Precision farming may play an important role in agricultural innovation. The study focuses on the attitude of Hungarian farmers toward precision farming. Based on the relevant technical literature, we performed a nationally representative questionnaire survey of 594 farmers and deep interviews with experts and farmers (30 persons). As regards the questionnaire, the authors found that the management of the average farm size in Hungary has the highest willingness to innovate and the second highest level of education among the developed clusters. The survey shows undertrained farmers with large farms to be the second most open group, which may result in the partial application of precision farming techniques. One of the most unexpected results of the Precision Farmers’ cluster is that the positive socio-economic utility of precision farming is rated as extremely low. In-depth interviews prove that the use of precision technologies does not increase local social cohesion. Strong organisational isolation of precision farmers prevents the spread of innovation knowledge and precision farming amongst the farming community, and the challenges of competitiveness alone do not force farmers to apply precision farming. Our results may be useful for the establishment of agricultural strategy.

The basic question of our research is what crop-producing farmers know about PF (precision farming), and how economic value and social factors motivate the acceptance and implementation of PF. We conducted a cross-sectional survey, using standardized questionnaires, in 2018, that was nationally representative of Hungarian crop producers. Besides this, we conducted 30 semi-structured interviews about the meaning of PF, with the farmers who use PF in practice. They defined it as a tool of strategic planning, to serve input savings, using state-of-the-art technologies. Based on the questionnaire, we found that the farmers currently applying PF do not seem to have such a significant impact on the agricultural society that would make others want to move to precision technology, following their example. As a result of the factor analysis, we could differentiate direct and indirect factors. Potential human resources are undereducated, their willingness to improve their knowledge is low, and the level of cooperation ability is low, making it excessively difficult, or even impossible, to acquire the equipment necessary for a technology switch and to purchase the necessary services. It can be concluded that age, production, and technical usefulness carries greater weight over things like monetary factors, productivity of cultivated land, knowledge capital, and willingness of Hungarian farmers to cooperate.

A small-plot field experiment on microelement pollution (Aluminum (Al), Arsenic (As), Cadmium (Cd), Chromium (Cr), Copper (Cu), Mercury (Hg), Lead (Pb), Zinc (Zn)) was initiated in 1994 at Tass-puszta Model Farm of Gyöngyös College, Hungary. The experimental plants were winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L. emend. Fiori et Pool.) in 1995, maize (Zea mays L.) in 1996, and sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) in 1997. Plant samples were taken each year during the vegetation period at phenophases characterized by intensive nutrient uptake. The Al content of crops was not influenced by Al load of the soil. Arsenic accumulation was not considerable in the grain with the highest As load. Cadmium accumulation was significant both in vegetative and reproductive parts of crops with increasing Cd loads of the soil. The Cd content was about 10 -40 times higher in treated sunflower seeds than in the control; as a result the seeds were not suitable for consumption. Cadmium can accumulate in the reproductive tissue, so it is a real risk in the food chain. In the first year, Cr(VI) had a toxic effect on wheat, but it was not mobile in the soil-plant system. Vegetative parts of winter wheat accumulated significant amounts of Hg, but maize and sunflower seeds did not accumulate Hg. Lead, Cu, and Zn showed only moderate enrichment in crops following increasing loads in the soil.

A rohamosan fejlődő génmanipulációs technikák (génmódosítás, géntechnológiai módosítás) régóta viták kereszttüzében állnak, amit a jogi szabályozás alakulása is tükröz. A géntechnológiai módosítás a géntechnológiai tevékenységről szóló 1998. évi XXVII. törvény (a továbbiakban: Géntv.) 2. § g) pontja szerint olyan eljárás, amely a gént vagy annak bármely részét kiemeli a sejtből és átülteti egy másik sejtbe, vagy szintetikus géneket, vagy génszakaszokat visz be valamely természetes szervezetbe, ami által a befogadó génállománya megváltozik. Mint alább látni fogjuk, az EU vonatkozó irányelve a génmódosítást (az eljárást) nem definiálja, ugyanakkor az eredményére (a génmódosított szervezetre, GMO-ra) ad egy meghatározást, s bizonyos technikákat felsorol, mint amelyek génmódosítást eredményeznek. A jogi definíció elsődleges funkciója mindkét esetben a szabályozás tárgyi hatályának kijelölése, ami álláspontom szerint nem a nemesítők és a biotechnológusok, hanem a jogtudomány, illetve a jogalkotó feladata. 

No abstract