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.
© DCA Market Intelligence. This market information is subject to copyright. It is not permitted to reproduce, distribute, disseminate or make the content available to third parties for compensation, in any form, without the express written permission of DCA Market Intelligence.
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: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]
'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.
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.