The Dealer had a conversation with an agri-merchant recently that was both comical and concerning in equal measure.

The chat was pottering along nicely until the subject of fertiliser was broached, and the vibe suddenly changed.

“Fertiliser is a really dirty word at this stage,” the merchant maintained, in near-manic tones. “You nearly feel like a criminal selling the stuff. You go into some yards these days and the mere mention of fertiliser causes consternation.

“You’d swear to Jaysus you were pushing drugs. You’d really feel like sitting lads down and explaining that you’re trading in CAN not coke,” said the clearly exasperated merchant.

“Farmers will end up spreading fertiliser at night, they’re so paranoid about the stuff at this stage,” he predicted.

We laughed at the madness of the comment, but there was a serious edge to it at the same time.

The merchant reckoned that a fair proportion of farmers hadn’t a notion where they stood in terms of their nutrient plans, what products they could use and what they needed to purchase.

The constant refrain that farmers and fertiliser were primarily to blame for falling water quality standards was taking a toll, the merchant claimed. That, along with the fertiliser register, appears to be causing untold confusion.

“If you’re continually portrayed as the villain, that eventually has an impact,” he said.

“Fellas are petrified at this stage that they’ll buy and spread the wrong product,” the merchant explained.

As a consequence, a whole cohort of farmers have stood back from the fertiliser market and sales have plummeted. Traditionally, a quarter of all fertiliser would have been moved onto farms by the end of February. This year that figure is just 6% to 7%.

Rotten weather

The rotten weather since Christmas and atrocious ground conditions haven’t helped matters.

But the collapse in fertiliser sales cannot be landed solely on Mother Nature’s lap. There is also a definite shift to using less product.

And while this trend is welcome – and in keeping with agriculture’s climate change commitments – the concern within the farm sector is that the reduction in fertiliser usage is being driven by fear, rather than by science or changed management practices.

Outlining the importance of nitrogen a few weeks back, a leading Teagasc scientist likened it to the “petrol that powers grass-based farming”.

Where chemical nitrogen is reduced unilaterally, without a plan to introduce clover, the result is invariably less grass produced and higher input costs, as a consequence.

In fact, Teagasc has already done the sums. It estimated that the reduction in grass output by 1t/ha last year cost the average 60ha dairy farm €12,000 in increased fodder and ration purchases.

Farmers clearly need to reassess and re-examine their fertiliser usage and dependence; but, equally, the ‘farmer shaming’ around fertiliser also needs to be dialled down.