Agriphoto

Opinions Gerard Rose

Conspiracies about soil do not bring solutions

29 January 2021 - Gerard Ros - 24 comments

The farmland is emaciated. The soils are exhausted. The farmland is in bad shape. And the culprit is also known: intensive farming. Because fertilizers are used there, animals are put in a box and pesticides are frequently used there. The earth is breaking down and farming is wrong. And whoever takes responsibility gets blamed.

The Zembla broadcast about 'The Excuse of the Boerenleenbank' thus paints a world view that makes no one happy. In short and appealing images, a picture is sketched of the quality of the Dutch agricultural soil, the disastrous agricultural system and the role of financial institutions.

Farmers are stuck
While listening, you as a viewer are tempted to adopt the above world view. Scientists, economists and conventional and organic farmers use concrete examples and visual language to show that the current agricultural system can do nothing but mar the soil and destroy it.

It almost seems as if all conventional farmers are so stuck financially that they can do nothing but produce and pollute. That they can only be profitable by maximizing the use of fertilizers, slurry, and pesticides. And in this they are also stimulated by the entire chain, in particular by the banks.

World view a caricature
I refuse to adopt that worldview. It's too depressing for me and it doesn't do justice to reality. It's a caricature. A caricature of agriculture, of the craftsmanship of the entrepreneurs, and of the quality of the soil. It reminds me of the widely spread conspiracy theories about the origin and spread of Corona.

The picture outlined above also seems like an example of a conspiracy theory: there is a small group of organizations that cause damage to the environment and a large part of the population. Facts are ignored, and individual experiential stories and beautiful images are integrated into a well-running story, so that you as a viewer cannot draw any other conclusion than "Get lost, it's really going wrong". However, do listeners and viewers see that the colorful reality is simplified into a simple black-and-white image?

Most fertile soil in Europe
In an earlier series of articles I have shown that the quality of our agricultural soils is optimal for sustainable agricultural production. We still have the most fertile soils in Europe. Every day I speak to advisors and farmers who are committed to maintaining and improving the quality of the soil.

They provide sufficient organic matter to feed the soil life, improve the soil structure and improve the nutrient status of the soil. They are thinking about a varied crop plan to promote biodiversity and harvest security and to reduce the use of pesticides. For their manure plan, they think about the right timing, the right application technique, and the right fertilizer to prevent losses to the environment and to produce sufficient food.

Increasing biodiversity
They adapt their management to the natural fertility of the soil. They process and lime the soil to make it optimal again for both crop production and soil life. There are thousands of farmers who take extra steps through Agricultural Nature and Landscape Management to increase biodiversity, limit nutrient losses and stimulate meadow birds and plants and animals in the ditch.

I also know of examples where meadow birds prefer to forage on agricultural plots than on nearby nature, precisely because the agricultural soil contains so many earthworms. And based on this knowledge and experience, I seriously disagree with the world view that is outlined in the Zembla broadcast. This world view does not do justice to current agricultural practice, nor to the efforts and motivation of farmers to take good care of their soil and living environment. And it certainly doesn't encourage them to change.

Not getting the environment
Are there no problems with our current agricultural system? Yes, there are. Also for farmers who want to switch to a different type of farm system and who do not get their environment involved. But those problems do not lie in the agricultural soil. And yes, our agricultural system is in transition to new forms of circular agriculture, regenerative agriculture, and nature-inclusive agriculture.

And yes, banks also play a role in this, as do governments, chain parties and ultimately the consumer. Because we agree that farmers should not only produce more food, but should also contribute to climate, water and nature challenges. Because we not only want to manage the earth but also want to preserve it for the future generation.

Provide inspiration
Conspiracy theories do not provide solutions. Nor do they encourage involved farmers, banks and chain parties to participate. Therefore, focus on the good examples that exist. Provide inspiration, give hope and stimulate the development of new forms of agriculture. Involve all parties in the realization of this inspiring vision of the future. We will not survive without the farmers. In my view, the desired transition will only be a success if we take them seriously - with their knowledge of and love for the soil and their business.

Gerard Rose

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

More about

Gerard Rose
Comments
24 comments
Subscriber
sefO 29 January 2021
This is in response to it Boerenbusiness article:
[url = https: // www.boerenbusiness.nl/column/10890826/complotten-rond-grond-reken-no-solutions]Conspiracies around soil do not bring solutions[/url]
Zembla, by any chance NOS?
It is simply very difficult as a sector to put the spotlight on the fact that Dutch agriculture is the cleanest and most sustainable agriculture in the world.
Ministry, public broadcasters and left-wing parties, etc. are constantly putting the agricultural sector in the wrong light and everything is allowed
Simply put, there's no arguing with this.
An absolute must for the future is a professional minister, someone who can guide his officials (now it is the other way around)
A minister who has WUR carry out his/her work/research from a practical point of view (now it's the other way around)
Subscriber
Jan Veltkamp 29 January 2021
Have also seen the program, just mood making. A contract work that injects manure. It is not mentioned that this is only mandatory in the Netherlands and even prohibited in Germany. Then an organic company with lots of nests of house martins. That's because there are so many flies. It's great, even a swallow expert is brought in. But the hygiene accordingly. I think most people don't like milk from that, but then they don't show it.
The dangerous thing about this is that the government is not in charge, but program makers have far more influence over the public than policy makers. You can vote for or not for policy makers, but not for program makers. So a totally undemocratic thing. Trump has not perished because of his land policy, but has been killed by the media. The media is also the boss in the US. Dangerous development, the riots in NL of the past few days also show that. The riots are organized through the media and the same media has nothing against it. The farmers are also made fun of by the media. Media, dangerous development.
Ruud Hendriks 29 January 2021
The picture was an overall picture, the individual initiatives indeed did not come to the fore, and there certainly are.
However, the overall picture of declining quality is recognizable and cannot be changed by naming where things are going well. In the Flevopolder, where I have been working for 25 years now, the decline is more than average. While that was denied during the first 10 years that I was there, this is now recognized and it is more questionable in study groups how it can be turned around.

The worm population has declined drastically. That is a bad signal because where worms decrease, the entire micro life also decreases, and with it the resilience and climate resilience of the soil. These days, black-tailed godwits return to Senegal noticeably earlier than in the past (which unfortunately also affects the rice growers there).

The maps of the subsurface damage in the Netherlands speak volumes. I am one of those soil consultants and have experienced a decline in soil quality. In a large part of the sandy area the subsoil has settled, so that digging profile pits takes more time (no, not because I am getting older....). I see a lot of fields full of water there that didn't have it before, and also in years when there is little winter precipitation.

Dutch agriculture is not the most sustainable and clean, that is something we like to say, but the figures do not show it. A few examples. The energy consumption per unit of product has increased by a factor of 70 in 6 years and 45% of the nitrogen input via concentrates and manure is lost again to air and water. Until 2018, the use of substances per hectare increased. The absolute decrease was due to the decrease in acreage.

In summary, soil degradation is a given, but there are plenty of examples where this trend has been reversed. The image sketched by Zembla has been put down rather firmly, rubbed even more by a bank man. However, the question of guilt or responsibility is not that interesting. It is now as it is, a result of the past; it is especially important to bend the trend towards conservation and improvement and to do so in such a way that it also offers benefits for the farmer. As far as I'm concerned, that's where the perspective has to be realised, there are plenty who want to get in right away.
Subscriber
another peter 29 January 2021
Dear Ruud,

The way you said it, I also think it comes across more fair. If you follow the agricultural media in this way, you know (and you notice that too) that in recent years much more attention has been paid to the soil, because we notice that a limit has been reached. however, what Zembla always does is fingerpoint conventional agriculture as the culprit, and the organic farmers are good. That's just too black and white. Zembla does that over and over again. and that's just a shame!!

Furthermore, your comment about the fact that GWB use is increasing. I assume you are speaking in kg of product. That is of course not strange. Due to the admission policy, the strong substances are banned and the "watery" substances with less effectiveness are left over and we must use them more. It is logical that the sales in kg then increase.
I notice it too. My father cleaned his beets in 30 rounds 3 years ago. Now I sometimes have to do it 5 times. That's not because I want to, but the good active substances are banned. So I think you can thank the green parties in the Netherlands for this increase. It's a shame you put that on the credit of the conventional farmer. Incidentally, after the ban on neonics, the kg of active substance in beet cultivation will increase even more. Rara who has is responsible for that or with zembla to say who is guilty of that.....

could you perhaps be a little more concrete about your comment that energy consumption has increased by a factor of 6 in the past 70 years per unit of product. I can't imagine exactly how to see that. In a general sense it is of course the case that the entire society / economy has started to consume more energy, including agriculture. But I'd like some clarification on what you mean.
Ruud Hendriks 29 January 2021
@Jan, I can imagine what the experience is that the negative has been turned on heavily, it was put down firmly. However, injecting manure as an example is not untrue. Emission-free spreading and relatively sharp slurry are a reality that has its influence.
What I find a pity is that livestock farming colleagues who find their own way and also succeed in this kind of discussion are often treated so negatively, in this case on an alleged hygiene situation. Google "Grazing Farm" to find out how the business works. The company is now a source of inspiration for many farmers and consumers do like to buy the products because of the good quality. As it is called, the company also has an excellent business case from it.....
Subscriber
FB 29 January 2021
If I may take an example from the Zembla broadcast, a lady gets a sprout of sprouts in her vegetable package and is surprised that sprouts grow like that. And people like that want to tell me how to farm! I think this reflects the situations well, they have heard the bell ringing but don't even know that he has a clapper let alone where it hangs!
michiel short-necked 29 January 2021
Ros: conspiracy theory? I think different values ​​than yours, different perspective. Of course, many farmers are very diligent about their business and the soil. And that slurry is mandatory by the government. As a member of a commercial company, your farmers are not allowed to lose weight. But the reports of ecologists such as Wim van der Putten and Franziska de Vries, and RLI do not lie: long-term use of fertilizers and pesticides does give a high yield in the short term, because the roots do not care where the food comes from, but the soil life, and with it water retention, absorption of fertilizer, etc. disappears and leaks into groundwater and air. In the long run, it's over with high yields. In addition, CO2 absorption, given that 60% of the land is in farm hands, is a duty, and it disappears with lifeless soil. You have a long-term duty to help the farmers well and not to make fun of them. You don't now. (I myself am a small farmer and professor of philosophy and can give many more references).
Subscriber
other peter 29 January 2021
michael shorthals wrote:
Ros: conspiracy theory? I think different values ​​than yours, different perspective. Of course, many farmers are very diligent about their business and the soil. And that slurry is mandatory by the government. As a member of a commercial company, your farmers are not allowed to lose weight. But the reports of ecologists such as Wim van der Putten and Franziska de Vries, and RLI do not lie: long-term use of fertilizers and pesticides does give a high yield in the short term, because the roots do not care where the food comes from, but the soil life, and with it water retention, absorption of fertilizer, etc. disappears and leaks into groundwater and air. In the long run, it's over with high yields. In addition, CO2 absorption, given that 60% of the land is in farm hands, is a duty, and it disappears with lifeless soil. You have a long-term duty to help the farmers well and not to make fun of them. You don't now. (I myself am a small farmer and professor of philosophy and can give many more references).
That is why it is such a shame that part of the political spectrum wants half the animals to leave the Netherlands. So where should I get my manure from, as a slightly less small arable farmer in a cattle-free area? I agree with you that too much fertilizer is not good for the soil, but I am afraid of the cattle-less future that various NGOs have in mind. Incidentally, I do not have the impression that Mr Ros is in favor of lifeless soil. I don't get that from his point.
Gerard 29 January 2021
Dear Michael,
This article is not a plea for unbridled use of fertilizers, let alone being one-sided. I doubt our values ​​are that far apart. This blog is a plea for an honest story about both fertilizer and the use of farmers.
The Zembla broadcast, as well as the study by the RLI, lack the agricultural interpretation framework and are strongly biased towards negative facts. And that's a shame, because it is precisely in this sector that the strength to innovate lies. This is also made concrete in other articles; I fully support that transition. A transition to an agriculture that takes into account the carrying capacity of the living environment. But also an agriculture that makes optimal use of the soil as well as animal manure and fertilizers (see e.g. Ros en de Vries, 2020). The studies by Franciska and Van der Putten support this with new insights into the role of the soil food web. And that's a story that offers inspiration, much more than the negative framing that is the basis of this broadcast. A positive look forward, with respect for those involved, is much more stimulating than a negative look to the past.
Subscriber
Haarlemmermeer 29 January 2021
The bias was so strong that the reason for switching was deliberately avoided, ie a surplus of organic milk. The slurry application was also not explained.
Zembla is a mockery.
Roy 29 January 2021
Zembla is corrupt leftist media. Assemble statues and fragments one after the other, put scary music underneath and spread the ideal image of GroenLinks.
Subscriber
Skirt 30 January 2021
What do they actually want to achieve? Remove all farmers and import food? I don't really see the environmental benefit as a total picture...
Chose 30 January 2021
Wouldn't it be interesting for scientists like Gerard Ros, and the person who was digging worms in Zembla, to join forces? Experts who contradict each other are of no use to ordinary citizens. It would be better if they tried to find the truth in a joint spit project in many different places. Are there actually many or few worms and other organisms? First establishing the facts, that must be interesting for experts, right? It doesn't really matter whether there is a party that loses face in doing so. Then we have an objective basis with which to move forward.
Two more brief remarks: the term "agricultural interpretation framework" is too difficult for me, then the argument becomes too foggy for me.
And it bothered me a bit that a conspiracy theory was suggested. That seems unfounded to me.
Ruud Hendriks 31 January 2021
"Looking the cow in the ass" is only useful if it wakes you up. I think that many people/farmers are already awake and experiencing that the agricultural system has crossed the border. Mansholt himself did this at a later age in the early 70s. The main question now is how we can shape the transition that he already considered necessary. The farmers way is not an option, is not the wish, is not necessary. Assign a different value. In other words, the role of agriculture in addition to food production is also the provision of other services. Carbon storage, landscape, recreational value, water storage. It doesn't matter what, as long as it is part of the farmer's revenue model.
The scaling export-oriented agricultural system will not last. We supply 6% of the global market. About half of the food goes through the global market, the other half is local, so we supply 3% of the world food production. At the moment, 30% or more of which is lost, so by limiting the loss to 10%, the entire Dutch contribution has already been absorbed. It just depends from which point of view you look at whether something is large or small.

Let's take a look at those worms: I've been digging in agricultural soils for about 30 years now. Numerical substantiation may help, but I have experienced in practice how the structure recedes, soil life (worms) decreases, the subsoil has become stuck and peat settles. Not everywhere, but in many places. Where the worms suddenly appear massively and disruptively (calcareous clay), it is mainly a signal of imbalance, it is one of the many out there that sees its chance.
Subscriber
caiptan gone 31 January 2021
I myself suffer from the wrong worms on calcareous clay since I have to inject manure, never had any problems before and since I stopped with manure injection no more problems with my structure.
Subscriber
check 31 January 2021
You can dig in the ground for 30 years.

Ever heard of cultivating a soil?

I mean you have to work it and grow food on it.

It's starting to stink of idealism again
Ruud Hendriks 31 January 2021
@ Sjekkie. Maybe I didn't write it right. I actually do this digging together with farmers who want to know more about their soil because they want to work it better to keep it vital. Tomorrow 2 groups again. Digital. Also nice, but still bummed. In the field it is a lot better to experience. Everyone should take profile clods from their own company and dig a profile pit at the host company. Valuable moments of discovery.
Subscriber
quite coarse 31 January 2021
Yes Ruud, use a factor of 70 more energy in 6 years.
Just look in the mirror because I think that's a general picture of everyone who works.
The problem with us is that labor is too expensive and will increase by a factor of 70 or perhaps a factor of 15 in 20 years! has gone up and that of the diesel price is also 15 times more expensive than 70 years ago, I think.
So take a look back and see how it is in general. This also applies to the Zembla wretches, who have probably also sealed their terrace and driveway.
Subscriber
quite coarse 31 January 2021
Doesn't take away from the fact that we have to be allert and busy with it.
The bottom has to last forever and short term gain is loss.
kees 1 February 2021
I personally think that it is due to machines that are too heavy, irrigating too much harvesting fruit in the crop plan, but we have also had no more frost in recent years and the use of liquid fertilizer is also a problem
Frosty 1 February 2021
Ever thought why intensive farming should be to blame? I do not think so.
give the farmer a decent income with common basic fruits and the intensity decreases by itself.
the farmers were and are being pushed into the fence and can't do anything else for the time being
Ruud Hendriks 1 February 2021
If product prices do not rise, farmers are forced to participate in the rat race, to intensify. Then there is only room for a limited group to work differently. If the price that consumers pay as a result of the world market cannot be influenced directly and the supermarkets do not take this up either, then we in the Netherlands will have to pay for soil care in a different way. Payment for 'services'. Revenue model.
Subscriber
epv 1 February 2021
Ruud You call it services. but is that so? It's a disguised subsidy that never lasts. Participated in so many projects in the past, a nice revenue model at the start, much less with the first evaluation and no more dry bread for the farmer with the second. But the delegate for the organization just earns his salary every year with inflation adjustment. Green and blue services without a 10-year guarantee for the inflation-adjusted earnings model is fooling yourself.
bblogic 1 February 2021
I absolutely do not recognize the so-called deterioration of the soil. And every conventional arable farmer knows what to do to keep the soil healthy:

- Maintain structure well. No mud on wet ground.
- Good crop rotation, with also some grain, or grain maize.
- Fertilize with slurry, supplemented with fertilizer.
- Maintain the pH.
- If possible, use green manures.

With these types of well-known common agricultural practices, the soil can be kept in top condition. If there are any problems, it is because of too low fertilization standards imposed by so-called experts.
You can no longer respond.

What are the current quotations?

View and compare prices and rates yourself

Call our customer service +0320(269)528

or mail to support@boerenbusiness.nl

do you want to follow us?

Receive our free Newsletter

Current market information in your inbox every day

Sign up