5 questions for Rens van Bergeijk
Manure policy serves the fertilizer market, not the farmer
At the beginning of April, the equivalent fertilizer measures were announced. It was preceded by a long journey. However, not every farmer is satisfied with the outcome. This also applies to arable farmer Rens van Bergeijk. In his view, the fertilizer standards merely encourage the use of fertilizers and that is the wrong way to go.
Rens van Bergeijk runs an arable farming and contracting business in Zuidland (South Holland) together with his brother Marc. For about 10 years now, he has been trying to gradually reduce the use of fertilizers and supply more animal fertilisers. With the current manure policy, this is becoming increasingly impossible for him. He calls the current measures unwise for soil and crops.
What do you think is the problem with the equivalent manure measures?
'The announced measures don't look like anything. As an arable farmer, I am not at all interested in more monitoring and the extra costs involved. The time I have to put into all the administration and company visits also costs money. That is not looked at. The current manure policy focuses on the use of fertilizers, while at our company we try to purchase as little phosphate and potash as possible in fertilizer form. If I opt for the new extension, I can only supply 100 kilos of nitrogen from animal manure. Reducing the use of fertilizer and thus improving soil health is not an option then.'
Almost all arable farmers are busy with their soil. How is it possible that such a measure is taken?
'The equivalent manure measures are the result of researchers, civil servants and the business community who have little or no feeling for modern farming practices. In practice, little use will be made of this. Research has almost always focused on fertilizer application. After the disappearance of the Productschap Akkerbouw, the studies are largely financed by the industry. But who checks whether government policy is on the right track? Fertilizer does not increase the organic matter content, but it does increase the leaching of nutrients. When good yields are achieved with more fertilizer, I expect a further lowering of the standards. It is time for the government to look at the matter from the perspective of the farmer and his soil. Good healthy soil also needs nutrients to live. The current regulations are at odds with practice and what we need.'
You say that you do not supply phosphate and potassium from fertilizer to the company. How does that work?
'We have been using slurry for years. This has been slightly reduced to also be able to supply the solid straw manure and compost. The crops we grow are potatoes, sugar beet, chicory, wheat, winter barley and canned peas. We partly use blowdown water to supply nitrogen. When applied, this is mixed into the slurry. All the necessary machines are available through our contracting company. Because the discharge water from air scrubbers is always slightly contaminated (due to transport in slurry trucks), it may not be classified as fertilizer. In theory, it is possible to meet the entire nitrogen requirement with discharge water. With the current standard of 170 kilos of nitrogen, I will be in trouble.'
What results have been achieved in that 10-year period?
'We have the plots sampled every 4 years. This shows that the organic matter content increases by 4 percent every 0,10 years. What is striking is that the soil stock increases enormously in a short time, because we are switching from purely crop nutrition to a fertilization plan aimed at soil nutrition. This is reflected in the availability of absorbable potash for the plant. By stopping with potash spreading and more cattle slurry and solid duck manure, this has been greatly improved. Also magnesium is then sufficiently supplied. The increase in organic matter content is also due to the application of non-inversion tillage (NKG). When I compare the soil investigations of the experimental farm with those of our company, I see that they spread more potassium and magnesium, because this washes out. In our soil, it is more and more fixed to the clay/humus complex. And the crops loosen this themselves. Green manures are grown. Where there is no time left to grow a good green manure, a fertilization of 25 tons is done with a mixture of farmyard manure/natural grass compost. This stimulates soil life and you have the opportunity to control root weeds. There is a sub-working obligation for spreading this piece of solid manure, but this is also at odds with a healthy soil life. The commuting worms in particular benefit from having this organic matter on land. The nitrogen is bound and necessary for digestion and will volatilize minimally from this product.'
What do you think needs to change to improve the situation?
'I argue in favor of company-specific research into the leaching of nutrients and minerals. It is now mainly a matter of feeling that leaching is reduced on our farm, even with frequent use of animal manure and extra organic matter from nature. This data is valuable for the government, but also for Wageningen University to be able to test their policies and rules. Only in this way will it become clear what the difference is for soil fertility. Better fertilizer substitutes are also required. Every new measure seems to add more red tape. Civil servants and inspectors in particular benefit from this. The entrepreneur is not taken into account in this.'
Niels van der Boom
© 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.