Keurentjes urges dairy farmers to calm down

Have a question for Mr. Keurentjes, if everything is reasonably on schedule, still 20.000 gve to go, then why another young stock law. This is more like a reduction in milk supply. Still the source of income of a dairy farmer

Yes guys, clean up those cows. All the result of the derogation application. After all, the derogation includes an action program so that more N per hectare can be spread, but also the restriction of the phosphate ceiling. They didn't want animals to be able to get there all the time, so they limited that. So no derogation, no ceiling. Oh yes, they say, but phosphate policy remains. Yes , but then as a result of the water framework directive , which goes much wider than just agriculture . This also includes purification, nature reserves, etc.
Yes Kniertje "the derogation is paid dearly"

the number of young stock is the biggest stumbling block, otherwise the reduction plans can be defended very well.

Keurentjes does what it has to do. You cannot stop the five dairy farmers who have gone to court, but the rest of the dairy farmers are not getting anywhere with the verdict.
Even longer uncertainty even if you think you can hitch a ride on the pronunciation. If one is already so cramped that this is the last straw, then one cannot even afford to gamble.
Come on colleagues only 20000 cows and we are here to preserve the derogation.
Do we want to put it on the line for your own right and thereby drag your colleagues into the abyss?

@AJ
If you read carefully, you will see that Keurentjes, FC, wants a different interpretation for the young stock number. The variant we now have was devised by van Dam and co.

dear grass, yes we want that. I have never instructed the lto rabobank and FFC to negotiate on my behalf. and I'm fine without derogation

Abolish the Derogation and replace it with a package of measures to also support soil fertility in the plant sectors.

Dear Mr Keurentjes,
I assume you know how the modern farmer does and thinks.
Also in the agricultural sector it is no longer us but I.
In the course of 2015, there were enough people in the sector who indicated that things would get out of hand in dairy farming.
The major expansions in dairy farming did not arise from relatively small farms, but from large growers. These large growers are more than paralyzed by the current package of measures by the government. several companies are on the verge of bankruptcy. Now that an escape has been made for this group, you do not think that these farmers benefit from your story!!!
No they will think very simply and do SURVIVAL!!!!
And rightly so in my eyes.

But the consequence will inevitably lead to the end of the derogation.


Sincerely,
Joan

Some things have been discussed in obscure rooms.. by LTO, Friesland Campina and Bank I think.. things have not been consulted with supporters. It is guesswork, but it has to do with green fertilizer, footprint and becoming the showpiece as a dairy supplier in the world.. Real entrepreneurs with good results and image fit into this picture.. the rest was probably the intention to buy phosphate rights through a "game" to gain its place.. extensive farms that cannot pull the cart have to be sold and an intensive farmer with 400 LU without land can dispose of 200 LU and continue farming on that land-bound company ... a game of about 3 to 4 years which is also called a danish bubble .. wonderful for the bank and FC .. with much fewer livestock farmers, but drastically lower the footprint.. Making money in the world through top quality milk with the lowest CO2 tax.... (but than by a select group unfortunately...)

Look at Campina's Milk Web.
Mr. Van Eerd wrote an open letter to Keurentjes, which was posted on Melkweb.
A letter in which everything is clearly stated.
Give your opinion on Melkweb.

How can someone read Melkweb?
Open letter on closed part?????
Not a cattle farmer, but interested, that's why.

To be able to read the message, you must log in with the details of a dairy farmer who supplies his milk to Campina.

Written by:
Mr JWH van Eert
07-05-2017
Dear Mr Keurentjes,

In your attempt to update us as dairy farmers about the situation that has arisen with the Phosphate Reduction Plan scheme, I would have thought a slightly different explanation would have been more appropriate.

You write that there should be a shortage regulation for approximately 50 dairy farmers with specific circumstances. However, these 50 dairy farmers were carefully selected by the lawyers from a large group of a few hundred farmers who indicated that they wanted to initiate legal proceedings against the Phosphate Reduction Plan. The aim of the lawyers was to present the widest possible spectrum of dairy farmers to the court.

The verdict is well known: for example, the court ruled in favor of dairy farmers who have organic farms, or who are completely land-bound, or who have invested in manure processing, or who have invested in expanding the dairy barn, or who have invested in additional dairy cattle. have invested.

The court concluded that the State is liable for the disproportionate damage suffered by these dairy farmers. In other words, if the State believes that fewer cows should be brought into the Netherlands, it will have to compensate the dairy farmers for this. Nota bene on the basis of a weighty article 1 on 'property right'.

It would have been more to your liking if you, together with LTO, ZuivelNL, had offered your sincere apologies to the sector. You have jointly ensured that the mistakes of the State are back on the plate of the sector and lead to very great division among the dairy farmers.
But what do you do? You make a moral appeal not to allow the group of 'dissidents' who pointed out the wrong choices to the State and LTO, ZuivelNL to grow. In your last paragraph I almost read a pre-announcement of a new RFC standstill, should the State take its hands off the Phosphate Reduction Plan.

You made a wrong estimate about this beforehand, despite many warnings. But it may not be too late to repent!

What then?
- Liability now rests with the State. If she wants fewer cows, she will have to pay.
- Do not take back the responsibility from the State, you will also take over the liability towards the individual dairy farmers.
- Van Dam has repeatedly shown that he is not there for the sector. As an RFC, make sure you are.
- Stand up for the interests of all dairy farmers, whether they are land-bound or whether they sell or process manure, whether they are grown or not, whether they are organic or conventional and whether or not they have a derogation.
- Go to Brussels with a good plan with substantiation, don't leave that to the State alone. Even if we will not fall below the phosphate ceiling this year, start negotiating. Bring the good grades and the good people. Focus on the soil and water, organic matter in the soil!
- Bet on 300 kg N from animal manure on grassland (sand) and 350 kg N on grassland (clay). All arable land on 170 kg N from animal manure. No more 80-20 ratio, all grassland counts, all arable land goes for the 170 kg N standard. This is an enormous incentive for more grassland, more grazing, more CO2 binding.
- Use processed manure (eg from mono-digester, cracker) as a fertilizer substitute.
- Environmental targets are not exceeded, as long as the usage standards on the ground are met. They are the same for everyone. Total application standard (slurry and fertilizer) based on the extraction of the crop.
- No more phosphate rights needed. Money remains in the sector and can be invested in land, manure processing or other initiatives that contribute to a solution to the manure problem.
- With the above, the soil fertility can further improve as well as the water quality.
- Conclusion: Show initiative, dare to take real steps and stand up for all farmers. If the government and/or Brussels cannot or do not want to go along with this real sustainability, and yet only want fewer cows, then they will have to pay for it themselves.


I wish you much wisdom in the choices you have to make.

The judge's ruling has created a breach in solidarity. Organic farmers and Thorough farmers are being called upon to widen the gap. Other farmers will also invoke an exemption from the phosphate reduction plan and the burden is on a smaller group of farmers who have not grown or grown less. These will be the new bottlenecks.

Then this new group of pinchers will experience how just that feels.
Just as well as that 'other group' experienced it.

I think that this reduction plan with its phosphate rights has become untenable. The derogation must be paid dearly. In that respect I can agree with Mr van Eert's argument.

Mr. Goumans has worded it well, the judge has been clear, the State Secretary, and LTO, have been put to shame. Where the government harms companies, it will have to go public! And no further scheming about the backs of the companies.
It is too sad for words that the legal knowledge at LTO is not of such a nature that they have not stood up for the members who still have them in the consultations, and have pointed this out to the State Secretary and have also informed their members about this!! !!
Furthermore, I wholeheartedly agree with the letter from Mr. van Eert further substantiated which way it should go with technical facts. Hopefully our regents and administrators have not been hit so hard that they dare to retrace their steps, because they will have to. Standing up for justice to agriculture apart from intricate rules and EEC
regulations!!!