Aufrufe
vor 4 Jahren

XtraBlatt Issue 02-2019

INTERVIEW also need much

INTERVIEW also need much more intelligent solutions than those being discussed by politics currently, for instance a general upper limit to nutrient application. XtraBlatt: What specifically do you mean here? Paetow: There’s no witchcraft in measuring nitrate content in water. Why don’t we do this at representative spots on different fields over our farms, at various depths and through a fully automatic system? Whenever we want, this then gives verifiable documentation on nitrate leaching – with the possibility of quick remedial reactions, for instance through rotation adjustments and/or intercropping. After all, even with us in Mecklenburg with its relatively shallow drinking water retrieval, the nutrients in our groundwater reserves, have causal effects lying 20 or 30 years in the past. Therefore, the more precise our knowledge of what is already happening in the upper areas of the soil, the better can we react to an “excess” in leached nutrients. Purely technically, I see as practical such actions as were demonstrated during a DLG trip to Israel, where we visited irrigation and nutrient management research institutes and learnt about their respective solutions. Such an approach offers another way of tackling the manure application legislation in the so-called red areas, compared with the methods envisaged currently by politics. After all, from the point of view of the DLG we are no friends of targeting an area-associated limit to livestock numbers, a solution failing to deal with the core of the problem. This applies to both pig and cattle production. “WE NEED MUCH MORE INTELLIGENT SOLUTIONS THAN…. FOR INSTANCE A GENERAL UPPER LIMIT TO NUTRIENT APPLICATION.” HUBERTUS PAETOW Paetow: Unfortunately, we see this taking place. In fact, it is not impossible that pig production, for example, might disappear from Germany altogether – if politics does not set the points correctly for its survival. In the end, cost-increasing legislation has to be paid for by someone. As ever, the world market dictates the way of cheapest production via price setting. This reduces animal production standards to the smallest common denominator. When something other than that is wanted in Germany, there must always be a difference in price. This, therefore, is the question to the consumer: Is this what you want, or not? I think this works only when a system of subsidised production is reintroduced. We must pay the farmer the difference in the costs caused by the regulations wanted by consumers. XtraBlatt: The other variant would be to define standards that imports must abide by … Paetow: This approach works only when borders are closed, and that won’t happen. But one should also ask: How important is it for people that – to stay with our example – pig production remains in Germany? This has to be thought about extremely carefully. We can then discuss whether a responsibility is felt for how livestock is produced, or whether only one particular form of livestock production be followed in Germany, for instance. Each of those actions has a different effect. If the first is wanted, this But I also find it important that farmers themselves take a stand against insensitive practices. For instance it’s problematical that, even now in 2019, still 50% of slurry is broadcast on the fields. Consumers approve when we make it clear that we’re not only reacting because we have to, but because we feel responsible. Another, somewhat different, example features the strips of flowers along field edges that contribute very effectively to a positive image. Important is a message that says: Look, we’ve listened to you and we’re taking action. As a sector, though, we’re going to have to put an awful lot of effort into changing the image society has of agriculture. XtraBlatt: Many farmers fear that they’re not up to this effort and so are giving up livestock production … 34

will only work when the farmer is paid for this more expensive form of production. And also where the form of production stipulates a certain structure – e.g. the family farm. But if the aim is local sustainability, for instance the nitrate theme without compensation, then we buy the pigs in Brazil while we avert our eyes as to how they’re produced there. These are the two variants that must be clearly placed side-by-side on the table – and which, unfortunately, are hardly ever addressed in public discussions. It is the role and skill of politics to direct opinion formation within society in the one direction or the other. “IN THE END, COST- INCREASING LEGISLATION MUST BE PAID FOR BY SOMEONE.” HUBERTUS PAETOW concept, and what they would cost. The results should then be packaged as comprehensive pictures that can be presented to everyone concerned. Currently, the daily media and NGOs involving many consumers package agriculture, but appear to be merely against every possibility. There’s no vision on which something can be developed and what we really need is a useable vision. XtraBlatt: Who then should have this vision? Paetow: As an agricultural sector, we must develop the different options and, with them, confront the opinion-makers, or those responsible in politics and together come to a decision. When, in the end, the images or visions emerge – and they are the concepts that win approval from those who look on agriculture from the outside, then the conditions are right for developing suitable production systems. We can also clearly define what needs to be done in order to reach this target. Next on the agenda: assessing the extra cost of the resultant meat. XtraBlatt: How realistic do you think this is? Paetow: Basically, I’m optimistic. But with the background of the latest decision, I see with some concern that agri-political decisions are being made as in a bazaar along the lines of: “Let’s swap glyphosate against an animal welfare label”. This unfortunately speaks against the understanding that discussions should be based on practical farming expertise and factual arguments. Thus, I’m diffident about whether political moderating will really work. Instead, agriculture should work to create images and concepts on how possible solutions should look. Input is needed from farmer unions and associations and certainly from us in the DLG too. Crucial from the start is to think everything out properly. Then, the conclusion should be used as a base for calculating what measures are needed for the When the answer to all this is: 30 % dearer, which I regard as quite realistic and which would be generally bearable for society, then the next question is: where is this money to come from. We can be sure of one thing right from the start: it won’t come from the shop cash-register. Only the exchequer can provide it. There are research programs that confirm this. Solutions are also available: e.g. through stopping meat’s beneficial sales tax rate in Germany, or via a meat tax. The majority of consumers wouldn’t pay the necessary extra cash as an end price. This is why the welfare premium on meat prices discussed up until now is not really workable. It relies on consumers volunteering to pay more – by no means a winning strategy. Another factor important to me is introducing a new attitude into our sector. The present extremely pessimistic mood of farmers tends to lead to poor acceptance of changes. This is a difficult starting point because agriculture needs to get going. A “carry on as before” attitude won’t do. There’s no point in waiting until the water is up to our necks before taking action. We should start reacting the moment it reaches our navels – and this is where it is at the moment as far as the agricultural sector is concerned. The time is therefore right for action. Let’s all grasp the opportunity! « 35