Why a negative view of agricultural soil?

The Dutch soil is under the magnifying glass and all kinds of experts warn that the quality of the Dutch agricultural soil is not going well. The main cause of this is the intensive agricultural management.

The majority of agricultural soils therefore suffer from acidification, eutrophication, desiccation, compaction and all kinds of soil-related diseases. In the first part of this diptych I have shown that this conclusion approaches reality far too black and white. The majority of agricultural soils have an extremely good soil quality for growing agricultural crops. 

Where do all these critical 'findings' come from? Is there something going on that I have overlooked or are the experts in the Netherlands just in their own 'bubble'? In this article I will look for answers. I summarize this in 6 points.

1. A Vanished Worldview
First of all, there is something that we already learned in the first year of philosophy of science at university. Facts never stand alone and only come to life within a worldview. It is the lens through which we look at facts. Who does not remember the controversy surrounding the efficiency of agriculture. With exactly the same figures, Dutch agriculture can be called the most efficient agriculture (kg product per kg input) as well as the most environmentally unfriendly agriculture (kg input per hectare).

In science we also call these worldviews paradigms, complexes of related hypotheses that are internally consistent, but not mutually exclusive (Thomas Kuhn, 1970). The philosopher Lakatos follows a similar track in which these paradigms can compete with each other and of which the best world view remains in the long term. The way in which we look at the facts and interpret them also largely determines the conclusion about the state of soil quality. It is somewhat like the parable of the 6 blind people who, each with their own set of instruments, go in search of the elephant in front of them.

What does that mean for the discussions about soil quality? An agronomist looking to maximize yield to meet growing food demand views a change in phosphate status or organic matter differently than a wildlife enthusiast seeking to maximize biodiversity on and below the soil. A policy officer who has the task of mitigating climate change by storing carbon in the soil also looks at soil quality in a different way than an agricultural expert.

The paradigm and underlying vision matter. The conclusion of Hidde Boersma and Joost van Kasteren (2020) that the alarming report of the Council for the Living Environment and Infrastructure relies heavily on the work of the Louis Bolk Institute (in their words, an organization with an anthroposophical slant, which openly for fertiliser-free, organic farming) is too strong for me, given the fact that researchers from various knowledge institutions are involved in this study.

But they do have a serious underlying point: a large number of current (soil) researchers have no roots in - and little feeling with - actual agricultural practice (including the latest practical developments in agronomy) and view the soil from a different perspective than an agricultural expert or agricultural entrepreneur.

2. The substantive vision is not realistic?
It is relatively easy to make differences and changes in soil quality measurable, as long as it has not been defined in advance what good soil quality is and how it can also be made measurable. In the previous article I indicated that comparisons and extrapolations from measurement sets are made, which fail because the Dutch agricultural soil is not (and need not be) comparable with soils outside the Netherlands or with soils in nature reserves. The desired functionality is different and therefore the definition of soil quality is also different. Mind you, then I look at this problem purely from the point of view of the desired quality for an agricultural soil.

Between the lines, however, these studies adopt a different (and much broader) view of soil quality. A vital soil must enable crop yields as well as store carbon, retain nutrients and water, break down pesticides and stimulate biodiversity above and below ground. Preferably without too many technical aids. Although it is not made so concrete, this does suggest that a soil can fulfill all these functions (simultaneously).

Several recent studies show that this multi-functionality is not possible. This also means that when we talk about soil quality, we must be very clear in advance about the intended goals and they must also be realistic. An agricultural soil remains an agricultural soil. As long as we are not clear about this, there will always be substantial bottlenecks regarding soil quality and we will continue to maintain a negative focus.

3. A world of extremes
Another development has to do with the role of the media and the prevention of exceptional situations. It is not difficult at all to conjure up dozens of newspaper reports and news items with conclusions such as 'in a large part of the Dutch agricultural land ... there is no longer any soil life ... there is a zombie nature', 'the soil can no longer be repaired chemically', and 'the bottom has been reached'.

In extreme weather years with great drought or with a lot of precipitation in a short time, it is not at all difficult to make dramatic pictures of agricultural plots that are under water or where the crop dies due to water shortage. Alarming messages are in and are shared quickly and widely. Reports that things are going well with the Dutch agricultural soil are much less present. Neither are messages from happy farmers.

By placing too much emphasis on negative messages, are the media giving a distorted view of reality? Does this not give the exceptions (which are also certain) the status of 'normal'? And what is our role in this as researchers and advisors?

4. An alarming tone suggests relevance
First a hand in your own bosom: the success rate of project proposals is higher if it provides an answer to a pressing and urgent problem. For this reason, I see dozens of project proposals in which soil quality is emphasized very negatively, in order to make the innovation of the project idea more apparent. And I write those proposals myself.

Do we realize that, as researchers and soil scientists, we are also creating a world view that is only partly true and that third parties (policy makers, journalists, farmers and citizens) get the impression that our project certainly contributes to a better world. Of course there are also substantive questions, but do we sometimes lose sight of the big picture by focusing too much on problems?

To neutralize: there is nothing new under the sun. A brief look at our historical archive, as well as copies of old trade journals confirm this. All current issues surrounding soil quality (acidification, eutrophication, desiccation, soil life, ammonia, phosphate, metals) were already an issue in the 70s and 80s.

The content of various articles sometimes seems to be an updated copy of something that was also hot news at the time. Just think of the entire discussion surrounding roadside and ditch cuttings, increasing organic matter, the use of soil improvers or measures for more biodiversity. My advice: let's prevent these hypes together.

5. New insights sound better against a black background
Related to this is the rapid emergence of all kinds of consultants and companies that like to piggyback on the growing attention to soil. The best way to do that is to dismiss current agricultural practice, the use of proven measurement methods and associated advice as outdated, as something that comes from the Mansholt school and must therefore be wrong.

Subsequently, all kinds of innovative measurement methods and advice are presented that solve the current problems. I am also pleased that the scientific reports from knowledge institutions, as well as the RLI report, have stayed far from this. But all this attention for 'a bad soil due to bad management' once again confirms the negative image of the soil.

6. Access to data and practical knowledge is limited
Scientific researchers like to limit their research to a specific process or aspect of the soil. That makes sense, because in this way we increase our knowledge of the system. To do this, field trials are often set up at test stations or measurements are carried out at dozens of agricultural entrepreneurs. At the same time, we also know that the actual variation in soil quality varies greatly depending on the position in the landscape, the management of soil, crops, manure and water. 

Scaling up conclusions to reality outside the experimental farm requires caution as well as a thorough knowledge of the current agricultural system and associated soil. I wonder whether soil experts in the Netherlands are aware of this and whether they take this into account in their conclusions. The fact that our national policy is evaluated on the basis of hundreds of measurement locations in the Netherlands sounds fantastic (and it is).

But at the same time, information from hundreds of thousands of soil analyzes and associated advice from routine laboratories is ignored. Another example: for years there has been a large discrepancy between the amount of manure that we redistribute on paper across the Netherlands and the data collected on farms. Sharing data in order to learn together, there are still enormous opportunities to monitor and direct soil policy.

A short reflection
In conclusion, are there no problems with the Dutch agricultural soil? Yes, there are. And to a large extent also linked to careless management of agricultural entrepreneurs. In part also due to less influenceable factors such as salinisation, dry weather years and warm winters. In various regions in the Netherlands, the current building plans are therefore not sustainable. As an agricultural sector, we have become (too) dependent on technical solutions and all this (negative) attention to soil quality has become a wake-up call to take the principle 'function follows soil quality' seriously.

By cleverly combining the agricultural goals with the various social challenges, there are opportunities here for almost every farm. As soil experts, we play a supporting role in this: we look for system innovations and technical solutions to reduce the problem of soil compaction (and structural deterioration) and disease pressure. Together with the sector in order to arrive at feasible solutions. To be truly sustainable, for now as well as for the future generation. With care for a good soil!

Gerard Rose

Senior project manager in soil, water and agriculture at the Nutrient Management Institute (NMI).

© 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.