Derogation lost, is there still a way to recovery?

I'm not involved in that area, but come on, don't be so pessimistic. It's only a few thousand dairy farmers who are affected. I know plenty of people who wouldn't care whether the derogation goes ahead or not. But if you've built your business model on an exception (because that's a derogation by definition) without considering a plan B, you've taken a huge risk. But there's plenty of land in the Netherlands used by farmers who don't have livestock. So you can definitely still find a use for your manure. Maybe now some manure will finally flow to the edges of the Netherlands, far away from the manure surplus areas. Think creatively.

Well, 'other godfather' one thing is correct in your argument: you are not involved in the matter

Floor de Jong wrote:

Well, 'other godfather' one thing is correct in your argument: you are not involved in the matter

Your comment implies that the rest of what I wrote is incorrect. That might be true because, as an arable farmer in Zeeland, I'm not really familiar with livestock farming. However, many dairy farmers didn't participate in the derogation because it wasn't necessary for their situation. Or because they anticipated they would no longer participate in the temporary derogation. As an arable farmer, I'm only bothered by the derogation. This whole NV area policy stems from the decision the Netherlands made (thanks to the strong livestock farming lobby) to opt for the derogation in Brussels. The NV areas were the bargaining chip. So, because a few thousand dairy farmers don't want to invest in land to dispose of their own manure, I, as an arable farmer, am being cut back on my N land allowance because part of my land is in NV areas. While there's hardly any livestock farming in Zeeland.

and ultimately it is arable crops with overly intensive cropping plans that cause nitrate emissions.

juun wrote:

and ultimately it is arable crops with overly intensive cropping plans that cause nitrate emissions.

These are intensive arable areas on the sandbanks where they don't even know what a combine harvester is, or only see pictures in trade magazines. But in the southwest, on primarily clay soil, an average of half the acreage is used for combine harvesters, flax presses, or alfalfa drying, etc. Not a particularly large share of intensive crops, no livestock farming, and yet still considered NV (Dutch agricultural land).

other peter wrote:

juun wrote:

and ultimately it is arable crops with overly intensive cropping plans that cause nitrate emissions.

These are intensive arable areas on the sandbanks where they don't even know what a combine harvester is, or only see pictures in trade magazines. But in the southwest, on primarily clay soil, an average of half the acreage is used for combine harvesters, flax presses, or alfalfa drying, etc. Not a particularly large share of intensive crops, no livestock farming, and yet still considered NV (Dutch agricultural land).

That's not necessarily true. If you fertilize potatoes with 300 kg of nitrogen and then harvest 40 tons of potatoes due to drought, combined with the extra mineralization, you'll still have a substantial surplus. Ultimately, nitrogen-rich areas can be easily traced back to the coarse subsoil in drought-prone areas.

juun wrote:

other peter wrote:

juun wrote:

and ultimately it is arable crops with overly intensive cropping plans that cause nitrate emissions.

These are intensive arable areas on the sandbanks where they don't even know what a combine harvester is, or only see pictures in trade magazines. But in the southwest, on primarily clay soil, an average of half the acreage is used for combine harvesters, flax presses, or alfalfa drying, etc. Not a particularly large share of intensive crops, no livestock farming, and yet still considered NV (Dutch agricultural land).

That's not necessarily true. If you fertilize potatoes with 300 kg of nitrogen and then harvest 40 tons of potatoes due to drought, combined with the extra mineralization, you'll still have a substantial surplus. Ultimately, nitrogen-rich areas can be easily traced back to the coarse subsoil in drought-prone areas.

Do I understand you correctly: extra mineralization during droughts... Those areas in Zeeland are precisely not traceable to the criteria you set. All of northern Beveland is a limited area, as is part of Walcheren and part of the coast of western Zeeuws-Vlaanderen. Those are precisely three areas with substantial clay deposits, not drying out, and a large proportion of extensive crops in the crop rotation. However, they are areas with a LOT of tourism.

I'm referring to the nitrogen focus areas proposed in the 8th Amendment to the Nitrate Act. In some places, these areas have been designated for nothing, or based on phosphate.

other peter wrote:

juun wrote:

other peter wrote:

juun wrote:

and ultimately it is arable crops with overly intensive cropping plans that cause nitrate emissions.

These are intensive arable areas on the sandbanks where they don't even know what a combine harvester is, or only see pictures in trade magazines. But in the southwest, on primarily clay soil, an average of half the acreage is used for combine harvesters, flax presses, or alfalfa drying, etc. Not a particularly large share of intensive crops, no livestock farming, and yet still considered NV (Dutch agricultural land).

That's not necessarily true. If you fertilize potatoes with 300 kg of nitrogen and then harvest 40 tons of potatoes due to drought, combined with the extra mineralization, you'll still have a substantial surplus. Ultimately, nitrogen-rich areas can be easily traced back to the coarse subsoil in drought-prone areas.

Do I understand you correctly: extra mineralization during droughts... Those areas in Zeeland are precisely not traceable to the criteria you set. All of northern Beveland is a limited area, as is part of Walcheren and part of the coast of western Zeeuws-Vlaanderen. Those are precisely three areas with substantial clay deposits, not drying out, and a large proportion of extensive crops in the crop rotation. However, they are areas with a LOT of tourism.

The government has only one goal: agriculture must and will be cut back, and all sorts of fallacies are put forward to achieve this.