Aalt Dijkhuizen chairman of the Agricultural Collective

it is not only the nitrogen problem that plays in agriculture, there are many other things that play, such as GBM, fertilization, etc.

Does Aalt Dijkhuizen not have enough work?
My preference was for an ordinary farmer and not a former WUR employee, because they eat from the rack in the hague.

Good choice Jeroen....... I was afraid you arrived with a kind of Veerman

Jeroen, I am proud of such a former student as you. Your choice of Aalt Dijkhuizen seems fine to me; he knows agriculture, has a lot of substantive knowledge and knows how things work in The Hague and Brussels. And keep working together with LTO and NAJK, don't let yourself be separated!
Good luck everyone, Rob Merkelijn.

Dijkhuizen, the man of "technical" solutions in order to be able to produce a lot or even more.

Unaffordable, especially for the periphery.
Do you know how to sell this as "sustainable".
This is mainly cost-increasing for farmers.
And you immediately run into the next environmental disaster.

Still wish you success.

drama!

doomed to fail with LTO.

How on earth is it possible that Aalt Dijkhuizen, who is chairman of the Agri&Food Top Sector, which falls under the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate, becomes chairman of the Agricultural Collective? This man is indeed the 'figurehead' of industrial agriculture, the cause of all crises in agriculture!

Also, shouldn't he first resign from the Agri&Food Top Sector?

The benevolent Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, Carola Schouten, is thwarted by people like Dijkhuizen. And he helps the farmers from the rain and the ditch until there are hardly any farmers left.

Aalt Dijkhuizen likes to ask others to substantiate their opinion factually, but makes fun of the facts himself. Says enough that he has joined Agrifacts, an interest group in the form of a foundation that does not take things too seriously.

See also:
https://www.sustainablefoodsupply.org/feitelijk-onjuiste-standpunten-over-biologische-landbouw-in-topsector-agri-food/

https://www.sustainablefoodsupply.org/hoe-ecologische-boeren-de-hele-groeiende-wereldbevolking-kunnen-voeden/

@Bertus, luckily you have not been nominated, we currently have enough unworldly people in the place where they should not sit.
Schouten is trying to get everyone in the wrong (barring whether she is capable at all), measuring with 2 sizes is currently rampant.

† Says enough that he has joined Agrifacts, an interest group in the form of a foundation that does not take things too seriously.

How can you react like that Bertus, it's cold set up ....... let's see before you start bleating!
I have every confidence in Jeroen van Manen that he will keep this on the right track with the Agricultural Collective!!

The benevolent Minister of Agriculture???, you apparently have very different connections with her than we have..... with this minister!
And probably want to pull a cheap advertising stunt for your consultancy!

Super message, a lot of confidence in Dijkhuizen. Put your shoulders together, success!

Strong together!!! Great and now door thunder

Kick the farmers in the shins and then hope we come to you bertus? or did you come up with that cycle shit..

Good choice with Dijkhuizen. it has to be someone who is above the parties and knows damn well where the agriculture is headed. Working together is strong. Good luck.

In the discussions about nitrogen reduction, I miss the proposal to develop treatment installations that could be placed per region to reduce or eliminate the ammonia from the manure/slurry before spreading the manure.
The government's millions could be used for the development.

Years ago it was already shown that with a few simple products it is possible to reduce ammonia emissions by 40%. Is still possible by adding to feed and spreading the stable.
It turned out that less antibiotics, faster growth, more meat and less fat as by-catch, in addition to a 40% reduction in ammonia.
Would like to consult to help reduce CO2!!

The Agricultural Collective's report pretends that the problems with far too high nitrogen emissions do not exist. They present themselves as nitrogen skeptics, without saying a word about it. But it won't be that simple.

The three emission-limiting measures for dairy farming that have been proposed are undoubtedly useful, and probably also worth the money, but without skimming we will not get any further in terms of nature conservation. These measures could possibly make the 100 km restriction superfluous, if one so wanted, and perhaps in the short term, and that alone could be a reason for the current coalition to put that money on the table.

But the report contradicts itself:

"An important condition is that the released (latent) space may not be sold outside the agricultural sector. Otherwise, the sector would be undermined." (Note: this is also not what the Remkes report proposes.)

but a little later:

``The space that is freed up that is no longer available to the sector must be given a financial value. This applies to all sectors and all measures.”

Apparently, it is possible to skim by buying out emission rights from farms without hollowing out the sector.

What industry can afford such an "egocentric" and unworldly slogan in 2020? One could have known that so many nitrogen emission rights should not have been awarded. And not accepting skimming at all, then the problems become permanently unsolvable. The agricultural collective wants to convert the results of emission reduction at the farms into extra space for expansion within the agricultural sector. I hope that politicians will vigorously and successfully resist this obviously incorrect proposal.

The CDA is now faced with a very serious test: do they dare to say what it means, and do they dare to put a very big point behind Bleker's policy that has now led to such major problems? And is this not only done because the Council of State has now inescapably put the facts on the table, but also because they realize that they should never have supported that policy at the time? This is worth a cabinet crisis!

Dear Jan, of course we can also simply continue to enforce where there is no permit. Then all problems are solved

Just keep everyone according to the permits, then everything is solved
Everything according to applicable law
If politics is against this, then we definitely live in a corrupt banana country

The Agricultural Collective's report pretends that the problems with far too high nitrogen emissions do not exist. They present themselves as nitrogen skeptics, without saying a word about it. But it won't be that simple.

The three emission-limiting measures for dairy farming that have been proposed are undoubtedly useful, and probably also worth the money, but without skimming we will not get any further in terms of nature conservation. These measures could possibly make the 100 km restriction superfluous, if one so wanted, and perhaps in the short term, and that alone could be a reason for the current coalition to put that money on the table.

But the report contradicts itself:

"An important condition is that the released (latent) space may not be sold outside the agricultural sector. Otherwise, the sector would be undermined." (Note: this is also not what the Remkes report proposes.)

but a little later:

``The space that is freed up that is no longer available to the sector must be given a financial value. This applies to all sectors and all measures.”

Apparently, it is possible to skim by buying out emission rights from farms without hollowing out the sector.

What industry can afford such an "egocentric" and unworldly slogan in 2020? One could have known that so many nitrogen emission rights should not have been awarded. And not accepting skimming at all, then the problems become permanently unsolvable. The agricultural collective wants to convert the results of emission reduction at the farms into extra space for expansion within the agricultural sector. I hope that politicians will vigorously and successfully resist this obviously incorrect proposal.

The CDA is now faced with a very serious test: do they dare to say what it means, and do they dare to put a very big point behind Bleker's policy that has now led to such major problems? And is this not only done because the Council of State has now inescapably put the facts on the table, but also because they realize that they should never have supported that policy at the time? This is worth a cabinet crisis!

you are repeating Jan, you can also just continue, so do we, or are you also by chance because you have always had the government with you, also happen to be in the situation that you are not entitled to anything at all? And for this you want to make others bleed, very bad Jan

The Agricultural Collective's report pretends that the problems with far too high nitrogen emissions do not exist. They present themselves as nitrogen skeptics, without saying a word about it. But it won't be that simple.

The three emission-limiting measures for dairy farming that have been proposed are undoubtedly useful, and probably also worth the money, but without skimming we will not get any further in terms of nature conservation. These measures could possibly make the 100 km restriction superfluous, if one so wanted, and perhaps in the short term, and that alone could be a reason for the current coalition to put that money on the table.

But the report contradicts itself:

"An important condition is that the released (latent) space may not be sold outside the agricultural sector. Otherwise, the sector would be undermined." (Note: this is also not what the Remkes report proposes.)

but a little later:

``The space that is freed up that is no longer available to the sector must be given a financial value. This applies to all sectors and all measures.”

Apparently, it is possible to skim by buying out emission rights from farms without hollowing out the sector.

What industry can afford such an "egocentric" and unworldly slogan in 2020? One could have known that so many nitrogen emission rights should not have been awarded. And not accepting skimming at all, then the problems become permanently unsolvable. The agricultural collective wants to convert the results of emission reduction at the farms into extra space for expansion within the agricultural sector. I hope that politicians will vigorously and successfully resist this obviously incorrect proposal.

The CDA is now faced with a very serious test: do they dare to say what it means, and do they dare to put a very big point behind Bleker's policy that has now led to such major problems? And is this not only done because the Council of State has now inescapably put the facts on the table, but also because they realize that they should never have supported that policy at the time? This is worth a cabinet crisis!

that man is not open to reason, please remove