Energy use in open-field agriculture in the EU: A critical review recommending energy efficiency measures and renewable energy sources adoption
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review combines results from a large number of studies investigating energy use in EU open-field agriculture, providing an overview of energy use and its concentrations. Such a review and its findings are important as it informs stakeholders and policymakers with evidence for supporting a green energy transition in open-field agriculture. Our review indicates that annual energy use in EU open-field agriculture is at least 1431 PJ, equivalent to around 3.7% of total EU annual energy consumption, with the majority of energy sourced from non-renewable energy sources. Our meta-analysis finds that the production of fertilizer is the largest energy consuming activity in EU agriculture, accounting for around 50% of all energy inputs. On-farm diesel use accounts for 31% of total energy inputs, while the production pesticides and seeds accounts for 5% of total energy inputs. Other energy uses, mainly irrigation, storage and drying, account for 8% of total energy inputs. This suggests that energy use in EU agriculture is significantly underreported and that around 55% of total energy inputs, associated with the production of fertilizers and pesticides, come from indirect sources which can be assigned to the agricultural sector but is used prior to reaching farms. The importance and potential of various fossil-energy-free technologies and strategies are discussed. In addition, this review highlights that in the medium and long term there is need for the development and application of detailed and standardized methodologies for energy use analysis of agricultural systems, as well as for meta-analyses investigating energy use in agriculture.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it