Soil-bound via protein becomes a challenge

The reactions to the advisory report of the Soil Reliance Committee, presented yesterday, are very diverse. There are doubts about the feasibility and verifiability, while other dairy farmers call it an important step in the right direction. There are questions about the use of fertilizer and control. 

“Another report that can go straight into the drawer”, responds Jan Cees Vogelaar. In 2016, he worked on an alternative to the phosphate reduction plan. Part of this was working towards a land-bound standard of 2,3 LU per hectare, with the approval of nature and environmental organisations. He advocated then, and still advocates clear choices, and a standard that can be explained to everyone. Partly due to the discussion that arose in this regard, LTO and NZO the land-relatedness committee set.

“The 65% protein standard is again a technical indicator. You shouldn't want that," says Vogelaar. “And how can this be checked, how are you going to sanction? That won't work. The whole advice therefore breathes to me that they do not dare to make choices. I would almost say: a waste of time and a waste money.”

Fertilizer use gets a boost
Foppe Nijboer, chairman of Netwerk Grondig, shares Vogelaar's opinion. “Land-boundedness is just counting tails and acres. If you can place your phosphate on your own land and the land you use nearby, you are land-bound. Otherwise not. It's that simple, but I can understand that this committee was looking for a way to get as many dairy farmers as possible under the flag of land-based. In this way they save the cabbage and the goat. Unnecessary and unwise. After all, this advice cannot be explained to a citizen and that required a clear definition of the term land-relatedness.”

Network Thorough recently presented its own definition of land-bound which is in line with the phosphate legislation. According to Nijboer, this happened after it became clear that Grondig could not work out together with LTO and NZO. “We were always in consultation and we agree on the neighborhood or recycling contracts. Other than that, the story is simple for us. This advice is not in line with that and is even counterproductive. In order to get more protein from the grassland, the fertilizer application will be increased, especially by intensive dairy farmers.”

NAJK positive
Bart van der Hoog, Dairy Farmer's portfolio holder at the NAJK, is positive about the report. “We don't want the definition to be flattened into tails and hectares, as Grondig does. That way you create 'good' and 'less good' dairy farmers, we are not like that.”

Van der Hoog is also positive about the inclusion of neighborhood contracts to be able to source the feed from a circle of 20 kilometers around the company. “It is also important to convince the ministry of the value of these regional cycles.”

Fairer than counting tails
Geert Veenstra milks 110 cows on more than 60 hectares of land in Rottevalle, Friesland. He is an LTO department manager and, together with fellow administrators, he was already presented with the advice on Wednesday evening in Vianen. “Together with colleagues, we drove back that evening with more questions than answers. Still, the good feeling prevailed, not to be confused with a jochei mood." 

The fact that it remains a good feeling is because there is still something that needs to be done. "I also think on my farm, even though I have to count on that even better and a lot is still unclear. I expect that I will be able to grow with a little less silage maize and, for example, use more grass chunks." 

Veenstra says that there are also companies where the assignment is much more drastic. "Although that is still difficult to make concrete at the moment. It is not yet clear whether the 65% standard will run via the Kringloopwijzer and the BEX or in another way. That makes quite a difference." Points of attention are the use of fertilizer and the susceptibility to fraud. 

"As a sector, we will have to talk about this in the coming period. I don't think it is a problem that that clarity is not yet there. After all, we can work on a solution and interpretation. I compare it with the grazing discussion, first we always talked to each other about the standard of 120 days and 6 hours a day, now it has been accepted for a long time and we are working on the implementation. We can also take that step with land-relatedness.”

Veenstra agrees that this standard is less easy to explain to citizens than simply counting the number of cows and hectares. “But this standard is fairer. Even an extensive company could otherwise supply plenty of soy at 2 LU per hectare and still be soil-bound, which is now being overcome. An important plus is that parties such as WWF also embrace this route.”

Nevedi critical
The trade association for the animal feed industry states in a press release that it endorses the goals of the report, but is critical of the route. This concerns the ambition with regard to the regional origin of raw materials or fodder crops.

Nevedi states: “This refers to frameworks that do not automatically do justice to achieving climate goals and circularity. The optimization of rations and the optimization between roughage and concentrates should be based on objective calculation methods. Achieving one goal should not backfire on another.”

Freely translated, Nevedi is not in favor of a clear focus on less imports of protein-rich raw materials, especially from outside Europe. The trade association wants to keep the freedom to keep imports up to standard.

© DCA Market Intelligence. This market information is subject to copyright. It is not permitted to reproduce, distribute, disseminate or make the content available to third parties for compensation, in any form, without the express written permission of DCA Market Intelligence.