.png)
In brief: In agriculture the sale price is dictated by the market, while input costs stay stubbornly high — squeezing margins from both sides. But the procurement price is different: when buying fertilizer, fuel, or feed, the farmer is the buyer and can create supplier competition through electronic reverse auctions, which typically yield 10–25 percent savings on standardized inputs. An AI-based system automates the quote requests, comparison, and auction, so the usual "no time, no staff" objection falls away — and the biggest, most regular input costs are the place to start.
There's a sharp price divide in the dairy market today. According to K&H's 2026 agricultural analysis, producers with long-term contracts sell raw milk at around 100 forints, while others are forced to sell at an 80-forint spot price. In many cases, that's selling below cost.
The purchase price is typically not set by the producer, who is in a price-taker position: the buyer, the processor, or the retail chain dictates terms. When that price slips near or below cost, the margin melts away while the costs stay put.
On the revenue side sits the depressed purchase price; on the cost side, stubbornly high inputs: fertilizer, pesticides, fuel, machine parts.
In 2025, agricultural output rose in money terms, but that was driven purely by higher prices—the volume produced actually fell. Less harvest, higher prices, rising input costs. According to the KSH, on the input side it was the rising cost of fertilizer and feed that squeezed the room to maneuver.
The pressure held into 2026. K&H's experts say that low producer prices, drought, and a strong forint together pose a serious challenge, and the players who stay on their feet will be those who raise efficiency while maintaining strong liquidity. Waiting on prices isn't enough; efficiency, on the other hand, offers something to grip.
Above the purchase price, there's almost no room to move. The negotiating space is a few percent, and in the end the market decides.
The procurement price is a different matter entirely. When buying fertilizer, fuel, seed, or a feed component, the farmer is the buyer—and a buyer can create competition among suppliers, given the right tool. Most farms leave this room unused.
That's what electronic reverse auctions—also known simply as reverse auctions—are for. Procurement professionals have used them for a long time, yet they're rarely applied in agriculture. Instead of requesting quotes one by one and comparing them over email, suppliers compete against each other for the order at the same time, on a single online platform. The bidding runs in reverse: the price moves downward.
This method works best for standardized inputs, where price is the meaningful difference: fertilizer, fuel, machine parts. Here the supplier also sees exactly which offers win or lose the order, so the competition is transparent.
Hungarian industry experience suggests a procurement auction can yield savings of 10–25 percent, typically in a concentrated contest lasting an hour or two. The numbers become telling when applied to your own spend. A farm that spends 100 million forints a year on fertilizer and fuel keeps 10 million in-house even at a 10 percent reduction. And that sum isn't one-off: it recurs every year and adds straight to the margin that remains, because a forint won on the input side no longer depends on the purchase price. Savings of this scale typically cover the annual cost of such a system with the very first high-volume tender.
This is the most common objection, and an entirely fair one. Labor input in agriculture has fallen further, and those who remain don't have the capacity to spend half a day requesting and organizing quotes for every single purchase. Hiring a full-time buyer isn't always realistic—but automating the process is.
In an AI-based procurement system, the request for quotation starts from a single template, the system compares the incoming offers, flags the risky items, and runs the auction as well. Human judgment stays where it's genuinely needed, and the copying of data disappears. Replacing paper- and email-based administration frees up time on its own—and does so without data loss.
There's no extra administration involved: connected to your existing ERP or accounting software, master data and closed orders flow between the systems, so procurement doesn't have to be recorded separately, twice.
You don't need to overhaul your entire operation, and rollout doesn't drag on for years. Because Fluenta One is built on a low-code foundation, it can be up and running—depending on your needs—either immediately or within a few weeks, so setting up the system doesn't stall the spring or autumn work peak.
The starting point is your largest, most regular input cost, typically fertilizer and fuel. Here, even a single well-run tender brings a noticeable sum.
Wherever there's a way to request quotes on combined volume, the math gets even better: larger volume gives a stronger negotiating position than any single player could reach alone.
As long as revenue depends largely on the mercy of the market, procurement is one of the last areas where the decision genuinely rests in the farmer's hands.
Just how much of a reserve this represents at your own company is something a few percentage points applied to your main input costs will show quickly. On Fluenta One's agriculture page you can read more about how this looks in practice.
Sources:
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)