Is the tree nursery grower being bitten by the cat or the dog?

ARTICLE

POLICY & LEGAL

Huub Snijders, Tuesday 12 May 2026

138 sec

The tree nursery sector faces a difficult challenge. Growers must produce more sustainably: with less chemical crop protection, lower emissions to water and soil, and more attention to resilience, biodiversity and plant health. At the same time, customer and consumer expectations have hardly changed. They still expect uniform, flawless plants, free from damage and disease, delivered exactly on time and at a competitive price.

That is where the tension lies. In practice, fewer crop protection products mean that diseases and pests may become more visible. This demands something from the entire chain: buyers will have to accept more, while growers must take into account slower growth or perhaps even plant losses.

Fewer products, different expectations

The discussion about sustainability is often conducted at policy level. Politicians and sector organisations focus on resilient cultivation, more research and the development of green products. That is logical. But the underlying question is more fundamental: can the sector still deliver what the market demands while using fewer products? This directly affects daily practice. Where spraying could previously correct a problem, that is now far less obvious. At the same time, the sector should do more to explain how much progress has already been made on this issue. The environmental impact of crop protection products is certainly not zero, but it has already fallen by dozens of percentage points over roughly the last ten years.

Using fewer products means that not only cultivation changes, but also the tolerance level throughout the chain.

In practice, the sector has already been moving towards plant health for some time. Not only because of regulations, but also because the range of available products is shrinking. The main change is in the cultivation system itself. Problems are solved less with a single product and more through a combination of measures: soil quality, organic matter, water management, variety selection and monitoring. Biological solutions and biostimulants are playing a larger role. Chemistry is increasingly becoming the final step � the medicine cabinet opened in times of panic for another dose of paracetamol.

That transition takes time. Resilient cultivation is not a switch, but a process that takes years. It requires investments in knowledge, technology and business operations, while outcomes are less predictable than before. Technology does help. Mechanical weed control, GPS and camera systems make more targeted work possible. But they also require investment and increase capital costs.

Chemistry is increasingly becoming the last resort � the medicine cabinet opened in times of panic for another dose of paracetamol.

Who carries the risk?

This raises the question of who pays for the transition. Governments and sector organisations invest in research and programmes, but decisions ultimately have to be made at company level. The market demands more sustainable products, but price and delivery reliability remain decisive. As a result, the risk often lies with the grower. The international position also plays a role. The Netherlands is leading in knowledge and innovation, but this can also create an uneven playing field if foreign competitors are not required to adapt as quickly. At the core of the problem is the definition of quality. It is still based on a system with broad possibilities for correction. Minor damage or infestation is often commercially unacceptable. As a result, the sector is changing not only technically, but also economically. Plant health is becoming the basis of cultivation, with consequences for yields, planning and production costs. The questions that come with this are becoming increasingly urgent. Can we continue to deliver the same quality with fewer products? Is the market willing to accept more risk? And if costs rise, should prices rise as well? The direction is clear: fewer products and greater resilience. But how this transition develops depends on the willingness of the entire chain to move along with it. For now, most of the risk still lies with the grower. So the question is not whether it is the cat or the dog doing the biting, but who feels the pain � and at the moment, that is usually the grower.

This article was previously published on 12 May 2026 on the Boom
In Business website.

COMMENTS

There are no comments yet.

tip the editors