Forwarders are expensive machines that fulfil the operational needs of a limited pool of customers, therefore innovation in this kind of technology needs to be pushed and sustained by the market demand. This study analysed the requirements and preferences of forwarder users in five European countries by means of a questionnaire structured on issues such as performance requirements, market analysis and innovation potential. Expectations for the future forwarder technology are related to uncertainties stemming from the operational and regulatory environments. Machine flexibility as well as acceptable purchasing and operating costs could be the solution expected by customers. These parameters are supported by the modular approach of the Forwarder 2020 project which enables customers to adapt the technology to their needs.

Occupational noise, hand-arm and whole-body vibration are the main human health risk factors in various economic activity sectors including agriculture. Workers of agricultural sector are usually under increased risk as their exposure to these risk factors is usually longer than reference 8 hours. Moreover, most agricultural activities are related with the processes which include multiple equipment and machinery therefore noise and vibration exposure analysis is a complex issue which is usually undeservedly simplified. This problem can be emphasized by statistical data provided by State Labour Inspectorate of the Republic of Lithuania. Occupational diseases registered for farmers, agricultural and forestry workers consist 16 % of all those registered in Lithuania. Four of five occupational diseases registered in Lithuania are related to vibration and noise (musculoskeletal (66 %) and hearing loss (13 %) and has the increasing tendency over the last years. These tendencies demand a deeper analysis of noise and vibration exposure of farmers and farm workers as obtained results could help to specify the strategy or procedure to reduce negative exposure effects. The results reveal that noise exposure level usually exceed exposure action value of 80 dBA while hand-arm and whole-body vibration exposure limit value of 1.15 and 5 m/s2 respectively.

Soil compaction (SC) is one of the most damaging degradation processes. The effects of compaction are closely related to crop losses and GHG emissions due to additional fuel use. It is therefore important not only to correctly monitor the condition of the soil and the restoration of damaged soil but also to understand the costs of excessive exploitation of soil and individual risks in different countries and continents. A model of equations has been developed to assess the effects of compaction that can be used on a national or even single farm scale. However, for its further application, more data should be collected. Based on the data available in the public domain, the damage caused by compaction was compared between Ukrainian (UA) and Lithuanian (LT) scenarios as these countries have a similar situation but different levels of soil resource management. Soil characteristics, such as soil types and predisposition to compaction, depending on its type, were assessed in both countries. The main parameters used to estimate the damage due to SC were: yield loss; additional fuel consumption; losses of N, P, K fertilizers, water pollution, and flooding; erosion; and GHG emissions. The results reveal potential annual losses due to compaction of around EUR 27 million for Lithuania and around EUR 1.6 billion for Ukraine. Expected potential average losses per hectare of arable land are about EUR 49 ha−1 y−1 for Ukraine (33.9 million ha or 56.76% of the total area) and about EUR 13 ha−1 y−1 for Lithuania (2.11 million ha or 33.77%). Potential crop losses are one of the costliest consequences of compaction. They could cost about EUR 1 billion annually for Ukraine and about EUR 10.7 million for Lithuania. Moreover, the additional use of fuel and the associated GHG emissions can probably take away EUR 180 million (UA) and about EUR 4 million (LT) each year.

Abstract. Animal husbandry is one of the agricultural sub-sectors, which might have negative influence on human health and has a vast number of occupational risk factors on workers. As small (family) animal husbandry farms (up to 50 cows) are prevailing in Lithuania and consist ~67 % of the total number, special attention should be focused on the reduction of occupational risk factors in such farms, as they have a significantly higher risk level because of lack of resources and safety culture. The aim of this article is to identify and assess the prevailing occupational risk factors in such stockbreeding farms in Lithuania.Most common risk factors include dust, thermal environment, noise, ergonomic and physical load factors as well as biological risks. It was found that noise level during breeding and automated distribution of forage might be as high as 87.3 dB(A), while concentration of particulate matters (PM10) might reach the value of 2.2 mg·m -3 during the manual distribution flour in the cowshed. Thermal environment in small cowsheds is within 7 and 12 degrees while the humidity of air might reach 90 %, which can be attributed as unfavourable working conditions. As most works in such farms are done manually, parameters of physical activity were collected during milking, manual manure removal and feeding operations. Maximum physical loads were found for manual feeding (pulse value of 135 pulses per minute), manual manure removal to the scraper (120 pulses per minute). Such works are attributed as very hard physical labour.Keywords: dust, microclimate, noise, physical load, stockbreeding. IntroductionAgriculture is a major economic activity in the EU and Lithuania and employs 25 million and ~350 000 workers respectively [1].According to the data provided by Eurostat, more than half of these agricultural workers (53 %) were working on farms with a small economic size, while farms with only family workers (100 % of the labour input on the farm was provided by family members) accounted for 93,7 % of the total number of farms in the EU-28 in 2013 [1]. For the case of Lithuania, small family farms are dominant and the average size of the farm is 9.37 ha compared to 16,1 ha for the EU-28 [1; 2]. These farms are usually poorly specialized and prosecute multiple activities as well as usually lack safety culture because of limited resources.According to the data provided by the Agricultural Information and Rural Business Centre [2] there were ~120000 farms registered in Lithuania in 2016, while small cow farms were dominant (Fig. 1). These data show that more than 80 % of all cow keepers keep from 1 to 5 cows in Lithuania but only approximately 30 % of all cows are kept in such farms. According to statistical data, largest percentage, i.e. 38 % of cows are kept in the farms of size 6-50 cows, while additional 30 % in the farms with more than 50 cows [2].

Mechanized forest works, especially cut-to-length operations, have spread widely over the last decades. Operation of harvesters and forwarders is related with increased productivity compared with manual cutting, generally better working conditions for operators, but it also might have some negative aspects. As the productivity of forwarders depends strongly on the transportation distance to unloading location, forest road conditions, log density on site, there are efforts of the drivers and contractors to work more efficiently and to achieve better productivity. As the operation with the crane depends strongly on the operator's skills and log density, there are limited possibilities to make improvements. Therefore, operators attempt to increase the driving speed still acceptable to achieve the highest possible performance. However, this usually leads to increased operator vibrations. The aim of this study was to justify the forwarder driving speed of full and empty travel, which could ensure best productivity results with the lowest whole-body vibration exposure on the operator. The research was carried on the typical forest road, where the empty and full transport was carried out at speeds ranging from 5 to 15 km•h-1. The results show that optimum speed for empty and full travel operations was approx. 8 km•h-1. At this speed the daily exposure value standardised to an eight-hour reference period A(8) would be less than 0.5 m•s-1 for full transport operations and ~0.57 m•s-1 for empty transport for total 10 km driving distance.