Home » Business » ‘Reducing livestock means empty shelves’ – and three other claims checked

‘Reducing livestock means empty shelves’ – and three other claims checked

A closer look at four frequently heard statements. To start with that last question: do we actually have a nitrogen problem?

1. ‘There is no nitrogen problem, it only exists on paper’

“I think many people are not aware of how big the nitrogen problem is,” responds Marjolein Demmers, director of Nature and the Environment. Three months ago she showed Christianne van der Wal (Nature and Nitrogen) what nitrogen does to a nature reserve. They visited the Kampina area in North Brabant. “Normally there is a lot of biodiversity there, now it almost looks like a savanna. Lots of yellow grasses. All kinds of flowers and butterflies are lost there.”

Bart Verheggen, climate specialist at RTL Nieuws, explains why. It revolves around ammonia, a compound of nitrogen and hydrogen. A lot of ammonia is emitted in agriculture, the majority of which is absorbed into the soil. There it provides an excess of nutrients, which benefit fast-growing species such as grasses, nettles and blackberries. They then displace the slower growing species – which are responsible for biodiversity.

In addition, ammonia in the soil is converted into nitrate, which acidifies the soil. “As a result, other nutrients are no longer available to the plants. In time, nature will deteriorate visibly.”


According to Demmers, nature is ‘completely saturated’ with ammonia. This disrupts the soil. Plants and animals do not get the right nutrients. With all the dangers that entails. From birds that get too little lime, to oaks that are more susceptible to diseases and pests.

2. ‘We will soon have empty shelves in the supermarket’

But is it possible, just throw away all that cattle? Reducing livestock numbers would lead to empty supermarket shelves. “People riot when the shelves get empty”, tweeted Caroline van der Plas, MP for the BBB. It is a frequently heard argument. An image of fear.

“Nonsense,” says Bart Verheggen. “The largest part of the yield from Dutch agriculture, especially from livestock farming, is for export.”

“The food supply is really not at risk,” says Roel Jongeneel, lecturer in agricultural policy at Wageningen University. “We export a large part of the food produced in the Netherlands, about 60 percent, to other countries. It is not the case that if we take environmental measures here, we will have empty shelves in the shops.”

This infographic shows the consequences of the huge livestock industry; a considerable manure surplus:


3. ‘We should be grateful to the farmers’

All those measures, it seems as if the farmers are being punished. You shouldn’t see it that way, says assistant professor Jongeneel. He does indeed think that farmers in the Netherlands should be given more recognition. “In Western countries, only 4 percent of the working population provides our food. We have thus entrusted an important task to a very small group of people who do this with dedication. Farmers should be recognized for that.”

Nor is it entirely right that they are now the scapegoat. In fact, farmers have already worked hard to reduce nitrogen. “In 1990 we were at 350 million kilos of ammonia emissions per year, we are now below 150 million kilos. So it is about halving. They have already done a lot. It is not that nothing is happening. Only: it is not enough.”

Pap and keep wet

The finger of blame should go to the government. “Politicians have postponed the reduction of nitrogen for years,” says Jongeneel. “It was a mess in recent years. In the meantime, the situation worsened.”

For example, the European nature conservation law was circumvented by the Programmatic Approach to Nitrogen (PAS): activities that led to higher nitrogen emissions could continue, provided that the extra emissions were compensated elsewhere. In practice, the latter often did not happen, as a result of which the Council of State declared the PAS illegal in 2019.

Some farmers rightly feel attacked. “Now the time is really short and the sector has to take the right turn, so to speak. From an administrative point of view, some mistakes have been made.”


Nitrogen: what’s up again?

The government has its back against the wall. The Netherlands must comply with European nature conservation laws that it has been violating for years. Judges reject permits for housing, road construction and businesses on a large scale, because they lead to more nitrogen emissions.

Nitrogen emissions in a number of areas must fall by 70 to 95 percent within eight years, is the current plan of the national government. The twelve provincial governments must report to Minister Christianne Van der Wal within a year how they want to achieve this reduction.


4. ‘The nitrogen decision is a death sentence for many farmers’

The fear for many farmers is that they will have to stop their business. It doesn’t have to be. In fact, the nitrogen decree is not about the number of farmers, but about the number of animals that are kept.

For example, it is expected that biodynamic farmers will be spared the decline in livestock, since they keep fewer animals and practice circular agriculture: circular agriculture is the link between arable farming and livestock farming: animals eat the residual flows of the land. The manure is then the raw material for the crops. For many biodynamic farmers this comes down to one hectare of cow per hectare of field.

“It is said that farms that are hundreds of years old will disappear, but that is not necessary at all,” a biologically dynamic farmer also told RTL Nieuws. “There should be less livestock. It’s about the animals.”

Price tag for the consumer

Assistant professor Jongeneel says that fewer animals usually means fewer farmers. “Another option is that the margin per liter of milk, for example, goes up. Then a farmer with fewer animals can also earn a reasonable income, but there is a price tag for the consumer and the chain.”

Finally, Demmer of Natuur en Milieu says: “The measures should not be seen as a threat, but as a lifeline for farmers. With this package and with all kinds of financial resources, we hope that farmers will seize this opportunity to develop a future-proof company. now choose to move, adapt or stop. That it does justice to what they have built up. Of course this is very moving for the farmers, but this plan is what is needed.”


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.