2 ms·
It was restricting antibiotic, without pesticides and not more animals than you can produce food for them, with than less nitrates/pesticides and antibiotics fl
by nix23 5y ago
It was restricting antibiotic, without pesticides and not more animals than you can produce food for them, with than less nitrates/pesticides and antibiotics flows into the water.
Copy/Paste Translation:
Initial situation
Farmers receive direct payments from the federal government. However, they only receive the money if they comply with certain rules. These include, for example, the protection of biodiversity, rules on fertilizing and animal husbandry.
An initiative has been submitted to introduce additional rules for direct payments. That is why we are now voting on it.
What would change?
If the initiative is accepted, there will be additional rules for direct payments. Farmers will only receive direct payments if they:
set aside a certain amount of their land for the protection of biodiversity;
produce pesticide-free.
refrain from preventive or regular use of antibiotics on their animals.
keep only as many animals as they can feed with the feed they grow themselves. This reduces the amount of fertilizer used.
Agricultural research, consulting, investment aid and training are also geared to these goals.
https://www.easyvote.ch/de/abstimmungen/13-juni/trinkwasserinitiative https://www.easyvote.ch/de/abstimmungen/13-juni/trinkwasseri...
- namdnay 5y ago> keep only as many animals as they can feed with the feed they grow themselves woahhhh... that's a pretty huge requirement, no?
- snovv_crash 5y agoYes, although note the proposed initiative wasn't to make it illegal to do that, just you wouldn't qualify for subsidies anymore.
- jeltz 5y agoYeah, I feel th first two requirements are fairly uncontroversial while the last is a huge paradigm shift (maybe for the better, but still huge). I do not think I like that they were grouped together.