Claims NVWA

Fraud with manure is not difficult

June 8, 2017 - Wouter Baan - 17 comments

It is relatively easy to cheat with manure. This is stated in the report 'National Threat Assessment 2017'. In view of the large interests in the fertilizer market, it is attractive to commit fertilizer fraud. That is what the Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA) claims.

The total costs for fertilizer disposal in the Netherlands in 2015 are estimated at 500 million euros. This amount underlines that the interests in manure are significant. Committing manure fraud can result in cost savings of several tons on a pig farm. High manure disposal costs in combination with relatively low yield prices make manure fraud attractive.

500

million euros

 were the manure disposal costs in 2015

Difficult to measure levels
According to the NVWA, fraud is taking place with regard to the collection, transport, delivery, sampling, weighing and accounting of manure. In practice, manure fraud is not difficult, because it concerns a so-called "delayed red act". The administrative accountability of manure disposal only takes place after a closed year. The manure has often long since been removed or spread. This means that the quantities of manure and the mineral contents can no longer be controlled.

The NVWA states that on paper the manure accounting is usually correct. In order to gain insight into manure fraud, more in-depth research into the manure flows is needed. Different data from sample measurements, journey lists, tachograph data and GPS data must be combined in order to gain insight into fictitious and actual manure flows. Such investigations are complicated and time consuming.

Practical example
The report outlines a practical example: 'Manure is fictitiously moved or stored and then deposited in the black or applied illegally on one's own farm or elsewhere. Everything seems to be in order administratively. For example, the administration states that the manure has been exported abroad, has been removed by intermediaries or has been stored by intermediaries in silos or manure cellars.'

Do you have a tip, suggestion or comment regarding this article? Let us know

Wouter Job

Wouter Baan is editor-in-chief of Boerenbusiness. He also focuses on dairy, pig and meat markets. He also follows (business) developments within agribusiness and interviews CEOs and policymakers.
Comments
17 comments
Subscriber
shit June 8, 2017
This is a response to this article:
[url=http://www.boerenbusiness.nl/mest/ artikel/10874783/frauderen-met-mest-is-niet- doen][/url]
and now the fence of the dam is going all the way
EPPIE June 9, 2017
simply oblige everyone who fertilizes soil to use 170 kilos of nitrogen from animal manure
john June 9, 2017
the system is not right either.. if you really want to know whether the wrong fertilizer is being applied, you will really have to contact the landowner and not the producer!
Arie June 10, 2017
The biggest problem with the government is that they don't have their computer systems in order. All data for control is available, but it is scattered everywhere and they have no overview. They are unable to order and link the data correctly. It's just a mess with them. And for most checks, they really don't have to wait until the end of the year. But their organization is so terribly viscous that it usually ends up that way.
Arie June 10, 2017
And with regard to tampering with weights and contents: if I transport 300 m3 of manure to an arable farmer and I enter in my administration that it was 400 m3, then that means that the arable farmer supplies 400 m3 on paper and in reality only 300 m3. mXNUMX gets. Do you think the farmer thinks that's a good idea or something? Do not think so. I have yet to meet the first. But maybe I'm not in the right circles for that or something...
Arie June 10, 2017
And with regard to tampering with weights and contents: if I transport 300 m3 of manure to an arable farmer and I enter in my administration that it was 400 m3, then that means that the arable farmer supplies 400 m3 on paper and in reality only 300 m3. mXNUMX gets. Do you think the farmer thinks that's a good idea or something? Do not think so. I have yet to meet the first. But maybe I'm not in the right circles for that or something...
Piet June 10, 2017
@Eppie
Animal manure, yes please, but no soil poison
And the arable farmer has to agree that the industrial harmful waste product is mandatory on his farm?
Please produce manure that benefits the soil life instead of dying. For example, matured solid manure.
loom June 11, 2017
@ Ari
What a stupid example Arie, as if a fraudster would act so openly. He prefers to supply thin manure with low levels and secretly takes a sample from another pit with higher levels. On paper he sells a lot to his benevolent buyer, but in fact he keeps the minerals on his own company.
Subscriber
erik June 11, 2017
As an arable farmer, I will not be forced to purchase manure (shit) up to 170 kg N per year.
I like to use organic fertilizer, but on my own terms.
I solve my own problems, try that instead. always pointing at someone else or calling for help!!
Arie June 12, 2017
@grower
In your example, the farmer will have to conspire with the transporter / driver of the tanker. Because as far as I know, a farmer is not allowed to take samples himself. But that could happen.

But suppose that happens: it essentially changes nothing in my example. The only difference is that the farmer does not know about it. It is of course fraud, but seen in total no extra manure is placed on both companies. What the livestock farmer removes less and therefore travels more on his own land, the arable farmer supplies less and therefore travels less on his land.
not difficult June 12, 2017
In the past, remains of triple super have been found in the analyses.....

Must be a myth again...
paul June 12, 2017
Fraud with money is a lot easier than with manure.
A parliamentary inquiry is currently underway.
yappa June 16, 2017
@not difficult

Won't be a myth. But then the question is: has the livestock farmer thrown a few tons of fertilizer into the manure cellar and is the transporter innocent? Or has a hand been put in the monster jar.
yay 2 February 2018
compost is the biggest fraud, because nobody wants it, there is a 50% discount on the minerals. And it saves the government billions in waste.
call 20 March 2018
sjappie wrote:
compost is the biggest fraud, because nobody wants it, there is a 50% discount on the minerals. And it saves the government billions in waste.


totally agree.
Here in be you only have to calculate in 15 effective N for compo, for farmyard manure 30 and slurry 60% of the supply. Good way to entice farmers and citizens to solve their (green) waste problem.
+ that compo would have a low n content, which is not difficult when you see how much is evaporated with the countless times of re-creation, if manure is treated in this way the content will also be lower
conclusion 23 March 2018
Arable farmers are again wrongly blaming that the problem lies with the livestock farmers and that they have to solve the manure problem.

The problem is the government that sets the rules of the game, and if necessary changes them during the game. As mentioned above, with that compost gang where the whole of arable farming in the Netherlands is kicking in with open eyes.
Einstein 25 March 2018
First guarantee that there is no manure in any batch, drug waste or the like and then we will talk further about obliging manure, thank you.
Grower 26 March 2018
Mandatory use of manure? It seems logical to me that the livestock farmers are therefore obliged to purchase only domestic grain! Or maybe that's not reasonable?
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 supportboerenbusiness. Nl

do you want to follow us?

Receive our free Newsletter

Current market information in your inbox every day

Login/Register