Agriphoto

News Politics

VVD: 'Having no goal, less cattle consequence'

1 April 2021 - Linda van Eekeres - 16 comments

Based on the notions of the previous scouts, which were made public yesterday (Wednesday, March 31) at the request of the House of Representatives, the VVD and GroenLinks seem to be getting surprisingly close when it comes to reducing livestock. According to the VVD, less livestock is an unavoidable consequence of the nitrogen approach. For GroenLinks, halving the livestock does not appear to be a breaking point with which to govern.

The positions (based on conversations and letters) are formulated point by point and staccato. At GroenLinks, under the heading 'Nitrogen', it was noted: "Having livestock in half is not a matter of principle, but no other way than fewer animals." VVD turns it around: "Tackling peak loaders, not forcing anyone, but encouraging. Halving livestock is not a goal, but less livestock is a consequence."

The VVD also states: "Exciting topic with D66." Remarkably enough, the summary of positions of the D66 - of which MP Tjeerd de Groot was the first to say 1,5 years ago that the livestock should be halved - does not say a word about the livestock. It only says: "A sustainable and sustainable approach to the nitrogen problem, partly to be able to build more affordable homes, with good (0V) facilities."

Party for the Animals does stick to halving livestock
The Party for the Animals, which probably does not play a role in the formation, does stick to halving the livestock: "Half the livestock, how do we help farmers in transition." PVV, SP, ChristenUnie and JA21 lack the vision on this subject. There is no entry for CDA on any subject.

Do you have a tip, suggestion or comment regarding this article? Let us know

Linda van Eekeres

Linda van Eekeres is co-writing editor-in-chief. She mainly focuses on macro-economic developments and the influence of politics on the agricultural sector.
Comments
16 comments
Ruud Hendriks 1 April 2021
This is in response to it Boerenbusiness article:
[url = https: // www.boerenbusiness.nl/agribusiness/article/10891673/vvd-halveren-geen-doel-minder-vee-consequence]VVD: 'Half no goal, less livestock consequence'[/url]
Cees Veerman, CDA, Minister for Agriculture in 3 cabinets recently in the press:
'Reducing livestock is a result of development, not the beginning. Intensive livestock farming will stop at some point. If Europe starts levying a CO2 tax on soya from Brazil, they will no longer be competitive. That will happen one day. It's crazy that they cut down trees in Brazil to put soy in pigs here.

'The biggest problem is dairy farming. There's ground underneath. Buying out is not payable. I am in favor of livestock farming in which cows only eat grass from their own pasture. You have to bring the cows to the feed and not the other way around as is happening now. The issue is not: the livestock should be smaller. The relationship between the soil and the number of animals must be restored.'

Like it or not, Brussels, CDA, VVD, FD66, Wageningen UR, all signals are about downsizing and being ground-bound. Not if but how and how quickly.
piet 1 April 2021
the soy is grown to make fake meat
the scrap of the soya that goes to the pigs
so the squeezed soya
they call that soy scrap
Roy 1 April 2021
Veerman wants to kill the next peasant class? That man has already destroyed enough in horticulture, etc. Where does he think he can get the right to speak on behalf of the agricultural Netherlands?
Subscriber
Drent 1 April 2021
wrote:
and of what may the farmer fertilize his land? Why does the number of animals have to match with soil, my neighbor is rancher and I take manure from him and we exchange soil to get crop rotation, what's wrong with that?
Ruud Hendriks 6 April 2021
@Piet, about soy: the soy for concentrates and soy oil mainly comes from South America. Oil and scrap are both worth the same to the grower, the income is 50-50. He could not grow from oil alone. The soy for vegetarian products comes from North America and Europe. That is the non-GMO flow, the GMO flow is only allowed to cows (nobody has yet been able to explain why it is and we are not, but that aside).
The idea that the cattle get a residual product is like to be maintained as an image and looms up again and again, but that has been outdated for a long time.
6 April 2021
We are already seeing the first effects of the recent voluntary purchase in pig farming. The stayers experience more financial room due to more demand than supply for piglets (higher prices) and more room on the manure market. It's great doing business again. The expansion of the financial scope will eventually lead to more innovations.

The quitters who had difficulty selling their business due to the lack of buyers/business successors were also able to terminate their business in a social way.
Subscriber
Cm 6 April 2021
ruud hendriks wrote:
This is in response to it Boerenbusiness article:
[url = https: // www.boerenbusiness.nl/agribusiness/article/10891673/vvd-halveren-geen-doel-minder-vee-consequence]VVD: 'Half no goal, less livestock consequence'[/url]
Cees Veerman, CDA, Minister for Agriculture in 3 cabinets recently in the press:
'Reducing livestock is a result of development, not the beginning. Intensive livestock farming will stop at some point. If Europe starts levying a CO2 tax on soya from Brazil, they will no longer be competitive. That will happen one day. It's crazy that they cut down trees in Brazil to put soy in pigs here.

'The biggest problem is dairy farming. There's ground underneath. Buying out is not payable. I am in favor of livestock farming in which cows only eat grass from their own pasture. You have to bring the cows to the feed and not the other way around as is happening now. The issue is not: the livestock should be smaller. The relationship between the soil and the number of animals must be restored.'

Like it or not, Brussels, CDA, VVD, FD66, Wageningen UR, all signals are about downsizing and being ground-bound. Not if but how and how quickly.
That Veerman is no longer taken seriously, like that Wijffels is another minister who thinks he can give others a lesson. Putting it in the bulky waste is the only thing.
Subscriber
quite coarse 7 April 2021
That shit about less livestock, I don't hear anyone talking about less people!
They pollute in my opinion Much more than those few cows, of which there are already much less in recent years than 50 years ago, but 5 million people more!!!
And then that nonsense about the soy, grrrrrr.... people eat the soy and the cattle its waste. How beautiful is that.
Also see where the Ferrymen think they get their manure from.
Ruud Hendriks 15 April 2021
Well, you can of course continue to say that cattle eat waste and therefore continue to believe in it. But it's a falsehood that the animal feed industry likes to perpetuate. Cultivation and deforestation are in large part because of the feed demand, that would really not be lucrative because of the oil alone.
We have indeed gone from 2,4 million to 1,6 million cows. Mar also from 10 to 15 kg of milk per hectare. That is not the grass growth that is so much more, but the extra hectares that we have put into use abroad. From 000 to 2,7 million in the same period.
Subscriber
Drent 15 April 2021
ruud hendriks wrote:
Well, you can of course continue to say that cattle eat waste and therefore continue to believe in it. But it's a falsehood that the animal feed industry likes to perpetuate. Cultivation and deforestation are in large part because of the feed demand, that would really not be lucrative because of the oil alone.
We have indeed gone from 2,4 million to 1,6 million cows. Mar also from 10 to 15 kg of milk per hectare. That is not the grass growth that is so much more, but the extra hectares that we have put into use abroad. From 000 to 2,7 million in the same period.
I do not agree with you, without livestock there would be a huge mountain of waste that remains after processing for humans, such as beer brush, beet pulp, chips, feed potatoes, etc. Moreover, we need the manure badly for the crops to achieve optimal yields for the ever-growing world population
Hub Rich 15 April 2021
Dear Mr. Drent, that more cattle provides more possibilities to fertilize seems logical but is not correct. Livestock does defecate and urinate but do not produce minerals. Livestock are just converters - from vegetable to animal. The same mistake was made in Drenthe when rich stinkers (roughly 200 years ago) thought they could make the sandy soil fertile by reclaiming poor soil by keeping a large livestock. That got stuck. The soil was not getting richer but poorer. that only changed with the arrival of fertilizer and the import of animal feed. Furthermore, I do not understand that livestock farming is so proud that they bring waste flows from all over the world here and also sell waste flows in the form of manure at enormous costs. I can't help but see that the one who has the greatest interest in shrinkage is livestock farming. Is this sum correct: a pig produces 1 m3 of manure per year. Sales costs €15-17 per m3. So for a pig farm of 1000 pigs 15 to 17 thousand euros?
Subscriber
Drent 15 April 2021
Huib, are you saying that fertilizer makes the soil more fertile than animal manure? That is not possible with me, moreover, fertilizer is a manufactured product and by no means sustainable. As a farmer we will go that way if it is up to the government, I think that is a shame now the cycle is closed, I receive manure from the neighbor and in exchange he gets maize back, little manufacturing and transport costs. Unfortunately, the government wants livestock farming to become land-based, although I don't understand why, it might as well be land for an arable farmer.
Subscriber
quite coarse 15 April 2021
Yes Huib, isn't that what you think cattle feed comes here for, but why don't we go live and work at those soy and palm plantations?
And take the cattle with them, simple right... or not.
We are not going to live in Saudi Arabia either because it is closer to the oil well to refuel the car.
Some things just work like this and just search and you will see that the Netherlands only uses 0.5% of the world's soy, so what's the problem?
Soybean comes here and gives 20% oil for human consumption and biofuel, the rest is left and goes nicely for super animal feed.
We can also grow proteins, but without support we are simply too expensive here.
Hub Rich 15 April 2021
It's nice that an exchange of ideas is possible without direct accusations as an idiot, etc. And I sincerely believe that a lot of sensible thinking is still possible instead of flat "truths". Dear Drent: you have a great collaboration with a cattle farmer. Perfect, except that exchanging manure for maize is not a closed cycle. For you will both have supplies, fertilizer/fodder. But drainage is also necessary. Without the sale of milk, potatoes, etc., there is no money coming in. Closed cycle is an illusion. The highest attainable is a neutral mineral balance, supplying what you need. "Unfortunately, the government wants livestock farming to be land-based." The point is that if you link a livestock farmer to each plant grower, you are left with a lot of livestock farmers.
Hub Rich 15 April 2021
@Pretty rude, "Some things just happen that way." Totally agree. The world food system has developed as it has. Many parties are involved in this. What always strikes me is that there is a very justified criticism of all kinds of aspects of the world food system. But farmers invariably take that up when they are blamed. understandable, but unnecessary and very inconvenient. Criticism of the world system should not be drawn to you. No need to trivialize either. It is much more convenient to draw it in a broad context. After all, in addition to the producers, the consumers are also involved. Agriculture does not have to constantly defend itself fiercely. Farmers can actually lean back. If consumers generally don't like it, they will still eat organic (I am an organic farmer myself). Do they think organic is too expensive, but still common!? If they don't want animal food, then plant-based. Annoying for the farmer if your sales market shrinks, but sometimes that is the case. And where there is contraction, there is growth in another market. Because with all the criticism consumers have, they will never do one thing: stop eating.
"why don't we go live and work at those soy and palm plantations?" The point is that there is a good chance that the shifts will go exactly in the direction that animal feed will not go from Brazil via NL and then as meat to China. That link here is not essential and will not disappear but shrink. If nothing happens via the market, then a cold remediation. If it comes through government intervention, the government offers to allocate money for it. But the reaction from livestock farming is: we don't want to reduce any animal, but we have no problem with all kinds of expensive measures (from manure processing to barn adjustments, etc.). isn't that wonderful?
Subscriber
quite coarse 16 April 2021
People don't go where the most food is but where they get the most in all kinds of areas, see the migration choice of many.
The whining about dragging animal feeds and meat all over the world makes no sense, just look what was going on in the sues channel and then also find out what the percentage of food was waiting there.
I bet it's mainly a luxury product that was in those containers and therefore products that we can just get out of..
Climate, warming, CO2, nitrogen, cooling, sea level rise and fall, etc, etc, is as old as the earth, so it is not entirely relevant to our time as humans
It is only about land grab from the government and nothing else, the billions that are earned must be spent on nature or we are not nature!!
Cows gone, people there as if they don't pollute!! And the citizen is mouthful about diversity and then peoples his garden and driveway
You can no longer respond.

Sign up for our newsletter

Sign up and receive the latest news in your inbox every day

Opinions Krijn J. Poppe

Governance is difficult due to our individualistic culture

News Speech from the Throne

'Food security important in uncertain world'

Opinions Kasper Walter

How our policymakers are faltering in energy transition

Call our customer service +0320 - 269 528

or mail to supportboerenbusiness. Nl

do you want to follow us?

Receive our free Newsletter

Current market information in your inbox every day

Login/Register