Search

The strength of the bond between agriculture and the natural environment is measured by output intensity. This work aimed to evaluate the diversity of agriculture across the European Union in terms of agricultural output intensity from the perspective of the assumptions of the concept of sustainable development. Surveys were conducted using selected indicators based on data derived from EUROSTAT, FAOSTAT, and FADN from 2010–2019. The adopted indicators were used for developing a ranking of member states according to output intensity, which, in confrontation with the level of agricultural efficiency, can form a basis for an individual approach to the development strategies of respective member states. Their findings imply that, in the analyzed period, differences in output intensity among member states declined insignificantly. From 2010 to 2019, most countries forming the so-called 'old 15′ featured higher output intensity than new member states. The Netherlands and Malta recorded the highest cost of intermediate consumption per 1 ha of utilized agricultural area. By contrast, agricultural production was the least intensive in Bulgaria. Land productivity was also very strongly variable. The difference between the old and new member states was clearly marked. Dutch agriculture reached the highest land productivity from 2010 to 2019, where agricultural production levels per 1 ha were five times higher than on average in the European Union. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The strength of the bond between agriculture and the natural environment is measured by output intensity. This work aimed to evaluate the diversity of agriculture across the European Union in terms of agricultural output intensity from the perspective of the assumptions of the concept of sustainable development. Surveys were conducted using selected indicators based on data derived from EUROSTAT, FAOSTAT, and FADN from 2010–2019. The adopted indicators were used for developing a ranking of member states according to output intensity, which, in confrontation with the level of agricultural efficiency, can form a basis for an individual approach to the development strategies of respective member states. Their findings imply that, in the analyzed period, differences in output intensity among member states declined insignificantly. From 2010 to 2019, most countries forming the so-called ‘old 15′ featured higher output intensity than new member states. The Netherlands and Malta recorded the highest cost of intermediate consumption per 1 ha of utilized agricultural area. By contrast, agricultural production was the least intensive in Bulgaria. Land productivity was also very strongly variable. The difference between the old and new member states was clearly marked. Dutch agriculture reached the highest land productivity from 2010 to 2019, where agricultural production levels per 1 ha were five times higher than on average in the European Union.

Background: Land use is the major driver of the current biodiversity crisis. However, its impact is not yet adequately reflected in biodiversity scenarios. In particular, effects of land‐use intensity are often neglected although natural limits to land conversion will likely enforce further land‐use intensification in the future. Aims and innovation: We argue that integration of land‐use intensity into biodiversity models should ideally be based on a proper conceptualization of the land‐use intensity phenomenon. We, therefore, present terminological distinctions and a conceptual framework developed in land system science. The framework distinguishes three dimensions of land‐use intensity: input intensity, output intensity, and alterations of system properties. We discuss nonlinearities and intricacies of the relationships among these dimensions as well as their direct and indirect relationships to biodiversity. In an explorative literature assessment we demonstrate that the multi‐dimensional nature of land‐use intensity appears insufficiently reflected in biodiversity research. Finally, we discuss issues of data availability that limit integration of land‐use intensity into spatially and temporally explicit biodiversity modelling. Conclusion: Research on the relationship between land use and biodiversity would profit from a more systematic and comprehensive consideration of land‐use intensity. While there is no standard recipe for combining indicators of land‐use intensity in biodiversity studies the input–output–system distinction is a useful conceptual basis for study designs. More generally, better integration of biodiversity and land system science would foster understanding and predicting the consequences of land‐use intensification on biodiversity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The aim of the survey was to examine the output intensity of curing units and other related factors in private dental offices across Nellore urban area. Materials and Methods: A questionnaire was prepared about the type of curing unit, number of restorations performed in a week, maintenance of curing unit, frequency of changing bulb, measurement of output intensity, presence, or absence of composite build--ups on curing tips. The questionnaire was submitted to 100 private dental offices located in Nellore urban area. Each variable in the questionnaire had an impact on quality of the composite restoration. Each curing unit light tip was also observed for the presence or absence of composite build--up. The output intensity of the curing light was measured using a digital radiometer (Ivoclar). The average of the three readings of the output intensity was obtained for each curing light. The average output intensity was divided into three categories (850 mW/cm2). A significant reduction in output intensity is seen with both types of older light curing units. Nearly 50% of practitioners had never checked the light output of their unit. Conclusion: It was concluded that there is a general lack of awareness among dentists of the need for maintenance of these units.

Aim: The purpose of this study is to examine the intensity of light curing units and factors affecting it in dental offices. Materials and Methods: The output intensity of 200 light curing units in dental offices across Maharashtra were examined. The collection of related information (the number of months of use of curing unit, the approximate number of times used in a day, and presence or absence of composite build-ups) and measurement of the intensity was performed by two operators. L.E.D Radiometer (Kerr) was used for measuring the output intensity. The average output intensity was divided into three categories (<200 mW/cm², 200-400 mW/ cm² and >400 mW/cm²). Results: Among the 200 curing units examined, 81 were LED units and 119 were QTH units. Only 10% LED machines and 2% QTH curing units had good intensities (>400 mW/cm²). Conclusion: Most of the examined curing lights had low output intensity ranging from 200 to 400 mW/cm², and most of the curing units had composite build-ups on them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim : The purpose of this study was to survey the intensity of light curing units in dental offices across Punjab. Materials and Method : The output intensity of 100 light curing units were examined with the help of radiometer. The average output intensity was divided into three categories (<300mW/cm2, 301- 400mW/cm2, 401mW/cm2) Results : Among 100 light curing units examined, 34 were Light Emitting Diode (LED) and 66 were Quartz Tungsten Halogen (QTH) units. It was observed that over one- half of the light curing units surveyed (17% LED and 42% QTH) had less intensity than the acceptable value (300mW/cm2) Conclusion : Most of the light curing units examined had low output intensity of less than 300mW/cm2. It was seen that there is general lack of awareness among dentists for the regular maintenance of these light curing units. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]