Is the current cultivation advice future-proof?

The share of independent cultivation advice in the arable sector is relatively small. The agent and fertilizer supplier often also provides advice on 'his' products. At the same time, the sector is facing major changes. Does the current cultivation advice still fit the vision of the future?

The ball started rolling for me when I followed an interesting discussion between English farmers on Twitter. The United Kingdom (UK) has many independent cultivation advisers. According to advocacy group AICC, almost half of Britain's arable land is provided with independent advice; good for 1,41 million hectares.

Sparse
I have the impression that this is less the case in other European countries. In the Netherlands, independent advisors are not so widely sown. A round of googling therefore mainly yields advisors in other sectors; some (dairy) farming, fruit growing and a lot of greenhouse cultivation. Delphy is the best known and certainly the largest, but not every arable farmer wants to join this organization. Unfortunately, there are not many alternatives. If you already find them, it concerns specific topics and niches.

Back to the twittering English. They were surprised at the fact that consultants sometimes work with a target, whereby they have to sell so many liters or kilos of a substance: the so-called 'serviced agronomy'. I do not know to what extent this is the practice in the Netherlands, but it is no secret that companies benefit from converting more products. The more sales, the higher the discount. This is positive for the farmer, provided the price advantage is translated into the farmer's price. This is often the case, especially if you as a large company purchase a lot of product.

French law
In France, a stop is being put to this way of working. In October 2018, parliament and President Emmanuel Macron passed a new agricultural law: 'de loi agriculture et alimentation'. This law covers a variety of subjects; from less plastic use to cameras in slaughterhouses. It also says read: 'Séparation des activities de vente et de conseils des produits phytosanitaries'. In short: the sale and advice of plant protection products must be decoupled. The selling party is only allowed to provide information about usage instructions and dangers, and no longer in combination with the crop.

This law is now being worked out in more detail and is expected to enter into force from 2021. The small resource sellers will be given a 2 year extension to split the 2 cases. According to the French chemical sector, 3.000 to 4.000 employees will be severely affected. It is not yet clear whether companies can simply set up a new BV and how the eventual elaboration will be.

Appropriate advice
However, the idea behind the law is not so strange. The share of plant protection products and active substances is declining rapidly. At the same time, hardly any new substances are added. It is therefore a must to look for alternatives. Does a company, which also derives its income from resource sales, advise the most appropriate advice?

The companies concerned all have a tight marketing story ready about how they value the long-term relationship with the customer and to what extent they put the customer's interests first. I understand that cheating someone won't get you very far, but in the end it's all about 1 thing for both the farmer and the supplier: return. Not only today, but also in 5 and 10 years.

Is chemistry displacing the alternatives?
An example: The ban on diquat, the active ingredient in Reglone, makes foliage killing (very) problematic to say the least. The hope is largely focused on various other means, but they are not all equally effective. In addition to burning, especially mechanical haulm killing is the alternative, but a lot of knowledge and research is lacking. When the chemical trail stops, who takes the lead? Agricultural entrepreneurs will probably have to deal with this much more often in the future. What to think when glyphosate is no longer allowed. Who has the knowledge then?

I think independent advice is better suited to these kinds of challenges than when the resource supplier has to take care of this. That is not their revenue model. However, to make this a success, much more is needed. There are quite a few barriers to overcome; for example, the right products must be available. That market has been very difficult to break through for years, despite online initiatives. The chemical market is locked and (logically) has very strict rules.

Research
Large companies have the means to build test fields and to acquire knowledge themselves, while an independent person does not. Unfortunately, independent research is also sparse in the Netherlands and even the small contribution of the Branche organization Akkerbouw is still critical. Finally, an independent person is also more expensive due to the above challenges.

However, there are also signs of a positive future. The size of companies is increasing rapidly. As a result, the costs can be better borne and spread more widely, more advice is obtained and more critical is examined. These companies are sometimes able to set up 'farmer trials' themselves.

Role of precision agriculture
Maybe help will come from an unexpected source: precision farming. earlier wrote fellow opinion maker Bert Rijk already discussed this. American seed and chemical giants are already making full use of this. Sensors and satellites can collect enormous amounts of data, which in turn can be used as a basis for independent cultivation advice. This way you benefit from the scale for individual companies. Perhaps there is hope on the horizon after all.

Niels van der Boom

Niels van der Boom is a senior market specialist for arable crops at DCA Market Intelligence. He mainly makes analyses and market updates about the potato market. In columns he shares his sharp view on the arable sector and technology.

© 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.