The application of a new fertilizer mix went badly for a propagator of strawberry plants. Damage occurred not long after application of the new product. Research indicated a boron overdose, but the cause remained unclear. Unsatisfactory, the court agrees, but that does not make the propagator's complaints against the manufacturer, supplier, and adviser stand. The Zeeland-West Brabant District Court ruled in the case on July 12.
The propagator holds several parties liable for the damage that occurred in spring 2020 when propagating strawberry plants outdoors. Until then, the company used regular NPK fertilizers, but that year it decided to use a new mix for 'difficult strawberry varieties.'
Boron overdose
The product was applied directly under the roots. On a number of plots, cultivation problems occurred in April, with leaf edges of strawberry plants turning brown and brown withered parchment-like spots appearing over the leaf surface. That same month, the growers reported the problems, followed by a preliminary expert investigation in court a month later.
This revealed a boron overdose. The propagation company is not insured for the damage. The investigation points to a nutrient excess, with too much boron, in particular, being the culprit.
According to the investigation, the damage could have occurred because the fertilizer mix was dosed into the root environment in the planting furrow, while at the same time, another fertilizer was dosed next to the planting row at ground level, which was also found to contain boron. A soil stock of boron was also already present in the building stock.
The fact that plot sections where the new mix was not dosed show no damage confirms that the application of the combination of the new mix and the other fertilizer product results in damage to young strawberry plants.
Product is good
That the crop problem is or could be partly caused by the quality of the fertilizer mix used is neither likely nor plausible, according to the researchers. While the boron content in the new mix was slightly higher than what was listed on the product specification (0.34% to 0.3%), that does not account for the resulting problem and damage.
The study also states that it is unlikely that the product would have been mixed insufficiently homogeneously. In case there had been insufficient homogeneous mixing, this would have resulted in a less uniform damage pattern on the plots.
Coffee table discussion
The propagation company raised several objections but was not heard by the court. The latter points out, among other things, that "the annual coffee-table meeting" that took place does not count as specific, company-oriented advice. According to the court, the fact that dosage would have been mentioned in that meeting does not make it advice. Nor is there an agreement of consideration, the judge believes.
The research was carried out with the new mix. The judge concluded that there was apparently a difference in circumstances between the administration in the greenhouse in the trial and the conditions on the plots outside the propagator's premises. However, according to the judge, those conditions were at the risk of the propagator, who should have investigated it himself.
The judge found that the propagator had taken a risk. Indeed, it is established that there were no known research results on the effects of the mixes at the company's specific working method. The company chose to immediately apply the mixes on 20 plots totaling over 75 hectares without 'a thorough investigation'. The risk did not turn out well, but the defendants cannot be blamed.