Is fertilizer tax ill-considered?

A GroenLinks motion was recently adopted by the House of Representatives requesting Minister Carola Schouten (Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality) to consider a levy on nitrogen fertilizers. But, I don't think they thought this through well. I'll try to sort something out.

First of all, I would like to comment on the comment that the use of fertilizers in the Dutch agricultural sector has approximately halved since 1990. However, despite this halving, there is apparently still a mineral surplus. A whole book could be written about that alone, but I'll just stick to nitrogen here.

The numbers
The total amount of nitrogen in the Dutch food system is interesting in this regard. This is mainly supplied by concentrated feed (423 million kilos), fertilizer (245 million kilos), via the air (23 million kilos) and 17 million kilos are supplied in other ways. This data is from 2015. 

The removal of nitrogen mainly takes place via animal production (208 million kilos), fertilizers outside the agricultural sector (90 million kilos) and via vegetable products (84 million kilos). In addition, the loss to the soil is about 242 million kilos and 90 million kilos disappear into the air. The rest (about 370 million kilos) remains in the food system, mainly in the form of vegetable products and roughage.

Who will be the victims of the tax?
If we then look at the tax, those who use nitrogen fertilizers are the victims of the tax. After all, they have to pay. These are not only plant growers, but also most dairy farmers. The following will apply: the less intensive, the more you have to pay. This is because you do not dispose of or less manure and use fertilizer. In short, if you follow the social discussion, the most desirable form of animal husbandry will be punished the most.

It is special to see that intensive livestock farming gets away with it best. This is because no nitrogen fertilizer is used there and a lot of discharge takes place via manure. Even if the disposal costs a little less due to a levy, they would come out positively.

Circular agriculture
Minister Schouten would like to move towards circular agriculture. Apart from the fact that you can already set up a huge boom about this, it is remarkable that the largest source of nitrogen (concentrate), mainly from imports, remains unaffected. The same also applies to the sector that is least land-bound. If you think about it, it is even more remarkable that the motion comes from GroenLinks.

Perhaps it has escaped my attention (due to my shift work) that an enormous policy swing has been made and that intensive livestock farming has become a warm heart. In any case, let it be clear: I am not against intensive livestock farming. In fact, I embrace this modern, animal-friendly and community-oriented form of agriculture.

We must realize that this form fits well in circular agriculture. So I only try to indicate the effects of the ill-considered motion and note that there are only losers.

Will a lot change with a tax?
When I look at our company, which I run with my 2 sons, we apply animal manure where possible and we choose the type that suits best. That is highly dependent on the weather and the condition of the soil; structure decay should be minimal during the sowing and planting season. In short, the circumstances are decisive. The shared gifts, apart from the grains, are also practically impracticable in the other crops (for example because of leaf burn).

The motion is an abomination and will result in only losers. I call on all farmers (from extensive to intensive) to now support each other and work together. If we don't, we will be played off against each other and our share will be doom and gloom.

Boy, can I still see that GroenLinks embraces intensive livestock farming. So the wonders are not over yet.

Jaap Haanstra

Jaap Haanstra is an arable farmer in Luttelgeest and chairman of the AgriFacts Foundation. In addition, he has worked for various agricultural organizations over the past 30 years. Haanstra writes his columns in a personal capacity.

© 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.