'65% protein standard is virtually impossible'

After the phosphate problem, the government believes it is time to take a closer look at the protein levels in animal feed. 65% of the protein requirement in the ration must come from our own country by 2025. The government wants to use this to reduce nitrogen emissions. “It is not clear where the 65% comes from,” says Henry van Ittersum.

How realistic is the standard '65% protein requirement from our own country'?
“This is going to be a difficult task, especially in the south. In the north, a regular alternation of livestock and arable farming is still visible. In the south this is hardly the case, intensive livestock farming characterizes the landscape. With this requirement, the government wants to move towards more land-relatedness.

The variety in the north offers opportunities, but the intensity in the south makes it difficult. Land is not exactly up for grabs there and there are also fewer opportunities to enter into partnerships with arable farmers. The problem that now arises is also precisely the reason that the government is broaching this subject. Intensive companies are faced with an almost impossible task. Land is expensive, making purchase a financial loss. The alternative, downsizing, is not an option for most companies financially either.”

What consequences does this have?
“I find this difficult to estimate. I don't think that much land will be bought, that is simply too expensive. Entering into a partnership with, for example, an arable farmer, as I just mentioned, may be an option. I also find it difficult to estimate a reaction for the feed industry, but I expect that little will change.

The chance that feed producers will be affected by this measure seems small. They simply buy and sell products that are less protein-rich. A change here will not save the sector either, the challenge really lies with the farms themselves. I do expect that this measure will lead to stoppers. Especially if that 65% really becomes a hard requirement. Feed protein and silage maize are the key to higher milk production per cow.

The question then is whether reducing the proportion of protein in the ration will ensure sufficient milk. And since milk provides the dairy farmer's income, less milk is often not an option. Incidentally, we also have to wait and see what the consequences will be if a company cannot meet the requirement. But one thing is certain: for a number of farmers, this requirement is simply yet another obstacle. It remains to be seen whether they will pull that off.”

How much confidence do you have in the nitrogen policy that the government is now enforcing?
“They say the measures they have taken so far have been effective. A sham if you ask me. Otherwise, follow-up measures would not be necessary. Since the abolition of the milk quota, the milk urea has increased again. It is time to draw a clear line. The cycle pointer can play a role in this. That is a nice instrument, but then it must be used in combination with the phosphorus and protein standards of the government. Steps have been taken in tackling the phosphorus problem with the phosphorus feed covenant, but things can be done much more firmly, including with urea. It is time for clear steps and requirements, because if this does not work, another set of measures will be taken.”

What would be a future-proof ration?
“First of all, start with a clear explanation. That 65% is completely out of the blue. Why 65% ​​and not 50%? Six months ago I put that question to one of the creators, he was unable to answer it. If the government really wants companies to be land-bound (for example 1 cow per hectare), they should make that a requirement and not ignore it.

I think a future ration is aimed at recycling, but then set a maximum amount of protein that may be in the (recycling guide) ration. Now they try to put 2 'problems' in 1 solution: reducing protein and forcing soil-boundness. Land-relatedness is already partly realized by the current fertilizer laws.”

You also advise abroad, what is the trend there?
“As far as feeding is concerned, farmers abroad have much more freedom. The Netherlands is progressive. Countries around us are now coming up with laws that were introduced to us years ago. For example, Germany now has to deal with requirements for manure disposal, also aimed at urea. So they also focus on less protein, but are trailing behind us. The farmers there now also have to deal with minerals accounting, but that has really only happened recently.
 

In the Netherlands, Minas (mineral declaration system) was put into use years ago. In addition, the situation in Germany remains freer when it comes to feeding and everything around it. The problems we are currently encountering in the Netherlands do not yet arise there. This also partly has to do with the space that is available. However, that does not mean that it is necessarily easier to use the space.

Land is also becoming more and more expensive in Germany. In France they are even looser than in Germany. If something changes there, it will go on the same 'urea tour', but I don't see many obligations coming up. What did surprise me, however, is that Ireland is suddenly introducing stricter laws with a view to compulsory grazing in case of derogation. This also has to do with urea emissions. For example, when purchased, feed may not exceed 16% crude protein. Ultimately, there will be more rules abroad, but that is in a number of gears lower than with us.”

Jorine Cosse

Editor at Boerenbusiness who studies the dairy, pig (meat) and feed markets. Jorine analyzes the roughage market on a weekly basis and periodically the compound feed market.

j.cosse@boerenbusiness. Nl

© 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.