Rutten, H. (ed) (1997). Innovation processes in Dutch agriculture and horticulture towards 2015 - essays and reflections. The Hague (The Netherlands), National Council for Agricultural Research (NRLO). NRLO-report 97/44
[Original title: Innovatie land- en tuinbouw op weg naar 2015 - essays en reacties]

Summary

Essay: "Towards a new function of pig farming in society"

Gé Backus, Henk de Lange

Few people have failed to notice that pig farming in the Netherlands has experienced powerful growth during the 1970s-1980s. In those years it used to be a major source of employment for large areas in southern and eastern parts of the country, both directly and indirectly. The side-effects became particularly apparent during the 1990s. From being a small miracle of growth this branch of industry turned into a source of tremendous social concern. In our relatively small and densely populated country with its open economy pig farming will be allowed increasingly less latitude during the next ten or fifteen years. Pig farmers will be getting into big trouble when they do not meet the increasing severity of requirements for animal welfare, environmental impact and landscape values; when they cannot adequately respond to increased international competition; or when they do not know how to cope with chain control (by slaughterhouses). Thus, the general state of affairs in pig farming cannot be said be rosy. Elements of critical relevance for the future include: its one-sided focus on cost price and production; a rather poor structure of pig farming for meat production combined with highly professionalized sow breeding; lack of alternative options to make adjustments in individual farms; insufficient social awareness among many farmers; and, finally, in spite of it all, a strong focus on innovation.

The sector is faced with the following dilemmas: aiming at greater specialisation or at mixed farms? Aiming at a family farm or a mega-farm? How to combine agricultural expertise and business skills? How to define one's position within the chain? What to do about regional concentration in pig farming? How to deal with ethical issues? Further economies of scale will be necessary to cope with these issues. But they will not be enough. Other activities will have to focus on, e.g. new types of co-operation; quality marks for specific types of farms; assimilating streams of residue products from food and stimulant industries into the feed; and new function combinations with arable farming. To achieve

this, priority number one will be to increase the knowledge intensity of pig farmers. But it will also require changes in the management of research and education.

Essay: "Milking for tomorrow"

Frans Ettema, Bram Prins

One of the more drastic challenges facing dairy farmers today is to develop a demand-oriented branch of agribusiness. The authors argue that the best opportunities in a strongly changing environment will be for those dairy farmers who take an entrepreneurial attitude towards the market. Businesses will have to anticipate environmental developments by taking a highly active stance within society. Although dairy farms will have to meet increasingly heavy demands (environment, economy, animal health) dairy farmers may have various ways to respond. Depending on their circumstances and personal ambitions, some dairy farmers will opt for large and highly specialised dairy farms, whereas others may prefer lower levels of specialisation combined with developing one or more sidelines.

It is not a matter of ranking one category of dairy farms higher than others. In terms of technological equipment, professionalism, and social orientation, specialised businesses will not differ significantly from farms with several branches of activities. Each type of dairy farm will have to satisfy high-quality requirements. But, as the authors point out, this does not mean that each type of business will be equally sustainable.

One of the consequences for selecting methods to achieve innovation will be that dairy farmers will have to become more aware both of their own skills and abilities as well as the techniques and knowledge that are developed outside their branch of industry. This implies a growing need for knowledge which should be filled more adequately by future research and education.

Essay: "Run-down in arable farming? A foresight study that does not give in to cost price considerations"

Henk van Drumpt, Niels Röling

It is justified to say that the future of arable farming in the Netherlands is uncertain. How long will Dutch arable farmers succeed in producing against constantly falling prices? Will arable farming be able to compete against constantly rising land prices? Is it possible to solve the problem through increasing economies of scale? Will it be possible to achieve a timely reduction of the environmental impact made by arable farming? What will be the result of developments in biotechnology for arable farming? Will a market for industrial applications of arable produce emerge that may be interesting to Dutch arable farmers? Will consumers be prepared to express their appreciation of low-risk and ecological agricultural production in financial equivalents?

The uncertainties are so great that it is no longer sufficient to optimise arable farms as such. As the authors of the essay point out, modernising arable farming is no longer thought to be sufficient; indeed, it may even be counterproductive. The future of arable farming is now also in the hands of consumers, suppliers, processing firms, retail trade and politicians rather than arable farmers alone. Thus, it not only requires innovation of products and production methods, but also innovation of the socio-economic context within which arable farming is effected.

It is essential that the potential effects of market mechanisms on arable farming are not overestimated. Risks and opportunities resulting from market developments may be highly important, but the same holds for the conditions and regulations that determine the market. And if socio-economic conditions change (or are modified), new perspectives for arable farming may develop. The essay presents an outline of seven perspectives with various degrees of novelty, varying between intensive efforts to find industrial applications for arable produce and professionalisation of care projects in agriculture.

Arable farming continues to be in need of new products and production technologies. But each of the alternatives presented implies that this kind of innovation is not sufficient. If arable farming in the Netherlands is to have a future, there is an urgent need for new forms of co-operative action which will be able to realise the value of various social functions of arable farming.

Essay: "Building clusters in horticulture"

Theo Ammerlaan, Jan van den Brand, Wim van Rijn, Nadet Somers

The future environment of businesses in horticulture may be characterised by highly diverse consumer needs, heavy environmental demands, and a climate that offers less protection and stability than it does now. The implications for horticulture include growing economies of scale, an increasingly European orientation, and individualised demands for knowledge.

Economies of scale may be achieved by building clusters in horticulture, i.e. groups of production businesses that join forces. If this strategy is to be effective, it will be necessary to overcome the (growing) risks of fragmentation of knowledge development in horticulture which become manifest in an individualisation of the demand for knowledge, the tendency to protect knowledge against competing colleagues, and a commercialisation of knowledge supplied. Moreover, entrepreneurs in horticulture will increasingly approach knowledge suppliers that are operating outside the agricultural knowledge system.

In order to meet consumer demands that are showing ever greater diversity, chains covering both the supply, production, and sale of products will have to develop more strongly. At the same time, the accompanying horizontal partnerships will have to become more formal and flexible. For entrepreneurs in horticulture, cluster development offers more opportunities to influence these chain processes.

The impact made by clusters of horticultural businesses will depend largely on their capacity to develop co-operative societies. As co-operative societies will develop more strongly, horticultural clusters will be able to have greater influence on research, education, and extension for their sector. At best, being part of a strongly co-operative farming complex, clusters of horticultural businesses will be in a position to have maximum control over practical research, education and extension.

This is not to say that there is no future task left for government bodies. In several areas, the national government will have to take the initiative and play a co-ordinating role in knowledge development. Also, financial efforts made by the EU and other parts of (horticultural) agribusiness will represent an indispensable contribution to horticulture.

Reflections by Maarten Souwer and Frank Biesboer

Souwer's comment on the essays is threefold:

  1. They do not pay sufficient attention to what innovation really is or what it will be some twenty years from now;
  2. They do suggest a great many solutions, but they are lacking in their analyses of current problems in the industries involved;
  3. What is missing in the essays is a central theme or at least the intention to develop one.

In addition, Souwer suggests that, when considering the future organisation of innovation, the key issue should be the transformation from centralised organising towards organising based on individual needs. Souwer also believes that a different mind-set is needed when thinking about the substance of innovation: innovating is now seen as building chains of skills and knowledge development rather than accomplishing new products. Souwer argues that innovation, as a chain process based on individual needs, requires a great deal of room to enable self-organisation while high priority should be given to continuous change.

Biesboer, too, believes that the essays have generally failed to point out more fundamental developments in the organisation of innovation within and surrounding agriculture and horticulture. The essays do make it clear, however, that the industry is at a turning-point: the authors have shown that developments thus far have followed routes that are no longer feasible, while presenting alternative routes for the future. But the essays provide at best only limited understanding of what the turning-point really means for the agricultural knowledge system. As Biesboer notes, the following elements may be interesting:

As a result, Biesboer argues, the essential change is the transition from an open knowledge system centred around a homogeneous knowledge map to a diversity of smaller, more closed systems ('clusters') around business-specific and heterogeneous knowledge maps. But this transition has scarcely begun and will require more detailed discussions on adequate types of organisations, the role played by knowledge institutions, the funds to be raised for knowledge development, and the part played by government.

[NRLO Home]