4 ms·

>One of the four forming parties IS the farmers... They keep holding up these signs that say "no farmers no food", while we all know a huge part of it is for ex

>One of the four forming parties IS the farmers... They keep holding up these signs that say "no farmers no food", while we all know a huge part of it is for export. Well, export or domestic, the "no food" part still stands.

RetroTechie 3y ago
> Well, export or domestic, the "no food" part still stands. More & more I tend to regard Dutch farmland as a factory: one that happens to 'manufacture' agricultural products (mostly grass & maize to feed cows), using land as part of the machinery. The "feed own population" is 2nd tier consideration. And as an industry, it uses a big % of the surface area in our densely populated country, while adding relatively little to our economy (~2% or so, iirc). Now if land were plentiful that wouldn't be a (big) problem. But with agriculture taking the space of almost non-existant 'nature', all the environmental problems resulting from its intensity, animal welfare issues etc, this is a problem. Dutch population is a bit 50/50 on this I'd say. Much sympathy for farmers but yes the problems are real. But farmers have a strong lobby here so probably not much will change. More automation, faster-growing crops, bigger farms, lower prices for what's produced, middlemen (like supermarket chains) squeeze them like crazy while raking in profits for their owners or shareholders. Not a great time to be a farmer in the NL. Edit: the high-tech agri & research stuff (as described in article), that is good stuff though.
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  Why do european farmers seem to have an aversion towards selling land? In the US it seems like farmers are always trying to cash out their land for a developer as soon as there is demand. Look at the farmland interface at most american cities and you can see active development on satellite views. Meanwhile over in amsterdam some of the most prime real estate not far from the central train station is still just farms. Seems to me they could stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars selling off these lots for development, then invest that money and make more than tight margin farming ever would have presumably.
  - yourusername 3y ago
    You can't just sell land for development. If the land is zoned for argicultural use you can't just build a suburb there. Zoning doesn't end at city limits here. Every square meter of land has allowed uses assigned to it and changing it takes a long time with rounds of protests and consultations.
    - kjkjadksj 3y ago
      Zoning and protests over zoning exists in the US too. I wonder why the netherlands remain so restrictive however especially given a housing crisis and not as much of a need for agriculture land today as in centuries past.
      - DrSiemer 3y ago
        It's a country where everything is very well organized. There are rules for everything and corruption is low. One of the consequences is that it takes a long time and serious investments to get new construction projects going. Another big reason is the CO2 crisis, which is partially caused by... Well, you know.
- danlugo92 3y ago
  Why is France seeing these protests as well even though it has 12x the land?
- throwup238 3y ago
  > The "feed own population" is 2nd tier consideration. And as an industry, it uses a big % of the surface area in our densely populated country, while adding relatively little to our economy (~2% or so, iirc). TFA says total agricultural exports in 2021 was $108.4 billion and according to Google the GDP was just over $1 trillion, which is closer to a tenth of the economy just in exports not 2%. Am I missing something?
  - FranzFerdiNaN 3y ago
    https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2020/19/landbouw-droeg-in-2019-evenveel-bij-aan-economie-als-tien-jaar-eerder https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2020/19/landbouw-droeg-in-20... It’s only 1.4%. If you are generous you end up with at most 7% by adding in a lot of related industry and transportation of goods as well.
    - throwup238 3y ago
      Then where does the $108 billion of exports come from? Even at 7% against 1 trillion gdp the math just doesn't make any sense to me if there’s that much in export. Is most of the export capital just going towards importing fertilizer so it’s not counted towards GDP or something?
      - riffraff 3y ago
        I have no idea of the specific numbers, but a component of GDP is indeed _net_ exports. If you export 100B and import 100B the trade would account for 0% of the GDP. At a glance, NL seem to import quite a lot of agricultural stuff, even if it exports more. https://oec.world/en/profile/country/nld?yearlyTradeFlowSelector=flow1 https://oec.world/en/profile/country/nld?yearlyTradeFlowSele...
- petre 3y ago
  It's also the EU country which uses the most ferts and pesticides. I wonder of there are any beekeepers left in NL, or bees for that matter. I've seen black bees in a reservation in Sicily. Amazing. I'd like to see them again in ten years.
DrSiemer 3y ago
No it does not. You could phase out more than 60% of the Dutch farmers, which would reclaim 40% of the land (from the 66% they currently use), losing less than 1% of the BDP, and the country would STILL have plenty of food.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >and the country would STILL have plenty of food I did write: "export or domestic". The country would still have "plenty of food", but the second largest production of food would be affected.
  - DrSiemer 3y ago
    Affected, yes. That's not the same as "no food". Having farmers in the Netherlands is not a binary choice.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - stefan_ 3y ago
    Which is not a very big production at all because most countries that don't qualify as failed states rightly organize their food production independently. The biggest buyer tends to be China who doesn't need the food to begin with, it's just buying on generational paranoia.
  - arp242 3y ago
    The argument being made is "farmers take care of our food! We need them!" That is what "no farmers no food" means: "no farmers, no food for us". Everyone understands that's what it means. And that's just not true, as much of it is for export, as was mentioned.

RetroTechie 3y ago

> Well, export or domestic, the "no food" part still stands. More & more I tend to regard Dutch farmland as a factory: one that happens to 'manufacture' agricultural products (mostly grass & maize to feed cows), using land as part of the machinery. The "feed own population" is 2nd tier consideration. And as an industry, it uses a big % of the surface area in our densely populated country, while adding relatively little to our economy (~2% or so, iirc). Now if land were plentiful that wouldn't be a (big) problem. But with agriculture taking the space of almost non-existant 'nature', all the environmental problems resulting from its intensity, animal welfare issues etc, this is a problem. Dutch population is a bit 50/50 on this I'd say. Much sympathy for farmers but yes the problems are real. But farmers have a strong lobby here so probably not much will change. More automation, faster-growing crops, bigger farms, lower prices for what's produced, middlemen (like supermarket chains) squeeze them like crazy while raking in profits for their owners or shareholders. Not a great time to be a farmer in the NL. Edit: the high-tech agri & research stuff (as described in article), that is good stuff though.

kjkjadksj 3y ago
Why do european farmers seem to have an aversion towards selling land? In the US it seems like farmers are always trying to cash out their land for a developer as soon as there is demand. Look at the farmland interface at most american cities and you can see active development on satellite views. Meanwhile over in amsterdam some of the most prime real estate not far from the central train station is still just farms. Seems to me they could stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars selling off these lots for development, then invest that money and make more than tight margin farming ever would have presumably.
- yourusername 3y ago
  You can't just sell land for development. If the land is zoned for argicultural use you can't just build a suburb there. Zoning doesn't end at city limits here. Every square meter of land has allowed uses assigned to it and changing it takes a long time with rounds of protests and consultations.
  - kjkjadksj 3y ago
    Zoning and protests over zoning exists in the US too. I wonder why the netherlands remain so restrictive however especially given a housing crisis and not as much of a need for agriculture land today as in centuries past.
    - DrSiemer 3y ago
      It's a country where everything is very well organized. There are rules for everything and corruption is low. One of the consequences is that it takes a long time and serious investments to get new construction projects going. Another big reason is the CO2 crisis, which is partially caused by... Well, you know.
danlugo92 3y ago
Why is France seeing these protests as well even though it has 12x the land?
throwup238 3y ago
> The "feed own population" is 2nd tier consideration. And as an industry, it uses a big % of the surface area in our densely populated country, while adding relatively little to our economy (~2% or so, iirc). TFA says total agricultural exports in 2021 was $108.4 billion and according to Google the GDP was just over $1 trillion, which is closer to a tenth of the economy just in exports not 2%. Am I missing something?
- FranzFerdiNaN 3y ago
  https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2020/19/landbouw-droeg-in-2019-evenveel-bij-aan-economie-als-tien-jaar-eerder https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2020/19/landbouw-droeg-in-20... It’s only 1.4%. If you are generous you end up with at most 7% by adding in a lot of related industry and transportation of goods as well.
  - throwup238 3y ago
    Then where does the $108 billion of exports come from? Even at 7% against 1 trillion gdp the math just doesn't make any sense to me if there’s that much in export. Is most of the export capital just going towards importing fertilizer so it’s not counted towards GDP or something?
    - riffraff 3y ago
      I have no idea of the specific numbers, but a component of GDP is indeed _net_ exports. If you export 100B and import 100B the trade would account for 0% of the GDP. At a glance, NL seem to import quite a lot of agricultural stuff, even if it exports more. https://oec.world/en/profile/country/nld?yearlyTradeFlowSelector=flow1 https://oec.world/en/profile/country/nld?yearlyTradeFlowSele...
petre 3y ago
It's also the EU country which uses the most ferts and pesticides. I wonder of there are any beekeepers left in NL, or bees for that matter. I've seen black bees in a reservation in Sicily. Amazing. I'd like to see them again in ten years.

DrSiemer 3y ago

No it does not. You could phase out more than 60% of the Dutch farmers, which would reclaim 40% of the land (from the 66% they currently use), losing less than 1% of the BDP, and the country would STILL have plenty of food.

coldtea 3y ago
>and the country would STILL have plenty of food I did write: "export or domestic". The country would still have "plenty of food", but the second largest production of food would be affected.
- DrSiemer 3y ago
  Affected, yes. That's not the same as "no food". Having farmers in the Netherlands is not a binary choice.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- stefan_ 3y ago
  Which is not a very big production at all because most countries that don't qualify as failed states rightly organize their food production independently. The biggest buyer tends to be China who doesn't need the food to begin with, it's just buying on generational paranoia.
- arp242 3y ago
  The argument being made is "farmers take care of our food! We need them!" That is what "no farmers no food" means: "no farmers, no food for us". Everyone understands that's what it means. And that's just not true, as much of it is for export, as was mentioned.