19% to 13%, and in the EU from 16% to 13%. So, in the food chain as a whole and in the agricultural production phase, the proportion of GHG emissions in 2019 was the same at the global and EU levels (13–13%). At the same time, the share of emissions from the phases before (input supply) and after (processing and trade) agricultural production increased from 8% to 11% globally and from 6% to 17% in the EU, mainly as a result of the increasing consumption of fossil fuels. Finally, the proportion of GHG emissions from land use change decreased from 13% to 6% globally during the period under review, while in the EU the proportion remained steady at 1% (Tubiello et al., 2022). The proportion of GHG emissions of the food chain has therefore increased significantly in the EU, primarily due to the increasing utilization of non-renewable energy sources in the phases before and after agricultural production.

On Earth, energy consumption has also increased almost in parallel to the increase in the number of people (Popp et al., 2021). Today, the proportion of fossil energy in final energy consumption is 80%, and that of renewable energy sources is around 20%, both in the EU and globally. In the EU, reducing energy dependence by 50–60% and quickly replacing fossil energy sources with renewable energy sources is a matter of serious economic and political consideration, while rising energy prices (and food prices) cause serious social tension. The current conflict between Russia and Ukraine exacerbates the food security crisis, but the number of hungry people in the EU is also increasing. The EASAC study could not deal with the energy and food security consequences of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, but in the meantime, the rapid replacement of imports of fossil energy carriers from Russia has accelerated in the EU. At the same time, the Russian-Ukrainian war can also have a positive effect on the timely accomplishment of the climate protection goals of the European Green Agreement. In order to quickly reduce high energy prices and dependence on Russian fossil fuels, the European Commission is looking for a solution to increase the production and enhance the utilization of renewable energy and augment energy efficiency. Rising GHG emission prices will also help reduce dependence on Russian gas and oil imports while encouraging investment in low-GHG alternative energy sources. The EU's REPowerEU energy plan can have the most direct impact in accelerating the deployment of wind and solar power and improving energy efficiency. A climate-neutral EU will still not be completely energy independent in the production of renewable and nuclear energy and green hydrogen, but excessive import dependence on one country will be greatly reduced (REPowerEU, 2022).

Response the challenges

Role of precision farming and agricultural digitalization

Precision farming and agricultural digitization also contribute to sustainable production, including the increase of biodiversity, and enable the intensification of production, despite the reduction of specific input consumption. If we succeed in greatly reducing the use of fossil-derived inputs with renewable inputs by 2050 through the expansion of agricultural digitalization, then we will achieve the greatest biodiversity (European Commission, 2019). Agricultural innovation is deemed successful only when it aligns with ecological standards and narrows the disparity in living conditions between advanced and emerging nations, notably through the elimination of hunger and ensuring the availability of clean drinking water (Neményi, 2020). To solve these challenges, various technological ideas have been created in order to increase biodiversity, significantly reduce the utilization of synthetic chemicals and fertilizers, restore the soil to its original state, reduce GHG emissions, and mitigate other impacts of climate change. The digitization of agricultural production began in 1972, when NASA put the Landsat satellite into orbit, which was used to forecast yields using global remote sensing techniques. In agriculture, the first set of conditions for the digital paradigm shift is precision farming.

The application of the GPS (Global Positioning System) navigation system in the first half of 1990 laid the foundations of precision farming, which represents a revolutionary change from an economic and ecological point of view. Positioning with submeter accuracy can be achieved with a differential signal, and with RTK (Real Time Kinematics) correction data, positioning with centimeter accuracy (±2–3 cm) can be achieved. Precision technology, primarily used in crop cultivation, enables the creation of accurate digital maps (weeds, pests, pathogens, soil physical and chemical characteristics, micro and macro nutrient supply, yield and expected yield, etc.), and based on these, with the application of VRT (Variable Rate Technology), soil cultivation, planting, mechanical or chemical weeding, and nutrient supplementation, including top fertilization and irrigation, can be site-specific. Precision technologies create increasingly large databases, since the field is divided into manager zones, within which the physical, chemical, topographic and other characteristics of the soil are considered homogeneous and treatments are carried out accordingly, thus optimizing the use of input materials. Depending on the area and ecological features, this can achieve savings of up to 70–80% in the case of plant protection agents and chemicals, but robot steering (automatic guidance) and the section management of the working machine (automatic section control) also almost eliminate the doubling up or overlapping of the work operations, which means the use of fossil fuels can also be greatly reduced in agricultural production. With satellite, aircraft and drone (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle: UAV) remote sensing, or by collecting data by proximal, mainly smart small robots (Unmanned Ground Vehicle: UGV), various changes and problems can be detected, and databases and Big Data that are many orders of magnitude larger than before can be collected (Ambrus et al., 2022; Nyéki et al., 2021). At the same time, continuous environmental monitoring comes into effect, which can be used to prevent any harmful effects while increasing the yield, or at least keeping it at the same level.

Sustainable agricultural intensification

The assessment of regenerative agriculture may differ from a practical, research and social point of view, but at the same time the aspects of agroecology and sustainable intensive production are not mutually exclusive. The fundamental problem is that the impact of polluting technologies can primarily be monitored globally, since local, panel-level data requires accurate monitoring, the technical and IT conditions of which are currently at the R&D, implementation, and testing stages, even in developed countries.

Smart farming is an adaptable system that uses ICT (Information and Communication Technology) for real-time decision-making, and to which IoT (Internet of Things) technologies are linked. In the processing of data, artificial intelligence comes to the fore through the application of cloud computing. The IoT provides a demonstrable opportunity for the sustainable intensification of production; moreover, agriculture can respond flexibly to continuous changes. If the foundations of the new challenges are based on the IoT, the significance of strategic management based on artificial intelligence and intellectual capital will grow rapidly, and even research and education can be integrated into this system (Struik & Kuyper, 2017).

Connected planet

The IERC (IoT European Research Cluster) definition states that the IoT is: “A dynamic global network infrastructure with self-configuring capabilities based on standard and interoperable communication protocols where physical and virtual ‘things’ have identities, physical attributes, and virtual personalities and use intelligent interfaces, and are seamlessly integrated into the information network.” (IERC, 2014).

The IoT approaches both nature and man-made systems with a holistic approach and brings cognition and knowledge to a new level by connecting them. As a result, it contributes to the development of the symbiosis between the two systems and to the optimization of their cooperation. Its great advantage is that globally, natural and social actions can be connected with regional and local processes.

The IoT provides the opportunity to monitor the production area and its immediate or remote environment with sensors that detect microclimate, soil condition, plant condition and GHG gas emissions. With this, their influence on each other can be analyzed; for example, evolutionary processes can be monitored in the local field environment or even in the region (Turcotte et al., 2017).

The great advantage of the IoT is that it puts the survival and even development of small-scale, diverse farms that specifically favor biodiversity on a completely new, profitable basis. It is also possible to increase specific yields under the conditions of organic farming (Pro-Soil, 2021). The IoT provides a demonstrable opportunity for the sustainable enhancement of production and also enables the analysis of the consequences of scientifically acceptable compromises necessary to achieve goals. The IoT is the ICT (information and communication technology) basis of the “farm to fork” monitoring system.

Impact of the IoT on biotechnology

To achieve sustainability, we can witness rapid research and development in all sectors, including the most versatile field, biotechnology. The Internet of Things (IoT) offers an opportunity for efficient, reproducible, rapid, and accurate research within the realm of biotechnology. Different biotechnology research laboratories can be connected to the IoT system. The IoT leads to paradigmatic improvements in the performance of everyday tasks such as mechanized cleansing of glassware and rocks, filling of multi tite plates, dosing of cell culture medium, laboratory micropipetting, etc. The real paradigm shift in the future will mean that the biotechnology laboratory tests supervised by the IoT system and similar experiments carried out under natural conditions can be integrated, and the correlations between the results can be analyzed. In both systems – the laboratory and the natural environment –, the IoT can carry out real time data collection, and with the application of artificial intelligence and Cloud computing Big Data analyses can be performed. Thus, the IoT contributes to the development of laboratory experiments in vivo and even monitoring in real production conditions, putting field experiments on a completely new basis (Express BBE, 2019). This is the “Lab to Field” approach.

Conclusions

If a long-term or permanent suspension of the European Green Deal occurs, the environmental repercussions will be felt for decades. What we win in the short term, we may lose in the longer term, and we may even give up on the implementation of a climate-neutral circular bioeconomy. We believe that these are short-term concessions – increasing fossil energy production, supporting fossil energy use, breaking or postponing the fulfilment of sustainability commitments, increasing the budget deficit – mainly as a result of the energy price explosion and the resulting rising production costs and consumer prices, but, depending on the end of the war, it is expected that the original schedule will be restored. Originally, the Green Agreement did not serve the purpose of establishing peace and security, yet it has now become evident that a unified energy strategy and an energy union are essential for attaining its objectives. At the same time, the agreement will have a significant impact on the trade and political relations maintained with the EU's partners, but potential trade and political conflicts may also arise.

Whatever challenge we are investigating, Big Data, the continuous recording of large databases and their analysis based on artificial intelligence using Cloud computing, is essential for their solution. In the future, the real paradigm shift in the field of data collection will be the integration of the biotechnology lab infrastructure with the IoT system. This significantly increases the effectiveness of field and ecological experiments. However, to accomplish these strategic goals, it is essential to create a food supply for the growing population of the Earth in adequate quantity and quality. This can only be achieved based on and using state-of-the-art information and digitalization technologies. Otherwise, the adverse effect of climate change and the energy deficit will cause unpredictable ecological, economic, and social damage. Overall, it can be concluded that despite its many shortcomings, the EASAC study contributes to the implementation of the EU's biodiversity strategy. The implementation of the objectives of the Green Agreement will hopefully return to the original schedule after a transition period, and even if the objectives set for 2030 are not fully realized, the EU will reach climate neutrality by 2050.

Conflict of interest

Miklós Neményi is a member of the Editorial Board of the journal. Therefore, he did not take part in the review process in any capacity and the submission was handled by a different member of the editorial board.

Acknowledgments

The research was carried out by the “Precision Bioengineering Research Group”, supported by the “Széchenyi István University Foundation”.

References

  • Ambrus, B., Teschner, G., Kovács, A.J., and Neményi, M. (2022). Development of small smart data logger robots embedded in IoT system for crop production. International Scientific Conference “agricultural Mechanization and Technology in Europe and Perspectives” May, 27–28.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Clark, M., Macdiarmid, J., Jones, A.D., Ranganathan, J., Herrero, M., and Fanzo, J. (2020). The role of healthy diets in environmentally sustainable food systems. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 41(2_suppl): 31S58S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0379572120953734.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Conchedda, G. and Tubiello, F.N. (2020). Drainage of organic soils and GHG emissions: validation with country data. Earth System Science Data, 12(4): 31133137. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3113-2020.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • EASAC report (2022). Regenerative agriculture in Europe A critical analysis of contributions to European Union farm to fork and biodiversity strategies. https://easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/Regenerative_Agriculture/EASAC_RegAgri_Web_290422.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ember (2022). Carbon price tracker. https://ember-climate.org/data/data-tools/carbon-price-viewer.

  • European Commission (2019). The European Green Deal. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • European Commission (2020). EU agricultural outlook for markets, income and environment, 2020–2030. European Commission, DG Agriculture and Rural Development Brussels.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Express BBE. (2019). Internet of things (IoT) and Biotechnology (BT): a promising technology fusion for sustainable development. Biotech Express Magazine. http://www.biotechexpressmag.com/internet-of-things-iot-and-biotechnology-bt-a-promising-technology-fusion-for-sustainable-development/.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • IERC (2014). European research cluster on the internet of things. https://www.internet-of-things-research.eu/about_iot.htm.

  • Mannar, V., Micha, R., Allemandi, L., Afshin, A., Baker, P., Battersby, J., Bhutta, Z., Corvalan, C., Di Cesare, M., and Chen, K. (2020). 2020 global nutrition report: action on equity to end malnutrition, 89023.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Neményi, M. (2020). Az agrárium és az ökológiai fenntarthatóság I. Rész: globális megközelítés, a gazdagok felelőssége • Agricultural and ecological sustainability Part 1: global Approach, Responsibility of the Rich. Magyar Tudomány. https://doi.org/10.1556/2065.181.2020.12.10.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nyéki, A., Kerepesi, C., Daróczy, B., Benczúr, A., Milics, G., Nagy, J., Harsányi, E., Kovács, A.J., and Neményi, M. (2021). Application of spatio-temporal data in site-specific maize yield prediction with machine learning methods. Precision Agriculture, 22(5): 13971415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-021-09833-8.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Panel, G. (2020). Future food systems: for people, our planet, and prosperity. Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition, London, UK.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Popp, J., Kovács, S., Oláh, J., Divéki, Z., and Balázs, E. (2021). Bioeconomy: biomass and biomass-based energy supply and demand. New Biotechnology, 60: 7684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2020.10.004.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pro-Soil (2021). Biological farming, the basics and how to improve yields. https://pro-soil.com/biological-farming-the-basics-and-how-to-improve-yields/.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • REPowerEU, A. (2022). Plan to rapidly reduce dependence on Russian fossil fuels and fast forward the green transition. European Commission, Brussels.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Secretary-General, & UN (2021). Population, food security, nutrition and sustainable development: report of the Secretary-General.

  • Stanaway, J.D., Afshin, A., Gakidou, E., Lim, S.S., Abate, D., Abate, K.H., Abbafati, C., Abbasi, N., Abbastabar, H., Abd-Allah, F., Abdela, J., Abdelalim, A., Abdollahpour, I., Abdulkader, R.S., Abebe, M., Abebe, Z., Abera, S.F., Abil, O.Z., Abraha, H.N., and Murray, C.J. L. (2018). Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. The Lancet, 392(10159): 19231994. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32225-6.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Struik, P.C. and Kuyper, T.W. (2017). Sustainable intensification in agriculture: the richer shade of green. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 37(5): 39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0445-7.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tubiello, F.N., Karl, K., Flammini, A., Gütschow, J., Obli-Laryea​​​​​​​, G., Conchedda, G., Pan, X., Qi, S. Y., Halldórudóttir Heiðarsdóttir, H., Wanner, N., Quadrelli, R., Rocha Souza, L., Benoit, P., Hayek, M., Sandalow, D., Mencos Contreras, E., Rosenzweig, C., Rosero Moncayo, J., Conforti, P., and Torero, M. (2022). Pre- and post-production processes increasingly dominate greenhouse gas emissions from agri-food systems. Earth System Science Data, 14(4): 17951809. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1795-2022.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Turcotte, M.M., Araki, H., Karp, D.S., Poveda, K., and Whitehead, S.R. (2017). The eco-evolutionary impacts of domestication and agricultural practices on wild species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 372(1712): 20160033. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0033.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • United Nations (2019). World population prospects-population division. United Nations, New York, USA.

  • World Health Organization, & FAO (2020). The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2020, Vol. 2020. Food & Agriculture Org.

  • Ambrus, B., Teschner, G., Kovács, A.J., and Neményi, M. (2022). Development of small smart data logger robots embedded in IoT system for crop production. International Scientific Conference “agricultural Mechanization and Technology in Europe and Perspectives” May, 27–28.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Clark, M., Macdiarmid, J., Jones, A.D., Ranganathan, J., Herrero, M., and Fanzo, J. (2020). The role of healthy diets in environmentally sustainable food systems. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 41(2_suppl): 31S58S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0379572120953734.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Conchedda, G. and Tubiello, F.N. (2020). Drainage of organic soils and GHG emissions: validation with country data. Earth System Science Data, 12(4): 31133137. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3113-2020.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • EASAC report (2022). Regenerative agriculture in Europe A critical analysis of contributions to European Union farm to fork and biodiversity strategies. https://easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/Regenerative_Agriculture/EASAC_RegAgri_Web_290422.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ember (2022). Carbon price tracker. https://ember-climate.org/data/data-tools/carbon-price-viewer.

  • European Commission (2019). The European Green Deal. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • European Commission (2020). EU agricultural outlook for markets, income and environment, 2020–2030. European Commission, DG Agriculture and Rural Development Brussels.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Express BBE. (2019). Internet of things (IoT) and Biotechnology (BT): a promising technology fusion for sustainable development. Biotech Express Magazine. http://www.biotechexpressmag.com/internet-of-things-iot-and-biotechnology-bt-a-promising-technology-fusion-for-sustainable-development/.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • IERC (2014). European research cluster on the internet of things. https://www.internet-of-things-research.eu/about_iot.htm.

  • Mannar, V., Micha, R., Allemandi, L., Afshin, A., Baker, P., Battersby, J., Bhutta, Z., Corvalan, C., Di Cesare, M., and Chen, K. (2020). 2020 global nutrition report: action on equity to end malnutrition, 89023.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Neményi, M. (2020). Az agrárium és az ökológiai fenntarthatóság I. Rész: globális megközelítés, a gazdagok felelőssége • Agricultural and ecological sustainability Part 1: global Approach, Responsibility of the Rich. Magyar Tudomány. https://doi.org/10.1556/2065.181.2020.12.10.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nyéki, A., Kerepesi, C., Daróczy, B., Benczúr, A., Milics, G., Nagy, J., Harsányi, E., Kovács, A.J., and Neményi, M. (2021). Application of spatio-temporal data in site-specific maize yield prediction with machine learning methods. Precision Agriculture, 22(5): 13971415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-021-09833-8.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Panel, G. (2020). Future food systems: for people, our planet, and prosperity. Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition, London, UK.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Popp, J., Kovács, S., Oláh, J., Divéki, Z., and Balázs, E. (2021). Bioeconomy: biomass and biomass-based energy supply and demand. New Biotechnology, 60: 7684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2020.10.004.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pro-Soil (2021). Biological farming, the basics and how to improve yields. https://pro-soil.com/biological-farming-the-basics-and-how-to-improve-yields/.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • REPowerEU, A. (2022). Plan to rapidly reduce dependence on Russian fossil fuels and fast forward the green transition. European Commission, Brussels.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Secretary-General, & UN (2021). Population, food security, nutrition and sustainable development: report of the Secretary-General.

  • Stanaway, J.D., Afshin, A., Gakidou, E., Lim, S.S., Abate, D., Abate, K.H., Abbafati, C., Abbasi, N., Abbastabar, H., Abd-Allah, F., Abdela, J., Abdelalim, A., Abdollahpour, I., Abdulkader, R.S., Abebe, M., Abebe, Z., Abera, S.F., Abil, O.Z., Abraha, H.N., and Murray, C.J. L. (2018). Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. The Lancet, 392(10159): 19231994. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32225-6.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Struik, P.C. and Kuyper, T.W. (2017). Sustainable intensification in agriculture: the richer shade of green. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 37(5): 39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0445-7.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tubiello, F.N., Karl, K., Flammini, A., Gütschow, J., Obli-Laryea​​​​​​​, G., Conchedda, G., Pan, X., Qi, S. Y., Halldórudóttir Heiðarsdóttir, H., Wanner, N., Quadrelli, R., Rocha Souza, L., Benoit, P., Hayek, M., Sandalow, D., Mencos Contreras, E., Rosenzweig, C., Rosero Moncayo, J., Conforti, P., and Torero, M. (2022). Pre- and post-production processes increasingly dominate greenhouse gas emissions from agri-food systems. Earth System Science Data, 14(4): 17951809. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1795-2022.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Turcotte, M.M., Araki, H., Karp, D.S., Poveda, K., and Whitehead, S.R. (2017). The eco-evolutionary impacts of domestication and agricultural practices on wild species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 372(1712): 20160033. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0033.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • United Nations (2019). World population prospects-population division. United Nations, New York, USA.

  • World Health Organization, & FAO (2020). The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2020, Vol. 2020. Food & Agriculture Org.

  • Collapse
  • Expand
The author instructions are available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE

 

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Felföldi, József

Chair of the Editorial Board Szendrő, Péter

Editorial Board

  • Beke, János (Szent István University, Faculty of Mechanical Engineerin, Gödöllő – Hungary)
  • Fenyvesi, László (Szent István University, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Gödöllő – Hungary)
  • Szendrő, Péter (Szent István University, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Gödöllő – Hungary)
  • Felföldi, József (Szent István University, Faculty of Food Science, Budapest – Hungary)

 

Advisory Board

  • De Baerdemaeker, Josse (KU Leuven, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Leuven - Belgium)
  • Funk, David B. (United States Department of Agriculture | USDA • Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), Kansas City – USA
  • Geyer, Martin (Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering and Bioeconomy (ATB), Department of Horticultural Engineering, Potsdam - Germany)
  • Janik, József (Szent István University, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Gödöllő – Hungary)
  • Kutzbach, Heinz D. (Institut für Agrartechnik, Fg. Grundlagen der Agrartechnik, Universität Hohenheim – Germany)
  • Mizrach, Amos (Institute of Agricultural Engineering. ARO, the Volcani Center, Bet Dagan – Israel)
  • Neményi, Miklós (Széchenyi University, Department of Biosystems and Food Engineering, Győr – Hungary)
  • Schulze-Lammers, Peter (University of Bonn, Institute of Agricultural Engineering (ILT), Bonn – Germany)
  • Sitkei, György (University of Sopron, Institute of Wood Engineering, Sopron – Hungary)
  • Sun, Da-Wen (University College Dublin, School of Biosystems and Food Engineering, Agriculture and Food Science, Dublin – Ireland)
  • Tóth, László (Szent István University, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Gödöllő – Hungary)

Prof. Felföldi, József
Institute: MATE - Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Institute of Food Science and Technology, Department of Measurements and Process Control
Address: 1118 Budapest Somlói út 14-16
E-mail: felfoldi.jozsef@uni-mate.hu

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • CABI
  • ERIH PLUS
  • SCOPUS

2022  
Web of Science  
Total Cites
WoS
not indexed
Journal Impact Factor not indexed
Rank by Impact Factor

not indexed

Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
not indexed
5 Year
Impact Factor
not indexed
Journal Citation Indicator not indexed
Rank by Journal Citation Indicator

not indexed

Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
9
Scimago
Journal Rank
0.191
Scimago Quartile Score

Environmental Engineering (Q4)
Industrial Manufacturing Engineering (Q3)
Mechanical Engineering (Q3)

Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
1.1
Scopus
CIte Score Rank
General Agricultural and Biological Sciences 141/213 (34th PCTL)
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 104/147 (29th PCTL)
Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering 261/355 (26th PCTL)
Mechanical Engineering 494/631 (21st PCTL)
Environmental Engineering 145/184 (21st PCTL)
 
Scopus
SNIP
0.222

2021  
Web of Science  
Total Cites
WoS
not indexed
Journal Impact Factor not indexed
Rank by Impact Factor

not indexed

Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
not indexed
5 Year
Impact Factor
not indexed
Journal Citation Indicator not indexed
Rank by Journal Citation Indicator

not indexed

Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
8
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,141
Scimago Quartile Score Environmental Engineering (Q4)
Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering (Q4)
Mechanical Engineering (Q4)
Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
0,8
Scopus
CIte Score Rank
Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering 261/338 (Q4)
Environmental Engineering 138/173 (Q4)
Mechanical Engineering 495/601 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
0,381

2020  
Scimago
H-index
8
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,197
Scimago
Quartile Score
Environmental Engineering Q4
Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering Q3
Mechanical Engineering Q4
Scopus
Cite Score
33/69=0,5
Scopus
Cite Score Rank
Environmental Engineering 126/146 (Q4)
Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering 269/336 (Q3)
Mechanical Engineering 512/596 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
0,211
Scopus
Cites
53
Scopus
Documents
41
Days from submission to acceptance 122
Days from acceptance to publication 40
Acceptance rate 86%

 

2019  
Scimago
H-index
6
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,123
Scimago
Quartile Score
Environmental Engineering Q4
Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering Q4
Mechanical Engineering Q4
Scopus
Cite Score
18/33=0,5
Scopus
Cite Score Rank
Environmental Engineering 108/132 (Q4)
Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering 242/340 (Q3)
Mechanical Engineering 481/585 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
0,211
Scopus
Cites
13
Scopus
Documents
5

 

Progress in Agricultural Engineering Sciences
Publication Model Hybrid
Submission Fee none
Printed Color Illustrations 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece
Article Processing Charge 900 EUR/article
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription fee 2023 Online subsscription: 152 EUR / 185 USD
Print + online subscription: 177 EUR / 215 USD
Subscription Information Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content.
Purchase per Title Individual articles can be purchased at the prices indicated.

Progress in Agricultural Engineering Sciences
Language English
Size B5
Year of
Foundation
2004
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
1
Founder Magyar Tudományos Akadémia  
Founder's
Address
H-1051 Budapest, Hungary, Széchenyi István tér 9.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 1786-335X (Print)
ISSN 1787-0321 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Dec 2023 0 0 0
Jan 2024 0 0 0
Feb 2024 0 0 0
Mar 2024 0 0 0
Apr 2024 0 0 0
May 2024 0 157 60
Jun 2024 0 246 51