With three weeks to go until the House of Representatives elections, it is striking that the debate about the future of agriculture, about nature and the countryside, has so far been conducted somewhat more calmly than last spring, around the Provincial Council elections.
The question then involuntarily arises: is this the calm before the storm, or does everyone think that a switch has already been turned and that, now that the rough edges have apparently been removed, the discussion about the future of agriculture and livestock farming will take its course?
Fatalism
It is also often heard that the Netherlands is given no choice by Brussels but to comply with what is asked there and that the livestock herd will inevitably have to shrink. It depends from which point of view you look at it, but from the perspective of livestock farming you would say that there is quite a bit of resignation, if not fatalism, in this. After all, the agreements are clear, and don't the figures speak for themselves?
Own space, own KDW
On the surface it is all true, but every country, including the Netherlands, has a certain degree of freedom in Europe to organize its own affairs. Well-known examples for agriculture are how the Netherlands has determined the Critical Deposition Value (KDW), many times stricter than any other country in Europe. And based on this also the 'protection' of critical habitats in nature reserves. Nitrogen is examined almost exclusively and social and economic factors, as well as matters such as 'existing use', which are taken into account in Germany, France and elsewhere, are ignored in the Netherlands. Nitrogen fetishism reigns supreme here.
Tinkering under the hood
However, Dutch agriculture is not only limited (if at all) by criteria that are visible to everyone. Tinkering under the hood also contributes considerably. We know how this works from the world of high-tech, where unguided whiz kids, such as Elon Musk, tinker with the settings of their toys (Twitter/X and StarLink) because of personal (political) preferences or to protect world leaders such as Putin and to please Xi Jinping.
Refuse update
In agriculture, something like this sometimes seems to be the case on our own Dutch scale, when groups such as the NEMA Agricultural Emissions Task Group, the committee of experts on manure policy or the Working Group on Uniforming the Calculation of Manure and Mineral Figures (WUM) tinker with conversion factors, or - what occurs more often – it is refused to use representative factors for now. Not updating is a kind of manipulation of reality. As a result, it is very easy for politicians to say that there is no technical progress or innovation taking place. There are plenty of examples to discuss in this context: no adjustment for roughage losses, no adjustment for excretion figures for highly productive cows, no adjustment for emissions from (pasture) land.
Boring factors color big data
These are boring, technical matters, but they also involve often crucial calculation factors that produce very different results in the big picture. Small numbers behind the 'big data.' Also in other areas, such as water quality, figures, measurements and weighting factors are often used to support policy.
Measuring on Dom Tower
Back to the main point in the political debate on nitrogen, many parties now seem to be keen on a change from deposition policy to emissions policy. There was two weeks ago in this place paid attention to. Such a change seems logical - because it is an approach at the source, but has any thought been given to its technical feasibility? Real-time measurements in a dairy barn that is often open nowadays seems almost as useful as measuring ammonia on top of the Utrecht Dom Tower. There are almost as many outside influences. An alternative is to equip cows themselves with sensors at the body openings. That doesn't seem to be the intention at all. And then there are the manure storage areas. The question is whether there are simple solutions. Influencing nutrition and its conversion seem more promising.
Current image
Whether Dutch livestock farming and arable farming should shrink further ultimately remains up to the voter, but he must be presented with the most honest picture possible. That turns out to be quite a task. The fact is that there has been a lot of autonomous shrinkage in recent years, thanks to the PAS debacle and what has resulted from it. A current picture would be useful.
Van der Tak's axe
With the elections in sight, something interesting happened last week. LTO chairman Sjaak van der Tak has thrown in the towel. He said he did this on the occasion of his sixty-seventh birthday. His NMV colleague Henk Bleeker is not deterred by these kinds of years, but Van der Tak thinks it is enough. It again places LTO with the dilemma of what kind of foreman or woman it should choose: Another director/official like the last two helmsmen, or someone who still knows what it is like to be a farmer? And then of course the question of what signature the candidate should have?
Apparatchik or member person
It may be advisable to wait with a new person until after the November 22 elections. In the distant past, LTO directors were elected by the members. It hasn't been like this for a long time. In view of all the discussions, especially in the past year, it seems advisable that the LTO directors also take member involvement more into account when appointing a new front woman or man.