After working at Wageningen University & Research (WUR) for more than 40 years, Chris de Visser retired as manager of the Field Crops business unit shortly before the summer. He feels that more tailor-made solutions are needed to create a future perspective for Dutch agriculture while reducing the sector's environmental impact. "WUR should play an even bigger role in this with sound, independent research that has scientific integrity."
Retiring after 41 years almost inevitably involves looking back. However, Chris de Visser is mostly concerned with the current situation in agriculture in these turbulent times.
As research associate and manager of the Field Crops business unit, over the past two decades he experienced the major transition within WUR into a market-oriented organisation. That change was difficult and could have been achieved less hastily, he thinks. But it has resulted in an effective organisation that can do what is important for the farmer.
"Before 2000, we were a task-oriented organisation, run by farmers, and part of the Ministry of Agriculture. There was an expert for each crop: asparagus, sugar beet, potato, onion, carrot, cabbage," says De Visser, who was an onion researcher at the time.
But after privatisation, everything changed. Research became theme-based, with crop protection and fertilisation being the most prominent themes.
"There were no longer specific crop experts. The orders had to come from the market. That took some getting used to, for both researchers and farmers." During this transition, De Visser was initially a business developer at Field Crops, later becoming manager of this business unit. In that capacity, he recognised that there was still a need for specific crop experts. In onions, for example.
Onion research
"The sector missed the onion expert so much that several people took the initiative to put specific onion research back on the agenda. This is possible in a market-oriented organisation, provided it is paid for. That was back in 2018. The entire onion chain now contributes to paying for the research," says De Visser, who, besides his duties as developer and manager, has always continued to lead onion research.
"The chain determines the research topics. In doing so, as with all crops, there is a tendency to focus on acute short-term problems. But we've been successful in also considering the longer term," he points out.
Fusarium
The best example is fusarium research. Fusarium is a very troublesome soil disease with many misunderstood aspects. "We can now identify the disease down to the strain level (officially: forma specialis). That's a breakthrough because it allows us to take a targeted approach to the disease. We can't yet really control Fusarium rot, but we can manage it with crop rotation and targeted weed control. For example, by avoiding certain pre-crops or green manures. This is really a success story," he says.
Energy research
The transition to a market-oriented organisation also presented opportunities that had never previously been considered. A good example is ACRRES, the national centre for applied research on renewable energy and green resources.
"As a manager, I could decide which entrepreneur-oriented solutions I developed. As long as there was funding. In cooperation with the province of Flevoland, we built 12 test windmills, which fund research into the production of sustainable energy and bio-based resources by farmers. That boosted the entire view of energy in agriculture," says De Visser.
Misunderstood policy
According to De Visser, the main challenge for his successor as manager of the business unit is how the Field Crops business unit, together with other parties inside and outside WUR, can contribute to the prospects for agriculture. "These are difficult times and I understand the unrest among farmers. The situation has become pretty complex and there are conflicting interests."
Furthermore, according to De Visser, many things have become incomprehensible. Not only for farmers, but also for him and his research colleagues. "For example, we are allowed to spread less nitrogen on the northern part of our WUR plots than on the southern part, but we don't know why. The Water Board can't explain it, nor can the province," he says.
"The standards of the Nitrates Directive don't provide an explanation. The Water Framework Directive does differentiate between plots because of the ecological quality of surface water. But will it really help if we spread less nitrogen on the ground? Doesn't seepage from the Ketelmeer, for example, cause these differences in ecological quality? No one knows. This kind of ambiguity drives farmers to despair."
Demonstrating need for tailor-made solutions
In this context, De Visser sees a clear role for Wageningen University & Research: "WUR could play a much more prominent role in mapping the impact of measures on agriculture. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) was adopted without anyone wondering whether it was agriculturally feasible."
It is already clear that the WFD targets will not be met by 2027. De Visser: "The question is how much can you actually achieve. The Netherlands is a very fertile delta in which a lot of nitrogen mineralises, while the rivers carry all kinds of minerals and silt. The natural ecosystem of the Netherlands is already relatively nitrogen-rich. If you impose a general European standard, you get problems regionally. We need tailor-made solutions and WUR needs to demonstrate this much more clearly. Make sure that it is clear beforehand: if you want this policy, these are the consequences for agriculture."
Research with integrity
It is essential that research is conducted with scientific integrity. Without bias and with due care. "If you have a hypothesis, you tend to select your research objects and your observations based on it. That's something you need to be aware of, otherwise your interpretation may be wrong. Many researchers want to make the world a better place. They are very passionate. Which is good. But you must keep asking yourself whether you might not be too focused on proving your own hypothesis," he stresses.
De Visser knows of real-life examples where this has gone wrong. Too little critical awareness for the methods of research, too far-reaching statements. Often from a desire to support agriculture. Commitment coloured the view too much.
"So, always remember that you are not working towards a particular outcome. Because you then unintentionally feed the view that 'science is also just an opinion.' This is a challenge in a polarised world. Especially for someone with ideals. No matter how commendable they are."
