Livestock farmer does not want to destroy the world

Mr Hans Baaij (Pigs in Need and Animal&Right) what's going on? Who are you so mad at that you smash all the credit you might have built up in 2 or 3 opinion pieces. What a rant. And Follow The Money's cowardly attempt to emphasize that it was just your opinion only makes matters worse. Next week I expect an opinion piece on the domestication of the wolf from Little Red Riding Hood.

Last week ran Hans Bay in a opinion piece, posted by FTM, completely empty about the so-called manure problem. However, we are already used to a lot when it comes to animal activists and white lies.

you're going too far
However, I am afraid that Mr. Baaij has now reached a point where he himself no longer knows the difference between fantasy and truth. I always wonder if there isn't someone around you who says: "Hans, you have to stop doing it, you are going too far, you are becoming a caricature of yourself and even the most loyal followers are starting to build on your credibility. to doubt."

It's just that no one has done that, so I'm trying. "Hans, you're going too far. Why are you doing this? Is it because you can? Is it because you know that more than 74% of the people who support your organizations are on average low-skilled (primary education and MBO 1 or 2)? that it's because they won't figure it out anyway? Shame on you."

Of course, it could be that no one has updated you lately, and it's all a big misunderstanding. You write for the 'journalistic movement' FTM; they are of course very upset with you. On the one hand it scores nicely with all that emotional nonsense, but on the other hand they cannot say with dry eyes that they are bringing out the truth. They cannot tackle people/organizations that misbehave and harm others while continuing to provide you with a platform to publicly condemn a group of innocent people. To accommodate you, I will update you on the basis of your own story.

Explosive growth of livestock industry
Quote 1. "The Netherlands has an exceptional position in the European Union (EU) and is therefore allowed to apply approximately 50% more manure than other countries" and "The derogation has led to an explosive growth of the livestock industry in the Netherlands."

The above is one of your first sentences. Those statements come straight from your thumb. Although the Netherlands participates in the derogation, and that is indeed an exception to the rule, that is also a parking space for the disabled. You want to make it look like a reward, a gift, when in fact it's a regulatory relaxation. This is so that the Netherlands does not lose its own production possibilities. As you can see, we are in good company with some nearby countries.

Then to the calculation errors. You are talking about 50%. I'm not going to calculate it for you, but it's not even 30%. Even a student from group 7 of primary school cannot get away with this rounding error, a margin of error of 60%. Even the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) would not dare to publish that. It can be even more exciting. "That terrible derogation has fueled an explosive growth of the meat industry." The Netherlands has been participating in the derogation since 2005. When we look at the ratio between the number of cattle in the Netherlands and the number of inhabitants, no growth can be observed after the start of the derogation.

Contaminated manure
Quotation 2. "The Dutch livestock industry can only dispose of (polluted) manure at high costs; the result is export to Belgium, Germany and France. Farmers are paid to spread Dutch manure. The (pig) manure is regularly contaminated with antibiotics, heavy metals, waste from XTC, et cetera."

First you indicate that the removal of manure entails high costs, and you also mention contaminated manure as a kind of starting point, but you do know that polluted manure mainly exists in your own head? The high costs are correct, but then you say that farmers are paid to spread manure. There you contradict yourself and the truth. According to you, the manure that is spread is regularly contaminated; as if a farmer knowingly uses XTC and heavy metals in his manure and wants to be fined for this. Almost funny.

manure fraud
Quotation 3. "Pig farmers have been fraudulent for years with millions of kilograms of manure. There are many more pigs, and therefore more manure, than is allowed. And there is fraud with the number of cows. Granting a derogation would reward fraud."

If it is the case that you do not yet realize that the conclusion you draw is sheer nonsense, this comparison may help; the subsidy flows for the NGOs must be stopped. Lately, it appears that many of these organizations are seriously sexually abusing young children, and as you put it, the following conclusion would follow: Granting subsidies to NGOs is rewarding child abuse!

Large-scale manure fraud mainly takes place in Mr Baaij's mind. You know there's no way of knowing the extent of the fraud, right? Let me be clear; I think any form of manure fraud is wrong and anyone who knowingly participates in it must be held responsible. Even if that is a livestock farmer; revoke that permit. However, read the facts now.

In the first half of 2017, 18 companies were prosecuted, after which there have been no new cases. Of these companies, the judge ruled in 2 cases guilty without penalty, 2 acquittals and 14 cases with a penalty. Of those 14 cases I can only find 1 where the farmer himself was the fraud and not the transport company (source: Rijksoverheid). However, even if it was the case in all 14 cases, you should still be ashamed that you are shaving all pig farmers with the same brush.

In your account you also draw a conclusion about the article in FTM: 'Crisis. Which crisis?'. It seems to state that there is still room for growth for organic farmers. And now it comes: "Because even dairy had to be imported!" There must be a few economists who turned in their graves when you said this, but I was happy. How simple it is to explain the functioning of the global market and supply and demand when imports have become the indicator of growth.

The actual figures for organic milk are slightly different, exports have exceeded imports (+25%). It is and remains a revenue model (organic or not). If I follow your reasoning, then that would imply that the organic sector in the Netherlands must shrink. This is because the export exceeds the import.

Meet the demands
Quotation 4. "They do not use the derogation, because they have to meet the strict requirements of the EU; they have fewer cows per hectare and are land-bound. Organic farmers work sustainably. The organic sector has a shortage rather than a surplus of manure. The manure from organic cows is also in high demand by organic farmers and horticulturists." And "25% of organic farmers are at risk of bankruptcy."

Provided that I am an advocate of organic farming, I think everything should be in proportion to the demand of the market. It doesn't work if everyone is organic. With the plans that are now in place (recommendation on land-relatedness), we will soon all meet the 'strict' requirements that apply to organic livestock farming. So there you immediately have your answer; if the organic farmer falls outside the scope of the scheme, we will all soon be excluded.

Regarding your comment that the organic sector has a shortage of manure, you are right, we all have a shortage of manure! Crazy, we get rid of good valuable fertilizer to buy expensive chemical fertilizer. Perhaps it is not the farmers, but the regulations that want to serve too many interests. And the manure is requested by (organic) arable farmers and horticulturists. The 25% that threatens to go bankrupt; that percentage is just as high as in regular livestock farming (something with entrepreneurial risk).

Time for a new goal
you have in your glory years did a great job, but then there comes a time when you have to stop or grow with it. You have not done both and then you get this. However, I have come up with a nice new goal for you, which may well be the solution. I realize that it goes against all the commandments of an animal rights organization that you actually come up with solutions, but maybe we can make an exception once.

The Netherlands has 1,8 million hectares of cultivated land. Of this, 48% is owned by the dairy farmers (864.000 hectares) and 25% by the arable farms (450.000 hectares). At the moment about 0,5 hectare per person is needed to have enough food. This means that without imports we can no longer even provide everyone with food. However, there is sufficient land worldwide to make it suitable for food or animal crops. So you can feel it coming

Change the name from Varkens in Nood to Nederland in Nood and start, for example, an information campaign for supporters of the Party of the Animals (PvdD), in which you explain that eradicating the dairy and beef cattle sector will lead to even more starving children in the world. yield. I promise you, you'll be under the roof for the next 40 years. Then we just look for a new target!

© 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.