Stimuli to pick low-hanging fruit sooner

I have often been surprised that it takes so long for an entrepreneur to opt for the simple solution. Even during the most recent Fertilisers Act evaluation, it appeared that particularly where pigs and poultry were concerned the excretion of minerals per animal had changed very little since 2005. One of the most obvious solutions - the use of low-mineral feed - is still little used. This feed requires different raw materials, costing money and effort both for the entrepreneur and for the feed suppliers. However, it is still cheaper than playing for manure disposal, so it quickly becomes an economically interesting prospect.

History teaches us that stimuli work best at the level of the individual entrepreneur. The former Minas system, under which manure policy was implemented by means of loss standards, included stimuli for dairy farmers. Reduced excretions 'under the tail’ resulted directly in less manure to be disposed of. On the instructions of Brussels, the Minas system was replaced with the Usage Norm System. Initially, that remove the stimulus for the use of low-mineral feed; data drawn from the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) show that the introduction of the Usage Norm System resulted in the renewed increase of the amount of nitrogen and phosphate delivered in feed for dairy cattle. Fortunately, this trend was only temporary. The farm-specific excretions restored the stimulus for dairy farms.

State Secretary Mr Henk Bleker (of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation) has expressed a desire to use the feed track to resolve part of the manure surplus. This takes place by means of a covenant entered into with the agricultural business sector and the livestock feed industry. Entrepreneurs will not begin the process of searching for ways of reducing mineral excretions until or unless they see benefits for themselves. Clearly, too few of them see sufficient benefits. I recently heard from an entrepreneur working on reducing mineral excretions that he is also surprised that so few people are taking an interest.

For many years, LEI has observed in the FADN data that there are big differences between comparable companies. That also applies to the excretions of nitrogen and phosphate per animal. There is therefore room for improvement, even if account is taken of risks experienced by the entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs might worry that an animal is not getting enough mineral nutrients, for example, damaging the animal's health or having a negative impact on operating results. Nevertheless, there are also entrepreneurs who gain good technical and economic results with low mineral excretions per animal. The reduction of the excretion saves them a significant amount of money on manure disposal. Yet most entrepreneurs decide against it.

My argument is to make the differences and good results visible and open to discussion in groups of fellow farmers. Devoting attention to the differences between farms results in initial awareness and boosts motivation. They will ask each other: ‘How do you do that and what are your experiences?’ If the environmental objective is translated for - and by - entrepreneurs in terms of an appealing business objective and is made controllable and manageable by means of indicators for everyday practice, even high-hanging fruit is within reach.