Shutterstock

Opinions Ramon Klaassens

New divide in the agricultural sector?

22 February 2019 - Ramon Klaassens - 9 comments

Circular agriculture has been a much-discussed topic in recent years. Some see circular agriculture as a new theme and others see it as yet another theme that we need to work on. But, is this subject really that new and should we get started, or have the first steps already been taken?

Recently I was asked to give an introduction to the theme of 'circular agriculture' at a study club. I was also asked to cite practical examples, in which the economic benefits were also clear. What strikes me about these kinds of subjects is that there is always a certain resistance among some farmers. Although I can somewhat imagine this attitude, because in recent years there have been a lot of uncertainty was, for example, on the regulations regarding phosphate and soil-boundness.

The world is changing
Still, I regret that this is the attitude of many farmers. The world is constantly changing and as a result, society and the wishes and requirements they place on the agricultural sector, for example, are changing. Because of these changes, you as an entrepreneur must also change; if you still want to be an entrepreneur in the future.

In my view, however, this is nothing more than looking for new opportunities and challenges and tackling them. This allows you to change along with the demands and wishes of the consumer, so that you can secure the future of your company. More importantly, this can yield significant financial benefits: think of themes such as the longevity of dairy cows, the use of crop protection products, antibiotic use, energy saving and fertilizer use. These are subjects in which society often looks at agriculture with critical eyes.

Do you have anything to do with this as a farmer? I think so. By actively working on this, you show that you know what is going on in the world and that you take this into account. But, more importantly, as a company you can earn and/or save a lot of money with this. In all of the above subjects, technically good farming is the most important precondition for earning or saving money.

Circular agriculture
In my opinion it also works with circular agriculture† If you farm well technically, this can yield many benefits. For example, good roughage can ensure that you need less concentrate. And what you need, you could then have it grown yourself or in the region. This is something that you as a livestock farmer can start with today.

This also applies to arable farming: by setting the soil fertility at 1 and acting accordingly with your fertilizers and treatments, this will ensure higher yields and lower costs. It almost sounds obvious, but the reality is different. For example, receiving a higher price for pig manure is often considered more important than receiving the right fertilizer; it yields less money for the supply, but is better for the soil and the crop.

every farmer
I therefore see circular agriculture as a topic that every farmer should tackle. That the vision of Minister Carola Schouten (Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality) has not yet been fully completed, therefore mainly offers opportunities. After all, there are certainly still some hurdles to overcome before a good start can be made with circular agriculture: think of the manure legislation, which can hinder cooperation between arable farming and livestock farming.

I am concerned that some do not consider circular agriculture to be self-evident; I don't think agriculture is possible without a cycle, but we sometimes seem to forget that. Filling in a tool, such as the Circular Guide, is sometimes seen as applying circular agriculture. I hope that these farmers will actively work on this theme in the near future and convert their resistance into energy to achieve profit for their company. Only then can we prevent a new gap from developing next to the infamous 'farmer-citizen' gap: the 'farmer-cycle' gap.

Ramon Klaassens

Ramon Klaassens is the owner of Klaassens Advies in Winschoten. By providing guest lectures, presentations and columns, Ramon hopes to stimulate farmers to look critically at their own company.
Comments
9 comments
jpk 22 February 2019
This is in response to it Boerenbusiness article:
[url=http://www.boerenbusiness.nl/column/10881434/nieuwe-kloof-in-de-agrosector]New gap in the agricultural sector?[/url]
If hr klaassen can realize a higher price on the farm, there will be less resistance for circular agriculture see geea protection policy
Chief O 22 February 2019
The umpteenth chatter major who has his mouth full about circular agriculture, just give an example and not all the time popular in the empty chatter.
Circular agriculture: 210 dairy cows, 140 young cattle, 132 hectares of sandy soil, Klaassen explain to me the variants, what I have to do to fulfill Schouten's assignment, assuming that several roads lead to Rome.
grain grower 22 February 2019
indeed chief. What a bunch of bullshit I think they think we're crazy. we're just doing things like we used to do. man wake up there in the Hague! 95% of farmers do their utmost to earn a good living and to transfer a company with a future perspective to their successor!
avenue 22 February 2019
As long as we still produce over the 100% self-sufficiency level per country in the eu, we can forget about a better return at farm level.
As farmers, we take care of circular agriculture to clean up the mess that is created during production over 100%.
Farming will not let you be fooled for the umpteenth time.
Subscriber
Arnold 23 February 2019
Let's approach the problem differently.
If the sector is asked to do something for society in the sense of adding value to residual products, we must first see whether it fits within the ecological philosophy. Whether it is free of unwanted substances.
Then we can expect that society is finally prepared to pay a correct, acceptable compensation for this. We as a sector have to stand for that. Don't let it come to us without thinking, no in exchange for a revenue model.
How come, this topic has been discussed for a while, that I don't hear that sound anywhere. Personally, I have already raised this twice with our minister and once with a group of policy officials.
Yes, minister, we will implement your vision for a revenue model for the sector. Didn't just hand it over to her, as is so often the case, but also offered a conversation to come to a solution.
I believe that if we want to achieve something, it is easier from a positive basic attitude and give and take is part of that. If you can do something for someone else, you can ask for something in return, but no one will bring you anything, so sell your skin dearly. Why do I never hear such a signal, are we awake?
Now the sector can show what it's worth, come on, grab that chance.
Hans Kanter 23 February 2019
I have been a farmer myself in the past, so I know how capricious The Hague is and the regulations that are imposed on you. But when I see that little / nothing has changed since 2000 with regard to castration / tail docking and teeth cutting, then you can expect resistance. There is also apparently still Roundup available to tackle just another item. This is simply not possible, so I wish all farmers good luck and wisdom in making their business and operations more sustainable. Distinguishing yourself from the rest might be an idea.

regards
Hans Kanter
Skirt 23 February 2019
Arnold wrote:
Let's approach the problem differently.
If the sector is asked to do something for society in the sense of adding value to residual products, we must first see whether it fits within the ecological philosophy. Whether it is free of unwanted substances.
Then we can expect that society is finally prepared to pay a correct, acceptable compensation for this. We as a sector have to stand for that. Don't let it come to us without thinking, no in exchange for a revenue model.
How come, this topic has been discussed for a while, that I don't hear that sound anywhere. Personally, I have already raised this twice with our minister and once with a group of policy officials.
Yes, minister, we will implement your vision for a revenue model for the sector. Didn't just hand it over to her, as is so often the case, but also offered a conversation to come to a solution.
I believe that if we want to achieve something, it is easier from a positive basic attitude and give and take is part of that. If you can do something for someone else, you can ask for something in return, but no one will bring you anything, so sell your skin dearly. Why do I never hear such a signal, are we awake?
Now the sector can show what it's worth, come on, grab that chance.
I can respond to your long story short: the market rules.
Skirt 23 February 2019
@Hans Kanters

As long as the hypocritical rules only apply in NL/EU and not for import products, there will be no turn or the sector will simply be destroyed, see Neonics import MRL has been raised again, see GMO import of Soy is again a new record, see import cage eggs from Ukraine, and so on.
The consumer just wants the cheapest there is, the few consumers who want to pay a little more for food are already provided with Bio. Don't forget that in a few years farmers could produce super environmentally friendly en masse if they are guaranteed a good reward and no false competition.
Peer 23 February 2019
Future-oriented farmers are always conscious, especially with producing good and responsible food. What I read here is a bit like the recycling story of Mrs. Schouten parrots. Populism at the back of peasants; pretend you're working for them but meanwhile.... I'm getting tired of it
You can no longer respond.

Sign up for our newsletter

Sign up and receive the latest news in your inbox every day

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