The Netherlands has a population of 16.7 million people living on 34,000 sq. kilometres of land, half of which is below sea level. The country produced 20 million pigs per year in the 1980s and had major dairy and poultry industries.
Despite the country’s small size, it was a big net exporter of food.
The ensuing environmental conflict between agricultural interests and the general population was predictable.
As was to be expected in a situation in which a large majority opposed a small number of farmers, the majority got its way. But that doesn’t mean farmers were the losers.
Read Also
VIDEO: Green Lightning and Nytro Ag win sustainability innovation award
Nytro Ag Corp and Green Lightning recieved an innovation award at Ag in Motion 2025 for the Green Lightning Nitrogen Machine, which converts atmospheric nitrogen into a plant-usable form.
“The basic problem was that we were exporting large quantities of food products based on our dairy and pigs and poultry, but all the manure stayed in Holland,” Dutch livestock nutritionist Martin Verstegen recently told the Manure Management Conference in Winnipeg, which featured leading experts from around the world who work with the latest technology in manure management.
Through his research at the Wageningen University in the Netherlands, Verstegen was involved in the transition the Dutch livestock industry has experienced since the 1980s.
He told the conference that eutrophication of lakes and waterways due to phosphorus overload had rapidly escalated into a major public concern.
In some cases, lakes were totally choked in only three or four years from the time of the first documented phosphorus overloads.
“There were many citizens who said Holland didn’t need agriculture anymore. Not just a small radical group, but a sizable number of people,” Verstegen said.
“They said we’re a small country with other industries, so if we have to stop all livestock farming, then that’s what we’ll do. The number of farmers is so small that they did not have much voice in this decision.
“So, in the 1980s, the government told our farmers that we had to clean up our act. At first, farmers were very much anti-regulation. And I’m a farm boy myself and a professor at the agricultural university, so I too sided with the farmers. But those were the orders, so farmers had no choice.”
Verstegen said it was a traumatic time for the agricultural sector, but producers managed to make it work and the outcome was better than expected.
He said Holland today has one-third fewer animals than it had 15 years ago, but continues to be a major exporter of livestock products. The big difference is that Dutch farmers now comply with some of the strictest environmental regulations in the world.
One of biggest challenges was the rule dictating no increase in the levels of phosphorus on any land. Even soil that was deficient in phosphorus was not allowed to increase. Basically, the law said farmers are not allowed to apply more phosphorous than the current crop could consume.
“The phosphorous going on the land must equal the phosphorus coming off in the crop that growing season. If you have more phosphorus on your field than allowed by the regulations, then you are required to export manure out of the country, usually to France. And shipping manure is very, very expensive,” Verstegen said.
“Each farmer had to develop a mineral balance plan for every acre farmed. The government said those soils which are naturally low in phosphorus cannot be brought up to more productive levels. The government told us those soils have a certain defined niche in the overall scheme of things and they must be maintained in that condition.”
He said a lot of money was spent on research, with funding from the government and farm organizations that realized the future of their businesses were on the line.
Instead of focusing on how to deal with manure, the research instead focused on the animals.
“By making significant changes in the diets of livestock, we have achieved more than a 50 percent reduction in phosphorus since the 1980s,” Verstegen said.
Much of this was possible because Dutch farmers do not grow their own feed. They might grow grain on their farms, but they sell it to a feed manufacturer who creates specific blends for each customer. The feed plant is responsible for all testing, blending and documentation.
When the farmer buys feed back from the plant, he knows he is receiving a ration that has been blended specifically for his animals and in compliance with all regulations.
“Take a dairy for example. The regulations and the formula state that you get so much land per cow. If you are an efficient farmer and can show that you have less phosphorus and nitrogen waste from each cow, then you are allowed to have more cows on the same number of acres. That means you can make more money.
“If your farm is not as efficient in feed utilization, and you have too much phosphorus and nitrogen waste, then you are told to export the extra manure. You have to get it out of the country. Usually it’s separated and dried and shipped to France.”
Verstegen said the waste data is never extrapolated from charts and records. Rather, manure and fields are routinely tested. Chemical analysis is the final word in any dispute.
He said while all this was occuring, the industry was also working to reduce livestock odours. Most livestock operations are located in areas with high human population densities where houses often are situated next to barns.
As human and animals populations increased, so did friction caused by smell.
“Finally, in the late 1980s, the government gave farmers 10 years to reduce ammonia by 75 percent,” Verstegen said.
“So by 1999 they could release only 25 percent of the ammonia they had formerly been releasing into the atmosphere. Some of the problem was solved simply by storing all manure in closed tanks. It can only be spread on the fields during the growing season, so the crop can use up the nutrients. But much of this odour problem was solved by working more with the diets of the livestock.
“By having less nitrogen surplus, especially nitrogen with sulfur, you reduce the odours. The sulfur gas compounds are what make the really bad smell. If you reduce the sulfur acids in the diet, you reduce the odour.”
Verstegen said a two percent reduction in dietary protein can equal a 20 percent reduction of the nitrogen in the excrement. In his example, he starts with a feed ration that has a fairly typical 18 percent protein level.
“Then let’s say we reduce it to 16 percent protein. That’s two percent absolute from dry matter. But if you do this, the protein must have better amino acid composition.
“Normally, feed grains do not have the ideal amino acids for body making. But if you top up the feed with the right amino acids, then you have the same body gain from 16 percent protein, but the surplus protein in the excrement is 20 percent less.”
He said another benefit of the new feed regime is that the manure has more solid matter and less urine, which is accomplished by giving the pigs more fermentable carbohydrates.
“More fibre in the diet creates more biomass and less urine. Cows do their fermentation in the rumen. Pigs can do the fermentation in the large intestine. When that takes place, there is less smell from the fecal matter.
“The key here is that the feed manufacturer should not use protein for energy. Only use protein to build body mass. The nutritionist must always be careful not to use more protein than needed.”
Verstegen said the Dutch experience holds important lessons for Canadian livestock producers.
“This is proof that science and technology can solve these problems of the environment, but it comes at a cost because that research is critical.
“And you can only do it by becoming a better farmer, a more efficient farmer, because the more you can extract from every unit of feed intake, the less surplus you have left over in the excrement. Those surpluses are what cause our environmental problems.”
For more information, e-mail martin.verstegen@wur.nl.
