Shutterstock

Analysis Arable

These are the 10 largest arable farms

2 January 2019 - Niels van der Boom - 20 comments

The number of arable farmers in the Netherlands with more than 1.000 hectares is small. If you set the bar on 500 hectares, a much larger group will qualify. The number of 'large' farmers is steadily increasing. Who are these companies and how big are they exactly? Boerenbusiness figured it out.

What do we mean by arable farmers? In any case, the companies that have arable farming as their main source of income. Our list is based on data from the Common Agricultural Policy; for example, the amount a company receives as a basic payment scheme says something about its size. This can be calculated on the basis of the average value per payment entitlement and this is set annually by the Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO.nl). online† The most current figures are for 2017.

Real picture?
The ranking of the highest subsidy amounts is not infallible. Significant differences can occur with reality, which in part has to do with the company history. For example, when a company receives extra rights because of a milk or beet quota. Also, leased land is usually not rented including payment rights. The highly specialized companies that rent a lot of land for, for example, potato cultivation, will not appear in this list.

It is almost impossible to find out who farms the most (rental) land. Most entrepreneurs who Boerenbusiness spoke, are not eager to share their figures. However, a number of companies, especially those with a 100-year history, choose to be open and candid about their (special) company.

Who is the biggest?
The top 3 largest arable farms in 2017 are Koninklijke Maatschap de Wilhelminapolder (KMWP), Schoorlemmer Agriculture and Exploitatie Reservegronden Flevoland (ERF). It is debatable who should lead the list. Based on the data from RVO.nl, this was in 2017 KMWP† With a subsidy amount of €354.979,36 (basic payment scheme) divided by the average value of €284,53 per hectare, the acreage amounts to 1.248 hectares. However, it itself mentions an area of ​​almost 1.600 hectares. Since KMWP is owned by 395 owners (sizes), we include the company in a separate ranking.

With an acreage of 1.745 hectares of organic arable land and 270 hectares of conventional agricultural land, ERF is larger than its colleague from Zeeland. However, according to subsidy figures (€330.262,94), the company is in third place. ERF also has a special history. The company originated from the Rijksdienst voor de IJsselmeerpolders and manages land owned by the government.

Schoorlemmer Landbouw BV is registered in Pekela, Groningen. It is the only one of 'the big 3' that does not share its numbers online. According to insiders, the umbrella AG Schoorlemmer Foundation owns a total agricultural area of ​​2.300 hectares. Looking at the subsidy figures, this would amount to 1.217 hectares.

Place 1 or place 4?
In place 4, and the number 1 in our ranking of family businesses, is Landgoed Scholtenszathe† This company is also special. The data from RVO.nl match perfectly with what the company communicates: 1.000 hectares, of which 700 hectares are arable land. The rest has been planted with forest and other nature. The company is run by 12 employees, but is still owned by the Scholten family. The estate is, besides the above 3, the only arable farm with more than 1.000 hectares owned.

The numbers 2 to 10 are often names that are less well known. You will also find 2 companies (HS Akkerbouw and Sandee) that are both contract workers and arable farmers. Novifarm, the agricultural entrepreneur of the year 2017, is a partnership of 5 families in the Hoeksche Waard. She burp 750 hectares, although the figures from RVO.nl are considerably lower.

Novifarm is certainly not the only company where arable farmers are joining forces. A little further south we find Nieuw Campen. Our list, based on figures from RVO.nl, puts the company at 557 hectares, but our own data states 400 hectares.

Financial results
At the National Economic Agricultural Congress on December 18, company size was also discussed. The number of large companies (more than 300 hectares) has increased in just 20 years tripled† However, the number of small farms (less than 25 hectares) predominates, as they represent 60% of the total number of arable farms. "The 5.000 largest companies together account for 50% of production", said Cor Pierik (CBS) at the conference.

Linda de Bie (Wageningen University & Research) supports the figures. During the Agricultural Congress she showed that large companies (with 250 hectares or more) have low costs and more to earn† 'Sustainable' companies (with low feed and animal health costs) are also doing much better financially. Arable farmers with 25 hectares or less have significantly higher costs. De Bie therefore sees collaboration as a solution. Not only in terms of production, but also, for example, in terms of sales.

Position Company Area RVO.nl Own statement area
1 Scholtenszate 1.002 700
2 Scratching-Renken 749  
3 skewed Emmen 722  
4 Polling Farm 678  
5 Hoiting Arable farming 628  
6 HS Arable farming 603  
7 Novifarm 593 750
8 New Camps 557 400
9 L&H Agri 555  
10 sandee 544  
       
1 KMWP 1.248 1.600
2 Schoorlemmer Agriculture 1.217 2.300
3 ERF 1.161 2.015
Do you have a tip, suggestion or comment regarding this article? Let us know

Niels van der Boom

Niels van der Boom is a senior market specialist for arable crops at DCA Market Intelligence. He mainly makes analyses and market updates about the potato market. In columns he shares his sharp view on the arable sector and technology.
Comments
20 comments
Subscriber
Berry 2 January 2019
This is in response to it Boerenbusiness article:
[url=http://www.boerenbusiness.nl/akkerbouw/artikel/10880854/dit-zijn-de-10-largest-arable farms]These are the 10 largest arable farms[/url]
Dear Niels,
You cannot compare owned land 1 on 1 with your calculated area via RVO.
Of my acreage, 200 ha (lease, property), I rent out 20 ha annually. Via RVO you will then end up on 180 ha. However, if you ask me, I will answer 200 ha.
It is also possible that someone has fewer payment entitlements than the area stated at RVO.
When there are so many uncertainties, I don't think it makes sense to derive cultivated areas from this. In that case, it is better to only copy the subsidy list from rvo with the addition that the person who receives the most subsidy probably grows the largest area.
highland 2 January 2019
As long as it is not yet a full flat rate, this calculation is also not possible

How can you calculate hectares based on your CAP compensation if everyone has a different hectare allowance.
conclusion 2 January 2019


Berry
Today 15:05 AM

Renting is not farming
Subscriber
Berry 2 January 2019
@conclusive
True, but it is my property. And I am the one who decides which crop is grown .
Subscriber
Niels van der Boom 2 January 2019
@Berry, sure. However, in most cases is it the case that the rented land is rented out without payment rights? These then belong to the owner, so that in your case it remains 200 hectares.

The article does exactly what you say in the last sentence. It's certainly not perfect. Large (potato) growers who rent a lot of land are not included in the list for example.
According to the 2 January 2019
It is a pity that the article uses numbers that you cannot count with, such as subsidies and averages.
In my opinion, it concerns the number of hectares cultivated for own account and risk. This is also to prevent possible double counting in such lists, such as in the case of renting or renting land and quotas. The number of owners and employees has nothing to do with the size of the company. To cite just one example from the article: KMWP is not included in the list due to the large number of owners. But what about fully independent companies that are run by several family members (eg: brothers) or partnerships that operate as 1 company.

Compare it with companies in other sectors. There, the size is unambiguously displayed in turnover, production, capacity, etc.
According to the 2 January 2019
It is a pity that the article uses numbers that you cannot count with, such as subsidies and averages.
In my opinion, it concerns the number of hectares cultivated for own account and risk. This is also to prevent possible double counting in such lists, such as in the case of renting or renting land and quotas. The number of owners and employees has nothing to do with the size of the company. To cite just one example from the article: KMWP is not included in the list due to the large number of owners. But what about fully independent companies that are run by several family members (eg: brothers) or partnerships that operate as 1 company.

Compare it with companies in other sectors. There, the size is unambiguously displayed in turnover, production, capacity, etc.
highland star 3 January 2019
Niels, how do you envision that. Rent out land and redeem the payment rights yourself??

These are always rented out and therefore paid out to the tenant.

What he then does with it depends on the agreement.

highland star 3 January 2019
Most starch potato growers agree, that is logical.
Starch potatoes received a very high hectare of support, which previously ended up at Avebe and now to the growers.
Subscriber
Berry 3 January 2019
@Hogelandster/Niels
Correct. It is impossible for me to rent out, for example, 20 ha and to collect the payment rights myself from RVO. In practice, these are also rented out.
pete s 3 January 2019
in the south-west, 90% of the leased plots are let without payment rights
Quite a lot of regular lease is also rented out, you don't want to register this
highland star 3 January 2019
Piet, you simply cannot cash in payment entitlements without land.

If contract work applies construction, you keep the soil with rvo that year. But it is not useful with certification of seed potatoes, etc.
Joost 3 January 2019
When it comes to who has the biggest, all kinds of dark people suddenly come out of their caves to explain that the biggest is being measured wrong. Hahaha, simplify.
I'd rather be happy than the biggest.
pete s 3 January 2019
highland star

I don't need to explain this
you rent out, e.g. for potatoes, but you give up your own land to rvo
the tenant can buy fertilizer from the landlord
??? !!! 3 January 2019
The headline of the article is wrong.
That that headline is wrong is the content of the article.
We certainly don't have to go to the USA or LTO for Fake News: BB proves that once again.
Hans 3 January 2019
The headline should simply be 'These are the 10 largest subsidy recipients in arable farming'.
Subscriber
Skirt 5 January 2019
pete s wrote:
highland star

I don't need to explain this
you rent out, e.g. for potatoes, but you give up your own land to rvo
the tenant can buy fertilizer from the landlord
Go get complicated. Why?? Legally you are going wrong with this.
pete s 6 January 2019
Then simply rent out your leased land and have it registered by the tenant at rvo
who's stupid here
Subscriber
Skirt 6 January 2019
Haha, you want to deceive the owner of the land, well stick your head in legal quicksand. This is so transparent that even the worst lawyer will make mincemeat of it.
Subscriber
kees 6 January 2019
Not many of them are even a few that are already off the list...
You can no longer respond.

Sign up for our newsletter

Sign up and receive the latest news in your inbox every day

Opinions Paul & Joost Bakker

Production or landscape turns land market upside down

News Farmland

NAJK positive but critical about revision of tenancy law

News Farmland

Grassland becomes 10.000 euros more expensive per hectare in one year

News Farmland

Grassland rises above 100.000 euros per hectare

Call our customer service +0320(269)528

or mail to support@boerenbusiness.nl

do you want to follow us?

Receive our free Newsletter

Current market information in your inbox every day

Sign up