Few good words about nitrogen proposal with less livestock per hectare

To get that done, the letter writers suggest moving to a LU of 2.3 per hectare. LU stands for GrootVeeUnits: one LU stands for one cow, five pigs, or one hundred and fifty chickens. If we divide all livestock in the Netherlands by all agricultural land, this amounts to a livestock density of 3.8 LU per hectare. By reducing that to 2.3 LU, nitrogen emissions could be halved, according to the letter writers.

The Drenthe farmers and nature clubs think something about that. Strong language, such as ‘I think this is ill-founded’ and ‘too simplistic’ is used when discussing this issue.

“I’m so dumbfounded, is this serious?” asks Dirk Bruins of LTO Noord. “I’m used to it, almost every day there is a group of people who say they have the egg of Columbus. I sometimes get tired of all the solutions that are offered. But I would really expect such clever minds to be capable of something better than this .”

You cannot solve too much nitrogen emissions around certain nature areas with fewer livestock per hectare, thinks Bruins. He paints a picture: imagine that you have a large stable with many hectares next to a Natura2000 area. Then there will still be too much emissions next to that area. “So it doesn’t solve anything,” says Bruins.

The LTO foreman believes that the focus is completely off nitrogen emissions, and is instead pinned down to the amount of livestock. “If you have too much nitrogen, then you have to aim for less nitrogen. They really ignore that completely.”

Moreover, says Bruins, fewer animals per hectare could actually lead to more greenhouse gas emissions. Maybe not nitrogen, but methane. According to him, more extensive agriculture ensures that cows only eat grass. And cows that eat more grass emit more methane than cows that also receive other feed, says Bruins.

If farmers are allowed to keep fewer cows, they are less likely to buy other food and therefore let their cattle graze more. That means more methane emissions. “It really surprises me that they really didn’t look further than their nose,” Bruins concludes his explanation.

Reinder Hoekstra, director of the Nature and Environment Federation Drenthe, is also not thrilled with the plan. Although he likes the simplicity, he thinks the plan put forward in the letter is ‘too simplistic’. The standard mentioned, 2.3 LSU, is also not good.

“Such a standard puts people on the wrong track. If I were to translate that for Drenthe, we would no longer have to do anything with such a standard because we may already be below that average. And that is not the situation. I think that we have to make a difference between different areas. Clay soil, for example, requires something different than the soil here in Drenthe.”

Bruins agrees: “One type of soil is not the other. I live in Drenthe and have dry sandy soil, which is very different from having heavy clay. I think we have to work on a number of goals and we have to be as careful as possible. as possible to deal with the scarce land we have. We just have to eat.”

Nevertheless, Hoekstra also sees the appeal of the plan. “What appeals to me is a simpler system based on land-use. We have to embrace that part together.” Nevertheless, Hoekstra emphasizes that, as it is now written, it is too simplistic.

“I think that with such a system you can also work in the vicinity of nature reserves on less intensive business operations and that can certainly help.” But the fact that this system would ensure that farmers no longer have to be bought out, that also puts farmers on the wrong foot, he thinks. The director of the Drenthe Nature and Environment Federation thinks that this will not help the companies that now want clarity from the government – the so-called notifiers.

Hoekstra thinks that farms that want to stop anyway have more interest in the government talking to them. “As soon as the government makes money available to accelerate the change, there are many entrepreneurs without successors who may consider stopping. To ensure that those companies stop faster with an offer so that there is more room comes for the restoration of nature, that is what you should do.”

Hoekstra also understands that the subject of ‘buying out’ is a sensitive subject, because many people immediately think of forced buyout. But in the picture he paints, farmers themselves choose to stop, and the government can help with that. “In Drenthe, more than a hundred people have reported to the province to want to stop.”

However, there is a part of the letter that Bruins agrees with: the letter writers state that farmers should be supported financially by the government. “If you look at what an egg once cost, in the 1960s for example, suppose that then it was three euros for a box. Then you would have to sell a box of eggs for 23 euros today.” And that is not possible, says Bruins.

Hoekstra also agrees with that aspect of the letter. “If you want such a land-based approach, farmers must be able to implement it. Then you have to ensure that the tax system is in line with it.”