B Brown / Shutterstock.com

Opinions Niels van der Boom

Why more is no longer better

22 August 2020 - Niels van der Boom - 34 comments

I recently noticed an interesting discussion on the internet. The topic was a new record for growing winter wheat. Normally you are happy with more kilos per hectare. However, it was about the cost per ton, which is not discussed. Who actually benefits from a higher yield? Not the farmer in this case.

If you want to reduce the cost price, it is best to harvest more kilos, that's what I always learned. At the same time, there is the maxim (certainly with wheat) that the last 2 tons costs more than the first 7 or 8. We like to show off the yield per hectare. The English call it pub yields or café kilos in good Dutch. The margin at the bottom of the line, certainly in the case of record attempts is not mentioned at all. Why not? Because they are absurd.

For who?
Admittedly, such reports about a record revenue are happy to read. That's also the reason why they're on Boerenbusiness be published. But just like so many (social) subjects, they are now seen in a different light. Does the farmer benefit from an ever-increasing yield? Who benefits from that? In a season like 2018-2019, the farmer, provided that he can benefit from high prices. Usually that selling price is not at an astronomically high level. Compared to the higher costs per hectare, it appears that the supplier of crop protection products or fertilizers in particular benefits. After all, they are always involved in these kinds of efforts and finance an important part.

Back to the online discussion. It originated among farmers in England. Why don't we look at the return per tonne of product? Ultimately, that pays the bills at your company. A simple cost price comparison immediately showed that the record holder ends up in the lower than in the upper regions in terms of return. Let's talk about that.

hot topic
If you dig a little deeper, you will end up at the heart of this discussion. The way in which conventional arable farming in the Netherlands – and throughout Europe – is structured. At the same time a difficult subject that not many people want to burn their hands on. Suppliers and producers of fertilizers and crop protection products are interwoven in all layers of the sector. From politics to the farmyard. What is their guiding role in the whole? Over a year ago wrote I already about that. You can then immediately count on a response from the companies mentioned, and there was. They do not hesitate to withdraw expensive advertising budgets, or to use this as an argument. In this way, the media keeps quiet and (too) much is recorded well.

Is a revolution necessary? Looking at the various future scenarios for the arable farming sector, I think so. The current road is a dead end. The farmer who blindly feeds on the old means and fertilization policy will not survive. An innovative new view is required. And who will help you with that, those are allies. No opponents. The revolution must come from within the farmer. Such a discussion about yield versus cost will hopefully wake up the necessary people. It is a first step towards greater entrepreneurial freedom.

The mid-engine
Unfortunately, on the same internet you see at the same time that some revolutionary farmers go straight into Che Guevara mode. In arable farming, revolution now often goes hand in hand with organic. There's nothing wrong with that. I would even venture to say that at least three quarters of the new insights into conventional arable farming have a biological basis. At the same time, it creates a gap in arable farming. You are biological, and represent everything that is 'good', or you are mainstream and a poisoner. It is precisely that middle category, which is certainly present in practice, that you hear or see little. He takes a lot of risks, is innovative, open-minded and an example for colleagues. At the same time, he cannot put a label on his product in order to recover the costs involved to some extent. That limits new innovations. The government applauds this, but is still doing (too) little.

For 80% of arable farmers, the future lies with this middle category. I'm convinced of that. So it is time to open our eyes, join forces and learn from each other. It is dire necessity. The large agro-conglomerates have huge budgets to drive innovation. Farmers are fragmented and have far fewer financial resources. Only by working together can progress be achieved and independence achieved. We have to do it together. Farmers, suppliers, advisors and also us, the media. Together we can do it and that starts with a good discussion. Also on the hot topics.

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
34 comments
Subscriber
small 22 August 2020
This is in response to it Boerenbusiness article:
[url = https: // www.boerenbusiness.nl/akkerbouw/ artikel/10888852/Why-meer-niet-langer-beter-is]Why more is no longer better[/url]
wow. Still someone awake.
peer 22 August 2020
you don't always have to follow the gm man's proposals, it can also be a little less
kees 22 August 2020
Nice piece Niels, with some beautiful imagery from time to time.
Subscriber
erik 22 August 2020
nicely put Niels, indeed sometimes there can be more than the suppliers would have you believe. There can be more than the selling party would have us believe.
hans 22 August 2020
A very true opinion, Niels!

And what applies here to grain, applies even more to other more expensive crops and certainly also to the animal sectors.

It is understandable that companies (selling to the farmer) prefer to keep quiet, but that "independent" parties are also silent about this, or more often deny it, is in itself very dubious.
I am thinking of agricultural education, and research centers a la WUR and experimental farms.

Biggest gain will be that less production will never cause lower prices!
Subscriber
Martin de Rider 22 August 2020
Greatly written Nils!!

greetings Martin de Ruiter


Subscriber
Henry Buitenzorg 23 August 2020
Ever since the Agricultural Extension Service was abolished (in the 90s? or when was it), efforts by supplying companies have to be paid for through the purchase of resources.
The abolition of the independent service, in which the farmer came first, was a very bad one.
Subscriber
peta 23 August 2020
@Henry; Totally agree.
But farmers could also act more as entrepreneurs. And, for example, being able to choose their own grain varieties with good resistance from the variety list. That is always better than the toppers that the GBM advisor recommends, which are especially the best because they have sowing seed in stock and can be sold with at least 4 sprays.
rule maker 23 August 2020
No Henry, that independent service of yours was much worse than the current model, I have found that through the agricultural extension service with subsidy that has been placed in my family name with someone else, formerly with officials as distributors was all corruption
Subscriber
peta 23 August 2020
@rule creator. Then you must have filed a report when you found out! Surely you have received a large compensation.
Subscriber
l steel 23 August 2020
great article. no more spraying and no more spreading wheat. Choose the best disease resistant variety and harvest 6 tons (proven in unsprayed and unspread wheat). if we do all this we will be at 50 euro cents and we will achieve more in balance than we are now with high yields, high cultivation costs and no balance
rule maker 23 August 2020
already seen how the virus madness fare in the lawsuits, well I'm just the same in it, they are nowhere more corrupt than there
Subscriber
mark 23 August 2020
Nail on the head Niels!
For many years, breeding has focused on tons of maximization and not on sustainability. Sugar beet cultivation is also a great example of this. We keep on spraying..... I'm not even an organic farmer but I hate the word common which sounds conservative and traditional. We just have to think about a name for the 80% group that will make the greatest environmental gains and towards the return per tonne: the optimum instead of the maximum.
Student 23 August 2020
The sector should be much more involved in this. It is precisely the reason why these companies are happy to provide advice in both arable farming and livestock farming. They prefer to sell as much fertilizer, pesticide or animal feed as possible. Independent advice should be much more appreciated.
counselor 24 August 2020
Great piece Niels!!
I think many arable farmers know how to apply this, growing at the lowest cost price and therefore the highest return. Keep an eye on the risks. Potatoes with the lowest cost price and a little bit of phytophtora do not give the highest yield. Saving money doesn't get you anything, costs simply take precedence over benefits. Stop in time if you can't keep up. We can learn a lot from each other, openness is the magic word.
Once again very well written Niels.
Jentje 24 August 2020
Not a good article. Of course it is always better to have lower costs with a certain yield. And if you can achieve a better margin with organic: fine.
But this article assumes that farmers cannot think and calculate. Many costs can only be influenced marginally (land, machines, etc.) And it is really useful to divide these costs over many kilograms of yield. That leaves plant protection and fertilizer. With properly dosed fertilizer you lay an important foundation for the potential yield (and no, wheat does not grow from air and love). In plant protection, too, it is continuously considered whether it is profitable to spray. Sometimes to directly combat a threat. Sometimes as a kind of insurance against possible damage. In retrospect it sometimes turns out that the latter was not necessary. But if it was necessary, many years of insurance costs are recouped.
hans 24 August 2020
Jentje, you apparently don't know the difference between dividing costs by kilograms of yield, and dividing costs by euros' yield.

And then write
"But this article assumes that farmers cannot think and calculate."

Incidentally, machines often last a number of working hours, not a fixed number of years. If you sprinkle, spray, or harvest more per year, your machine will also be used up sooner.
White Mill 24 August 2020
Top article.
It's all about the money and not about the currants (which many farmers run away with).
Imagine: from heifer to cow, then full gestation of 9 m, calf is born, another 18 m and this bull weighs 600 kg and can be slaughtered. What does the farmer put in it? a lot of work, risk and capital.
The trader/slayer who picks up the bull both earn 3 double (or multiple) of what the farmer catches in one hour.
And so it is with all crops...poor farmers who have forgotten how to count.
The information is very quiet when it comes to arithmetic, in their own interest
Subscriber
Zeeland farmer 24 August 2020
Well written, but I don't agree at all. If you're talking purely about wheat, maybe a little, but not with the other higher-netting crops.
Just look at what comes out of study clubs. The farmers with the highest input per ha also achieve the greatest profit per ha. That comes up time and again. You can also see if you look around you. The companies that cut back on cultivation costs are falling further and further. Those who don't move forward. Not that I mean you should throw it over the bar, of course. You have to consider again and again whether you find something necessary, but some things you just have to insure because the risk is too great if something goes wrong and you should not tolerate weeds anyway.
Then what about advisors. If you have a good advisor, he or she will think along with you to get the highest return from your crop. If he does that well, he can come back. If he only wants to sell, he will be out within a year and you still go to another company / advisor and that sales-driven advisor has no right to exist.
I think it's that simple.
Subscriber
Peer 24 August 2020
Good opinion Niels.
Notice that it fuels the discussion and that's nice.

From my father I learned, “if you want to get something, you first have to bring something”. Seen in this way, I am going with Zeeuws farmer.

staying critical is a necessity and that advisor is a trusted one on whom we may sometimes rely too much. He is and will remain a seller, keep an eye on that. I order something from someone else on time, keeps them sharp
Jan Z 24 August 2020
Bad story from (apparently) someone who is not a farmer. Of course it is important to pay attention to costs, but costs are not linearly related to cost per unit of product. You can incur high costs but have a lower cost price per unit of product due to a higher yield. However, the law of diminishing returns always applies here.
It is also the case that if you start saving on fertilization, overgrowth quickly arises on the ground. See the whole phosphate happening.
With regard to crop protection, by far the majority of applications are preventive: the prevention of a disease, insects or weed infestation. However, the farmer is 80% dependent on the whims of nature, so it is very difficult to estimate in advance whether the application of a crop protection product will be useful and profitable afterwards. The fact is, however, if you misjudge it once and you miss a spraying against, for example, phytopthora or mildew or a weed control, the consequences can be disastrous. But you don't know that in advance. So by way of “insurance” it is better to carry out the spraying because the costs are negligible compared to the possible negative consequences of not spraying.
What I see more is cost reduction by applying GBM as optimally as possible with current and future new technology so that the dosages can be reduced. Can you achieve just as good a result with 75% of the recommended dose, if used optimally, as a 100% dose with less than optimal technique?
Much more could be looked at and I am sure that steps can be taken there.
Jan Z 25 August 2020
Bad story from (apparently) someone who is not a farmer. Of course it is important to pay attention to costs, but costs are not linearly related to cost per unit of product. You can incur high costs but have a lower cost price per unit of product due to a higher yield. However, the law of diminishing returns always applies here.
It is also the case that if you start saving on fertilization, overgrowth quickly arises on the ground. See the whole phosphate happening.
With regard to crop protection, by far the majority of applications are preventive: the prevention of a disease, insects or weed infestation. However, the farmer is 80% dependent on the whims of nature, so it is very difficult to estimate in advance whether the application of a crop protection product will be useful and profitable afterwards. The fact is, however, if you misjudge it once and you miss a spraying against, for example, phytopthora or mildew or a weed control, the consequences can be disastrous. But you don't know that in advance. So by way of “insurance” it is better to carry out the spraying because the costs are negligible compared to the possible negative consequences of not spraying.
What I see more is cost reduction by applying GBM as optimally as possible with current and future new technology so that the dosages can be reduced. Can you achieve just as good a result with 75% of the recommended dose, if used optimally, as a 100% dose with less than optimal technique?
Much more could be looked at and I am sure that steps can be taken there.
Subscriber
frog 25 August 2020
I agree 100% with Jan Z and Zeeuw, with 1 savings on your phytoptora spraying you can lose all your GBM expenditure of a year the moment your tuber turns out to have phytoptora in your product. And join us in a study club, the growers with the highest cultivation costs are almost always at the top of the list!
hans 25 August 2020
Again you start from the varieties that CAN give the highest yield under perfect conditions, but those are also the varieties that often have the most disease and other vulnerabilities.

You can then work in that way, which is what most do, and especially spray and spread a lot to achieve the required high yield to earn back the high costs to some extent.
However, for top production we are also dependent on external conditions such as soil, weather, etc. How often does that yield disappoint?

You can also choose a variety that cannot achieve that top yield, but has much better resistance or is less affected by, for example, alloying or drought.
You can then do with much less preventive treatment, and your yield will meet expectations much sooner.

Subscriber
frog 25 August 2020
wrote:
This certainly applies to non-profitable crops such as wheat, and then you can use the nitrogen space that you have left by fertilizing the wheat less for high-yielding crops and for soil improvement with compost.
hans 25 August 2020
frog wrote:
wrote:
This certainly applies to non-profitable crops such as wheat, and then you can use the nitrogen space that you have left by fertilizing the wheat less for high-yielding crops and for soil improvement with compost.
So make your "high-yielding" crops now also optimally-yielding crops by thinking more about your own wallet than that of your customer or supplier.
Subscriber
frog 25 August 2020
I do not agree with you Hans I wish everyone in the chain a good sandwich!
hans 25 August 2020
frog wrote:
I do not agree with you Hans I wish everyone in the chain a good sandwich!
Me too, but I wonder if the rest of the chain thinks so too.

See the caring farmers' accounts (where so far the credit increase due to rising land prices has saved many farmers), and this in contrast to the top richest Dutch people, which still contain many agricultural profiteers.
hans 25 August 2020
frog wrote:
I do not agree with you Hans I wish everyone in the chain a good sandwich!
Me too, but I wonder if the rest of the chain thinks so too.

See the caring farmers' accounts (where so far the credit increase due to rising land prices has saved many farmers), and this in contrast to the top richest Dutch people, which still contain many agricultural profiteers.
Jan Z 25 August 2020
Bad story from (apparently) someone who is not a farmer. Of course it is important to pay attention to costs, but costs are not linearly related to cost per unit of product. You can incur high costs but have a lower cost price per unit of product due to a higher yield. However, the law of diminishing returns always applies here.
It is also the case that if you start saving on fertilization, overgrowth quickly arises on the ground. See the whole phosphate happening.
With regard to crop protection, by far the majority of applications are preventive: the prevention of a disease, insects or weed infestation. However, the farmer is 80% dependent on the whims of nature, so it is very difficult to estimate in advance whether the application of a crop protection product will be useful and profitable afterwards. The fact is, however, if you misjudge it once and you miss a spraying against, for example, phytopthora or mildew or a weed control, the consequences can be disastrous. But you don't know that in advance. So by way of “insurance” it is better to carry out the spraying because the costs are negligible compared to the possible negative consequences of not spraying.
What I see more is cost reduction by applying GBM as optimally as possible with current and future new technology so that the dosages can be reduced. Can you achieve just as good a result with 75% of the recommended dose, if used optimally, as a 100% dose with less than optimal technique?
Much more could be looked at and I am sure that steps can be taken there.
Jan Z 26 August 2020
Bad story from (apparently) someone who is not a farmer. Of course it is important to pay attention to costs, but costs are not linearly related to cost per unit of product. You can incur high costs but have a lower cost price per unit of product due to a higher yield. However, the law of diminishing returns always applies here.
It is also the case that if you start saving on fertilization, overgrowth quickly arises on the ground. See the whole phosphate happening.
With regard to crop protection, by far the majority of applications are preventive: the prevention of a disease, insects or weed infestation. However, the farmer is 80% dependent on the whims of nature, so it is very difficult to estimate in advance whether the application of a crop protection product will be useful and profitable afterwards. The fact is, however, if you misjudge it once and you miss a spraying against, for example, phytopthora or mildew or a weed control, the consequences can be disastrous. But you don't know that in advance. So by way of “insurance” it is better to carry out the spraying because the costs are negligible compared to the possible negative consequences of not spraying.
What I see more is cost reduction by applying GBM as optimally as possible with current and future new technology so that the dosages can be reduced. Can you achieve just as good a result with 75% of the recommended dose, if used optimally, as a 100% dose with less than optimal technique?
Much more could be looked at and I am sure that steps can be taken there.
gerard 26 August 2020
look at your costs
it's not GBM or too expensive machines or the seed potatoes or anything else it's a confluence of everything
Spraying 1 times too short against the potato disease and then having to pick up 1% diseased tubers is not convenient
you can spray curzate or you can spray ranmann where you also have to add narita this is more than 1 times more expensive
so is decis karate or sumicidin super they do the same but there are different prices
Noord 26 August 2020
Agree with the analysis, can't argue with it either. However, everyone will have/keep their own slant. What I find much more interesting at the moment is what I do to keep costs low. I would like to see an analysis by the editors of what the price of land rent for potatoes will do now, which has become part of just about every company. Hear around me that many really leave the lesser plots for next year. In an absolute sense, something like this is probably disappointing, but in relative terms you could think of around 20% lower. Of course one can argue that the market determines this, but often such a thing can develop favorably if there were some kind of change percentage. Think that many entrepreneurs are ready to set up such things. thanks
hans 27 August 2020
North, the point is that you determine your cost. You can aim for an expensive high production, or the most profitable production.

The amount of hectares you will cultivate is a derivative of your profitability per hectare, whereby more tightening often has a negative effect on your profitability due to more paid labor and expensive fixed costs.
You can no longer respond.

Sign up for our newsletter

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

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