Are agricultural practices unfair to dairy cows?

Agricultural Promotion Dialogue Forum - How does agricultural promotion help both farmers and the environment?


At this point, politicians will have to make a fundamental decision in the near future. Does Germany want to be able to show the best price or the best animal welfare in a global comparison? Even with the greatest efforts of conventional farmers - whose work is definitely to be appreciated - both maxims can never be achieved together. Unfortunately, efficiency in agriculture cannot be achieved without reducing animal welfare. Politicians and we as a society must therefore consider whether we want to keep conventional products competitive with subsidies or whether we want to be the first to put animal welfare back into focus and become pioneers in organic farming. In my opinion, the goal of becoming the world market leader in organic farming is very interesting. Germany currently has to import many ecological products. If we were to exploit our full potential - by massively strengthening organic agriculture (caution: legal provisions are required beforehand to prevent renewed price pressure and "mass upgrading") - we could soon determine tomorrow's agriculture. This must also be made clear to all conventional farmers who too often have the feeling that they are not valued for their work. I am convinced that animal welfare is also important to them and, if the choice is fair, they would prefer this point to the low price.

So how does agricultural subsidies help? By finally giving farmers a clear recommendation for action to move in an ecological direction instead of offering a mix of very different subsidies for all directions. In this way, the environment is relieved and farmers are given a clear perspective for action. In addition, the agricultural subsidy must be bundled by a ministry and simply structured. In order to achieve an environmentally compatible structural change, experts in spatial and regional planning should accompany the processes on site in order to create (again) a high-quality landscape at the same time as the agricultural turnaround.

The paragraph above also applies here: Furthermore, the state must lower the conversion conditions for farmers. When a farmer converts from conventional to organic production, he must be able to do so without using all of his wealth or taking out large loans. Funding from the federal states should preferably be paid out to organic farms. One option would also be to set lower organic standards for transitional periods. Likewise, particularly committed citizens could increasingly participate in the changes through regional companies (such as "Regionalwert AG").

Mr. Karl-Georg Schumacher| 06.04.2017


Agricultural subsidies must promote the development of regional structures and networks of SME businesses and support local direct marketing. The prudent, locally marketing, conventional family business probably does more for the environment than industrial organic agriculture - it certainly does it for a livable landscape and rural regions. More diverse criteria and objective measurement are required here instead of generalization: how much is the soil in the respective field contaminated with nitrates? How much is the soil compacted or eroded? Agricultural support should be based on this. Family businesses need to be strengthened economically; they are important building blocks for local food systems, resilience and food sovereignty.

Mrs. Gmeiner| 08.03.2017


The promotion should only take place through smaller companies, because although the large companies take care of the mass of products they manufacture, they cause immense environmental damage and push prices above the masses. Overproduction through subsidies is not uncommon. When you consider that too much ends up in the trash ... a lot goes wrong. What we do not need in the EU will then be added to z. B. Africa etc. sent (subsidized) and ruined the lives of the local farmers / fishermen. The prosperity of the West is achieved at the expense of less developed countries (cheaper labor), which in my opinion is not humane. Exploitation at the highest level is the order of the day until there are no more resources and the soil is so broken that nothing can grow any more. Earth / soil takes decades to plant on and is valuable. Plants create our climate that changes!

Mrs. Hermine Hackler| 08.03.2017


The past has shown that all attempts by politics with the help of subsidies of any kind, whether farm payments, eco-subsidies, EEG etc. or excessive ideologically guided legislation, have only caused injustices and market distortions, with the result that structural change has only accelerated , to the detriment of our rural values ​​and, last but not least, our culture and landscape.

What we also do not need are tightening of the law and requirements that lack any scientific and understandable basis according to common sense! If politicians want to do something for the environment, they should give farmers the best possible training, better support research and testing in the agricultural sector, and let farmers do their work without defamation - because no one else can do it better.

Mr. Martin Buchholz| 08.03.2017


We don't need any agricultural subsidies! Our agriculture is one of the most efficient, environmentally, nature and animal-friendly in the whole world. Our farmers, the majority of whom work 12 to 15 hours, 365 days a year, to maintain their farms, produce food in a quantity and quality that is valued and demanded all over the world, and despite the highest animal and environmental standards, they are under World market price conditions still competitive. Respect!!! Every business, whether small or large, whether organic or conventionally, has its right to exist, neither is one worse nor the other better for the preservation of our natural resources and our environment. It is crucial that farmers who think in terms of generations and operate sustainably can identify with their responsible work and are not tamed by politics and administration.

Mr. Martin Buchholz| 08.03.2017


Subsidize the animal welfare initiative so that everyone who wants to participate can participate

Mr. Meyer| 08.03.2017


Agricultural support must be rebuilt so that the needs of the population (biodiversity, organic farming, regional agriculture) match the needs of the rural population. The social benefit and not the area is to be taken as the measurement basis. The antagonism between environmental protection and agriculture must be resolved, the future food policy must be bundled across the board in a ministry.

Mr. Klaus Flesch| 08.03.2017


Without promoting agriculture, it is currently Sufficient production of food will probably not be possible. Comprehensive funding for all businesses and not only or to a large extent for organic farming. Operations.

Räth| 08.03.2017


Anyone who wants to "help" the environment must ensure that farmers are economically enabled to take additional agri-environmental measures. To do this, it is necessary to increase public funds across the EU and make them available to family farms as part of the direct payments via the 1st pillar.
Due to the high income effectiveness of the 1st pillar - both in the organic as well as in the conventional businesses - there must be no redistribution to the second pillar.
There, only a disadvantage compensation is granted, which does not benefit the farmers providing the services, but merely absorbs the increased costs.
Only higher market prices and secure state transfer payments can help both farmers and the environment. In addition, a really thorough reduction in bureaucracy, controls and sanctions is essential in order to increase the motivation to implement additional, voluntary environmental measures.

Mr. Josef Derstappen| 08.03.2017


What I'm also interested in, what are consumers doing for our environment? It cannot be that we are always the bad guys for everything. We want more respect for our work and recognition. The good is not published in the press. We are also people who have feelings and who take care of our animals and the preservation of nature. It's a beautiful, varied job that we have. But with complete surveillance by the state, you feel very restricted as an entrepreneur. I believe in you that you can change that. Do not make any more requirements. Because with more requirements, the family businesses will die out, as they can no longer afford it in terms of time and for financial reasons.

Aaltje and Peter Mescher | 08.03.2017


What about, are citizens also being asked to enter into a dialogue here? They are betraying the law and we have the impression that we are made guilty for everything. Or how about kerosene? How does this affect the environment?
They want to promote grazing, but also the wolf, that doesn't go together. There must be a reason the wolf was exterminated. As a farmer, you ask yourself which animal welfare is more important. If it continues to spread like this, I will be afraid for my family and my animals.

Aaltje and Peter Mescher | 08.03.2017


The dairy farmers get 50% of their income from public funding contradicts the claim that the German / European dairy farmers are competitive on the world market At the same time, the liberalization of the milk market puts the farmers under enormous economic pressure, which they often enough to counter with increasing production and further cost reductions to attempt. This leaves no room for maneuver on the farms and intensification continues to increase. The second pillar tries to repair the consequences of this agricultural policy. Despite the enormous investment of funds, the goals set were not achieved. Therefore, the framework conditions on the milk market must be changed in such a way that the producers can basically earn their income there. In order to prevent negative developments, regulatory law can apply and public money can be used for public services.

Ms. Kirsten Wosnitza | 08.03.2017


When food becomes expensive, not so much is thrown away. Then there is an appreciation by the consumers. We get a better milk price and can operate in such a way that the farm no longer needs to grow in order to reduce costs. The goal should be that we can live on our products alone and not depend on the state.
We have such good food. “Made in Germany” is widely recognized all over the world, but unfortunately not in Germany, that should be changed. We have high standards, so we don't need any additional ones. Do good propaganda.

Aaltje and Peter Mescher | 08.03.2017


Furthermore, the GAP application should be made simpler again. We have to draw each area individually, although it was easier to click on in previous years. In addition, every tree, every hedge must be taken into account. You spend hours in the office because of a few euros. We'd rather spend the time in the stable more sensibly.
It was also promised that there would be less bureaucracy, instead it would become more and more complicated. Which farmer can do that? It can't be that you have to hire an additional 40 to 50 hour worker, ideally a lawyer, in order to be able to do everything. Where should we get this money from?

Aaltje and Peter Mescher| 08.03.2017


The manure is a valuable fertilizer from nature into nature. Artificial fertilizer is not scattered unnecessarily, but only as needed so that the cows get rich feed. The farmer should be able to decide for himself whether he produces conventionally or organically. The milk is just as good.
And how about the biogas plants? In my opinion, the whole problem only arose through biogas. The manure discharge with nitrates from plant nutrients is not taken into account in the fertilizer ordinance.
The biogas plants should not have been so big and only had to be run as small biogas plants by farmers. Your politics caused it and we have to pay for it. In addition, biogas plants receive double funding, namely the area premiums and the feed-in tariff from the state. This means that the land has become more expensive for us, and so has the manure distribution.

Aaltje and Peter Mescher | 08.03.2017


Dear Mrs. Hendricks,
I have the impression that we farmers are polluters and we care about our environment. After all, we learned to be a farmer.
They don't trust us. We do not get the recognition for our work that we are due. Instead, campaigns are being made against us. That hit us very much. Why is there no positive press appearing for us? Instead, politics is demotivating farmers with even more requirements and ever higher penalties. Does it have to be that way?
We have the impression that agriculture is solely responsible for the nitrate pollution. What about people's faeces, has that been taken into account?

Aaltje and Peter Mescher | 08.03.2017

Dear Mrs. and Mr. Mescher,

we do not defame anyone - neither individual farmers nor agriculture as a whole. But we point out certain undesirable developments and grievances that we have to put a stop to - for example the excessive use of pesticides or the loss of natural habitats in agricultural land. We have every respect for the hard work of the farmers who love their profession and do it responsibly. Because we know that many farmers have long since embarked on an agriculture that focuses on quality over quantity, and rightly expect to get a fair price for good services and products. Our support goes to you. We want to fundamentally renew the system of subsidies in order to create the framework for sustainable agriculture. It is our goal to change this in the new funding period from 2020 by linking EU funds to the provision of public services such as environmental and nature conservation. This offers smaller businesses in particular an economically viable alternative. We conduct the dialogue on agriculture because we can only achieve the turnaround in agriculture towards a more environmentally friendly agriculture together - farmers, nature conservationists, consumers. That is why we want to use the campaign and the attention paid to this topic to promote the dialogue with farmers about concrete, practical and feasible solutions. Thank you for your suggestions on this.

Many greetings from the | 03/08/2017


Modern agriculture does not mean a return to individual family farms where other structures have already developed. Therefore, the 1st pillar must be retained in this form and no further redistribution to the first hectares or to the 2nd pillar. For additional services that protect the environment With regard to this, additional funds must be made available, as is the case with any service in the public interest. A more ecological approach always requires a secure economy. The regulations on agricultural subsidies must take this into account.

Mr. Andreas Fernekorn| 08.03.2017


If consumers were to pay what it is worth for their food, then farmers do not need any agricultural subsidies, the farms could survive with less space, which would also benefit the environment, since the smaller structures remain.

Mrs. Josefine Ammer| 08.03.2017


Maybe a rather amateurish formulation, but I think it's understandable: Based on the approach that organic is actually cheaper, I advocate promoting smaller farms to a greater extent than is currently the case. Mixed cultures and animal husbandry must also be worthwhile for smaller (family) farms at least as much in relation to large, conventional farms. Here it must be considered whether even more generous support is necessary in the interests of consumers. Seasonal goods should be available to the consumer at a reasonable and, if necessary, favorable price, whereas imported and especially non-seasonal goods should be offered at a higher price (offsetting). Short distances to regional products are also a key word. To this end, food markets should work together with regional businesses on a fair basis.

Mrs. Andrea Kunert | 08.03.2017


Unfortunately, consumers do not understand or want sustainable agriculture to the extent that they are willing to pay a fair price for organically grown food.
That is why I am in favor of higher requirements on the part of politics and an ecological tax, so that food that is not sustainable and consequently incurs additional costs is also correspondingly more expensive.

Mrs. Regina Oswald| 08.03.2017


If you really want to promote active farmers and the environment at the same time, you have to ensure that active farmers have a very good education, which in turn demands a reasonable hourly wage or wages or employer's wages. This necessary gain for the farmer and the environment cannot be achieved with smallholder structures and outdated technologies. Of course, this contradicts the public opinion that smallholder structures are better for people and nature. Most well-educated, highly motivated young people will decide against a responsible job in the agricultural sector, leaving behind mostly those without alternatives, whose contribution to environmental conservation is often limited. We need attractive jobs in agriculture, then many committed young people will work for the environment as part of their work, everything else will do more harm than good.

Mr. Dipl. Ing. Agrar Jörg Meyer| 07.03.2017


Agricultural subsidies help both areas just as they do now: the high environmental requirements that agriculture has to meet in order to receive the subsidy protect the environment, while the payments compensate the farmers: the subsidies are the same Competitive disadvantages that farmers have due to the high requirements in an international comparison.

Mr. Ritz| 08.03.2017


The EEG has shown that farmers can count and accept incentive systems well. If society wants that - and this debate has to be held first - there is nothing to prevent further support for agri-environmental measures. Protected strips, flowering areas, and hedge plantings bring more to biodiversity than an expansion of organic farming, because this too has to reduce biodiversity in the fields in order to realize a yield. Certain mechanical processes in organic farming, such as chopping maize and beet, are more harmful than conventional integrated pest management, especially for ground breeders. Funding should be tailored to the region and the species that occur, not a watering can principle. Habitat improvements should be combined with predator management. Improvements in intensive farming regions must be promoted more heavily and deadweight effects in areas where - e.g. due to the profile - extensive farming is to be avoided. Introduce controlling.

Mrs. Susanne Günther| 07.03.2017


Does the BMUB want to talk to the farmers? Many members of some nature conservation associations write here. So far I have not read any request from the Bmub to such people that they should talk to agriculture.

Mr. Andreas Schmid | 07.03.2017

Dear Mr. Schmid,

yes, we as are looking for a dialogue with the farmers and are pleased about the numerous participation, including in this forum. We ask ourselves the questions: What is going wrong in the agricultural sector? What has to change? How can we offer farmers a secure future? How can agriculture and nature conservation be reconciled? How can consumers exercise their responsibility? We look forward to all factual contributions and do not neglect anyone.

Many greetings from the | 03/08/2017


No approval of genetically modified plants, seeds, animals and no flat-rate use of pesticides and antibiotics!
This means more independence for farmers, no dictatorship on the part of global players in agricultural chemistry / agricultural technology.
Promotion of regional and ecological cultivation / agriculture.
Promotion of species-appropriate animal husbandry.
Or the other way around - on products of intensive factory farming / agriculture, consumers should pay more in favor of certified organic agriculture - the environmental euro, for example!

Mrs. Meadow| 07.03.2017


Environmental protection can only work with farmers. Strict laws only make sense. when the farmer gets compensation because he has to produce at world market prices.

Mr. J. Hagmann | 07.03.2017


Against the background that more than 40% of the EU budget is used annually for agricultural support and that there has probably been no more far-reaching state intervention in any other branch of industry than in agriculture for decades, but the situation of small and medium-sized farms has nonetheless continuously deteriorated , the question arises as to whether agricultural support is the right instrument in and of itself.
The fact that discussions about the future in agriculture are reflexively brought into connection with subsidies is evidence of the completely wrong development of the past decades. In the final analysis, doesn't the funding serve the agricultural industry and trade in order to be able to buy products as cheaply as possible and to shift part of the production costs to the general public? The interesting question seems to be what would really happen if there were no more funding? Would that mean that small family businesses would automatically disappear?

Mr. Bauer | 07.03.2017

Dear Mr. Bauer,

The structural change in agriculture has come at the expense of the small farms. The EU funding has also contributed to this. Since these are mainly paid out according to the cultivated area, few large farms still receive a large amount of funds. We want to fundamentally renew the system of subsidies in order to create the framework for sustainable agriculture. It is our goal to change this in the new funding period from 2020 by linking EU funds to the provision of public services such as environmental and nature conservation. This offers smaller businesses in particular an economically viable alternative. Our proposals for the reform of agricultural subsidies would mean that the farms in particular would be rewarded for services for which they have so far received next to nothing: for services in the service of the community such as landscape maintenance and nature conservation - because we all benefit from this.

Many greetings from the | 03/08/2017


So far, the 2nd pillar of the EU agricultural policy has only offered compensation for the higher costs that the farmer incurs when he implements agri-environmental measures. Therefore, the 2nd pillar support measures do not generate income. In addition, the control effort and the risk of being charged are disproportionately high, and the bureaucracy gets out of hand. Greening measures such as field verges would be much more widely accepted by farmers if one did not run the risk of ending up in a different evaluation factor immediately if the 20 m width was exceeded.

Miss Dr. Müller| 07.03.2017


It would be best to cancel all agricultural subsidies. let's be honest we maintain structures that are not sustainable. In the end, we only promote cheap groceries for the consumer and the consumer should also pay for the groceries directly at the counter.

Mr. Thomas Jansen| 07.03.2017


The agricultural subsidy helps, for example, with the construction of new stables, because the latest technical and scientific knowledge can flow into the building project there bring.

Mr. Hartmann | 07.03.2017


Agriculture does not “just” produce food *. It shapes the landscape that surrounds us and it determines to a large extent which resources our grandchildren will still have available. Public money in this area must therefore be spent on social services in the future. And thus offer agricultural operations prospects and predictability. Above all, the following must be rewarded:
- Protection of drinking water and bodies of water
- Protection of air quality
- Securing landscape-related biodiversity
- Conservation and ecologically adapted further development of the diversity of crops and livestock (see e.g. "Cultivated seeds") - Soil protection (sustainable development of soil fertility and protection against erosion)
- Climate protection (reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, carbon storage)
- High animal welfare standards in livestock farming Organic farming is a pioneer in these areas.

Mrs. Antje Kölling| 07.03.2017


The discussion about agricultural subsidies falls short. The cause lies deep in the treaties of the European Union. According to Article 39 of the founding treaty, which has been incorporated into the Lisbon Treaty unchanged, the productivity of agriculture is to be increased by promoting technical progress in order to ensure supplies to consumers at reasonable prices. In order to secure a decent livelihood for the agricultural population, they should make the best possible use of the factors of production, especially the workforce. The consequence of these contradictions is structural change with the death of species, farmers and land as the price for cheap food. Whoever wants to prevent the environment and nature from falling under the wheels of the maxim "cheaper, faster, more!" come, these contradictions received from politicians with funding have to deal with.

Mr. Black Forest farmer Siegfried Jäckle| 07.03.2017


So far, a significant part of the funds granted has not been linked to ecological services. Only the availability of land is sufficient to collect considerable sums of tax money and thus money from the majority of the population. The effects of these "steering instruments" are omnipresent. Nitrate and other substances in the groundwater, constantly decreasing numbers of species in the agricultural landscape, soil devastation ...
How can it be that the BNatSchG stipulates that the success of funding must be destroyed again, Section 14 (3) BNatSchG. When is the agricultural and forestry sector included in the legal consequences of the intervention regulation or when standards are set that are not determined by the specialist authorities or professional associations of the agricultural and forestry sector themselves.
Where is the application of Section 44 (4) BNat
From my point of view, it cannot be that the destruction of man's livelihoods and his natural environment is subsidized with tax revenues!

Mr. Frank Forch | 07.03.2017


As a consumer, I would like to see subsidies for agriculture that secures the livelihoods for the next generations. Services that act in favor of species protection, water protection and against soil erosion are to be paid for. So subsidies for sustainable agriculture take into account the load limits of the environment. EU subsidies also in Shift animals and environmental protection + reduction of the animal population as agreed in the climate agreement, subsidies for the conversion to organic agriculture, strengthen regional markets, abolish climate-damaging subsidies, introduce human rights standards for imports, introduce mandatory labeling of animal husbandry, promote fair and equitable world trade that contributes to sustainable agriculture, environmental policy as an economic factor

Mrs. Paulina Kowalska| 07.03.2017


First of all, only companies that actually produce food should receive compensation. Thus, above all, sanctuaries and the like would be excluded.

Mrs. Agathe Sauer| 07.03.2017


Without farmers, there is no well-tended nature and no recreational space in the open, as the normal consumer knows and appreciates. Agricultural subsidies historically secured the farmers' income and the sale of the products in the course of the establishment of the EU (then EC - Treaty of Rome). Today the agricultural subsidy has several purposes: The income effect in agriculture, compensation for a production above the standard of the world market and investment subsidies for particularly environmentally friendly technology and processes. Against the background of the management of farmers over generations, it is in their own best interest to do business with the environment in a sustainable and sustainable manner. This takes special account of the environment.

Mrs. Stefanie Sakwerda| 07.03.2017


Our small business in the mountain area cannot exist without structural help. Through our work, we contribute to the preservation of the great landscape. The government grants helped us a lot, but the manual work, which is still focused, is not paid for, actually only a recognition. And that's good.
Roland Maier

Mr. Roland Maier| 07.03.2017


The 1 pillar must be retained in this form, it is used to ensure that agricultural operations can survive. In addition, money must be made available to comply with environmental measures and new laws. This must not always be carried out on the backs of the companies.
Here I see higher funding rates, e.g. for investing in slurry technology because of the nitrate directive. New forms of husbandry in animal husbandry must be promoted more!

Mr. Johannes Reichert| 07.03.2017


In other words: does agricultural subsidies harm farmers and the environment? The farmers, I think, will not suffer any harm from the subsidy. And the environment? Actually, this is not harmed by a simple donation. Damage to the environment arises more from the way in which one behaves towards it. Regardless of the size of the agricultural company, more emphasis should be placed on the training of the farmer. Because the farmer is interested in ensuring that his production factors are doing well for self-interest. But it is not always clear what the “right way” is. Even the so-called agricultural experts often have different opinions. How should the "little" farmer know what is right now. From experience? In “grandmother's time” everything wasn't done right either.
I consider it important not to permanently monitor the farmer, but rather to provide him with objective expert knowledge (no representatives).

Mr. Benjamin Seidel| 07.03.2017


The call "We have to talk" represents the situation completely wrong. Many organic farmers have long shown the way with great commitment and despite disadvantages, because: the agricultural industry only "pays off" because its follow-up costs are socialized and irreparable damage to nature It must therefore read: “Agricultural policy must finally act!” - the way to healthy soils and water for everyone is clear, as the many letters show: 1. A transparent price policy (without dumping) 2. Fair Competitive conditions that also include ancillary and follow-up costs.
Everything can be read in many publications (e.g. there is enough to eat. For everyone. If we fight hunger, not nature "by F. zu Löwenstein at KNAUR)

Dr. Heinrich Günther| 07.03.2017

Dear Mr. Günther,

We are aware that many farmers have long since embarked on an agriculture that focuses on quality rather than quantity and rightly expect to get a fair price for good services and products. Our support goes to you. We also know that intensive agriculture far too often exceeds the load limits of soil and nature. Agriculture only has a future if it is environmentally friendly and takes biodiversity, climate protection and human health into account. We are committed to restructuring EU agricultural subsidies. In the future, farmers are to be rewarded more for public services such as nature conservation, landscape maintenance and animal welfare. Public money should only be given for public services. Our proposals for reforming agricultural subsidies would mean that the farms in particular would be rewarded for services for which they have so far received next to nothing: for services in the service of the community such as landscape maintenance and nature conservation - we all benefit from this. We can only achieve the agricultural turnaround towards more nature-friendly agriculture together - farmers, nature conservationists and consumers. That is why we want the campaign “Good for the environment. Healthy for everyone. ”And also use the attention paid to this topic to promote the dialogue with farmers about concrete, practical and feasible solutions. This is what our offer is about: "We have to talk."

Many greetings from the | 07.03.2017


Part-time farmers should be given more support. Because those who do a job and farm at the same time also go to the matter with the appropriate heart. You work for the environment, agriculture and not for your account. But a certain income to properly cover the costs should be the least. In the case of halls and stables, these should be promoted in the same way as full-time professionals.

Mr. Sch.| 07.03.2017


If you promote rural agriculture in such a way that it can also make a good living from it. There is no one who can deal with the environment as well as a farmer family. The future farmer learns to deal with the environment from an early age the environment needs to be able to operate. For centuries the farmers have created and cared for this great landscape.Farmers know best to deal with the environment and to protect it. It cannot be that environmental associations etc. decide on agricultural subsidies. None of them have ever done anything and worked with nature. Therefore, one cannot talk about the environment with smarter Preserve and protect. There is also a saying that when the farmer dies, the environment also dies because there is no one left to look after and protect it. Who still works the most in Germany? A farmer works with his whole family until he dies 365 days a year, 14 to 15 hours a day. For about 3 € / hour.Blode

Mr. Rural Agriculture Götz| 07.03.2017


The direct payments give me a basic income that gives me the freedom to deal more with ecological aspects. Without payments, I have to generate more by increasing earnings.

Mrs. Kroner| 07.03.2017


In relation to the size of the farm, small farmers or food producers have a higher share of production costs and costs for logistics etc. Optimization processes and price reductions when purchasing production resources tend to favor large farms. An example is the death of farmers and the dairy farmers who today have to work according to the "wax or soft" principle. Transport costs are also relatively much cheaper with larger quantities. This list could go on and on.

Small businesses with a circular economy could, however, work with less environmental pollution than large businesses if they were helped to convert to modern energy supply and production, etc.

In my opinion, politics should intervene in such a way that the disadvantages that smaller farmers have in terms of production costs are somehow better absorbed. For this, agriculture should not only be subsidized by mass.

Mr. Rolf Schosser| 07.03.2017


The situation is absurd: organic goods are flown in from other continents, little Germany sells meat and milk all over the world. Food in Switzerland is more expensive but of recognized high quality. Do we really need more and more mass just to clean up the rest of the cultural landscape that is still there? Natural and species-appropriate production must be supported, and smaller farms even more encouraged. Industrial agriculture is a solution only for the biochemical industry, not to mention genetic engineering yet. We as "consumers" don't want that. Many farmers don't want it either, but they have to play along according to the rules of large corporations.

Mr. Bernd Baudler| 07.03.2017


Align agricultural support to the benefits of the respective area for the environment (including species protection, soil biodiversity, etc.) (e.g. support for a species-rich, REAL field margin higher than for the actual usable area), no pseudo field margin (minimum width, alibi sowing), sufficient proportion of fallow land, evenly distributed over the area, promotion of extensification, especially in ecologically valuable areas (Natura 2000 et al.)

Claudia Börsting| 07.03.2017


The 1st pillar must remain in place, but we need a strengthening of the family farms, that is, the redistribution premium must be increased At the same time, an upper limit for farms over 250 ha and a lower limit for hobby farms under 5 ha should be introduced.

Mr. Stefan Raab| 07.03.2017


Agricultural subsidies must look more specifically at which production processes are desirable from an environmental point of view and promote them unbureaucratically. It couldn't be more bureaucracy. I've been abroad a lot. The controls there are much more lax than we are. Agricultural support should therefore be under the direction of. In the Federal Environment Ministry there is no professional connection to agriculture. Here should apply; Too many cooks spoil the broth. The Ministry of Agriculture can request relevant information from the Minister for the Environment, if necessary.

Mr. Markus Flury| 06.03.2017

Dear Mr. Flury,

You write to us about the responsibilities of the Federal Environment Ministry and the departments within the Federal Government. There is no question that the Federal Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for agricultural policy in Germany. However, in the federal government this is responsible for the protection of groundwater, soil, air and biodiversity. This results in direct points of contact with agriculture. We are committed to restructuring EU agricultural subsidies. The EU agricultural subsidy is the largest expenditure item in the EU. For the entire next financial planning period it will be a three-digit billion amount in taxpayers' money. We want to fundamentally renew the system of subsidies in order to create the framework for sustainable agriculture.

By the way, neither the federal state nor the federal environment ministry is responsible for the controls you mentioned, but the federal states (and there it makes sense for the majority of the agriculture ministries and audit offices responsible for processing the payments).

You are right, the bureaucracy is actually too high when it comes to greening, and it is also a growing obstacle to the participation of farmers when it comes to the public welfare-oriented measures of the 2nd pillar. We want to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy, such as B. is caused by multiple controls of the same measure without reducing the effectiveness of the measures. The EU Commission is particularly in demand here.

Many greetings from the | 03/08/2017


A subsidy like it is done now only benefits the landowner. Environmental protection measures should only be paid for. Underseeding grass in maize, cultivating catch crops, reducing nitrogen supply and using modern technology as an example. And that without the current super bureaucratic effort and control. Farmers should develop and implement this with water protection advisors. I am a farmer myself.

Mr. Jens Engelken| 06.03.2017


There should be compensation payments for the higher environmental standards in Germany.

Mr. Andreas Schäch| 06.03.2017


Only organic farming that preserves our livelihoods (including fertile soil, clean water) and produces healthy food should be promoted. In order to preserve the already badly affected biodiversity, it is essential to subsidize species protection and landscape conservation measures (flower strips, etc.). The current subsidy policy, which mainly promotes the large agricultural corporations, is completely counterproductive. The EU Commission's plan to subsidize meat advertising with EU funds is simply a scandal in times of climate change.

Mrs. Roth| 06.03.2017


We want affordable food and farmers who can still walk at the age of 50 and live from their work. There is only one solution: receipt of the direct payments in the 1st pillar.
Simplification of the application, administration and control system. The square meter application without real tolerance and non-recognition of not applied for eligible square meters does not lead to the goal here, especially in Kulap where there is a risk of reclaims of up to 6 years although there is sufficient space.
Preservation of animal husbandry in Germany ..... New Zealand milk cannot be what the consumer wants!

Mrs. Andrea Jungmichel| 06.03.2017


Almost every third farmer in Germany has died in recent years. Between 2003 and 2013, the number of farms in this country fell by almost 31 percent to 285,000, as reported by the EU statistical office Eurosta. The farmers urgently need social support. That has not yet recognized that.

Mr. Först| 06.03.2017

Dear Mr. Först,

Thank you for your contribution. The structural change in agriculture has come at the expense of the small farms. The EU funding has also contributed to this, because since these are mainly paid out according to the cultivated area, few large farms still receive a large amount of funds. We would like to change this in the new funding period from 2020 by linking EU funds to the provision of services for the common good such as environmental and nature conservation. This offers smaller businesses in particular an economically viable alternative. With our campaign “Good for the environment. Healthy for All. ”We would like to draw the general public's attention to the importance of sustainable agriculture. We enter into a dialogue with farmers and consumers about what a sustainable and future-oriented agriculture can look like and thus advertise broad social support for this topic.

Many greetings from the | 07.03.2017


Investment subsidies for particularly environmentally friendly technology / processes Elimination of the individual farm area bonuses for the entire EU

Mr. Tobias Hewecker| 06.03.2017


The funding must not be based solely on the area, but must take into account that farms that manage fewer hectares have a competitive disadvantage as a result. Instead, support per hectare should only be paid (in full) for areas that meet special criteria with regard to species protection (permanent greening, crop rotation), erosion protection (landscape structure elements), groundwater protection (no pesticides, no N excess) and so on. It is important to distinguish between the measures just described and the reallocation to the second pillar. While the 2nd pillar does not initially specify in more detail whether a village square is paved or whether farmers are specifically encouraged to plant hedges, it is very important that the previous area bonus is expanded to include quality criteria and that the money continues to benefit farmers directly and not in the pool of rural development disappear

Mrs. Artlich| 06.03.2017


Although this topic is to be dealt with by the Ministry of Agriculture rather than the Ministry of the Environment, it is essential to stick to the basic system of main funding through direct grants from the first pillar. This ensures a certain basic income for the farmers, ensures that all areas in Germany are properly cultivated across the board and supplies the population with extremely inexpensive and high-quality food. The size of the area of ​​the LW farms is completely irrelevant - the number of employees and thus the families being cared for is more important. Under no circumstances should a further shift beyond the current 4.5% from the 1st to the 2nd pillar be pushed, as this money does not reach the farms. There would be nothing against strengthening the 2nd pillar with funds from the company. This means that additional measures in environmental protection can be promoted.

Mr. Gunnar Jungmichel| 06.03.2017


by giving money to convert industrial agriculture to rural agriculture that grows plants and does not exploit animals

Mrs. M.A, Angelika Sänger| 06.03.2017


Agricultural subsidies must remain the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture. The direct payments secure the income of the family businesses.

Mr. Ludwig Messner| 06.03.2017


: If the essential production of food to feed the population has to be promoted, something fundamentally is obviously wrong. Fewer food imports and a sensitization of the people to the importance of the work, which the employees in the food production do, would perhaps result in a real price level, which makes a subsidy superfluous.

Mrs. Langer| 06.03.2017


A good infrastructure for cars, buses, trains and bicycles. Internet. Culture, - sport and children, - and leisure facilities. Sights, attractions, festivals, tours that also attract tourists.

Mrs. Miriam Weghorn| 06.03.2017


If the family farm is to be a successful model for the future as well, the direct income-generating support via the area premiums must be degressive.
My suggestion would be to triple the premium up to 50 ha, double it from 50-100 ha, leave it unchanged for 100-150 ha and cancel the area premium from 150 ha of operating area.

In the area of ​​agri-environmental measures, the path chosen in Bavaria of extensification and area promotion through contractual programs is extremely successful and should be implemented throughout Germany.
Voluntariness combined with financial incentives is always preferable to a coercive model and is also much more successful when it comes to protecting the environment, climate and water.

Mr. Ernst Seeger| 06.03.2017


no funding on areas smaller than 1000 sqm

this measure in turn only supports the large agrarians who do not need it. especially corporations that have / have bought (s) land. These may limit themselves to their core competencies or expand their portfolio in other ways.

Mr. Dipl. Mult Michael Foerst| 06.03.2017


by moving from a mechanistic-materialistic way of thinking to a superordinate spiritual-human evolutionary way of thinking

Mr. Gottfried Krause | 06.03.2017


The largest part of the so-called agricultural subsidy was called price equalization years ago, which it actually is - hardly any consumer still knows how much the production of food actually costs; agricultural subsidies are necessary for investment subsidies for environmentally friendly technology; agricultural subsidies contribute to area-wide cultivation at

Mrs. Heike Ezell | 06.03.2017


In order to be able to produce sustainable food with high standards on the world market, either the market must be foreclosed or the farmers compensated. This is the only way to produce good food in harmony with nature and the environment in the long term and in a sustainable manner. Here, on the one hand, the rural structures but also the required standards must be taken into account.

Mr. Johannes Eiwanger | 06.03.2017


There should be funding for a voluntary, common standardization of agricultural production processes! Problems and very often the corresponding solutions are known in large parts of agriculture and are just waiting to be properly implemented. As the federal government, you can develop a kind of seal of quality and an ecological production concept for each area, in the way of which economic, ecological and social aspects are equally important. In order to be able to sustainably implement an ecological transformation in agriculture that meets the expectations that economic, ecological and social conditions will objectively improve, it must also be made clear in the funding offers that we need to develop further. The concepts are awarded like a franchise and updated regularly. (Too little space)

Mr. Jan Hingst| 06.03.2017


Agricultural support should not be land, but practice-related. Farmers who follow a crop rotation of at least three years and who grow most of the fodder for their cattle themselves should receive special support. Farms that use as few external inputs as possible, such as fertilizers, pesticides and bought-in seeds, should be rewarded for their performance towards the environment. Why not start targeting the EU organic guidelines as a minimum standard?

Mrs. Andrea Galotti| 06.03.2017


I am a farmer myself and I think it's great that the Ministry of the Environment is finally initiating the long overdue dialogue on agricultural support, environmental protection and healthy food! Because things cannot go on as before! Small businesses should be promoted in a targeted manner, efforts to preserve biodiversity, healthy soils and pure groundwater should be supported. Is the problem: "aerial photographs to determine the areas / subsidies" already recognized? Every year, countless hedges and trees fall victim to clearing measures, as otherwise subsidy cuts are feared! Please put an end to that. The areas are recorded at the land registry office, you should fall back on this data!

Mr. Bernd-Wilhelm Müller| 06.03.2017


In all federal states, the promotion of naturally disadvantaged areas must be implemented without abolishing existing funding programs. The maximum funding limits per company must be increased, the funding must not be at the expense of the 1st funding pillar, where the micro-entrepreneur regulation should be 6,000 euros (approx ha). Companies up to this size must be relieved of conditions and social contributions (minimum size regulation in the area of ​​the SVLFG).

Mrs. Daniela Lutz| 06.03.2017


Many believe that agriculture and nutrition (including agricultural subsidies) fall within the remit of the Ministry of Agriculture and should therefore stay out of it.

Unfortunately, this is too short-sighted.

One cannot argue with ecosystems up to which limit they would have to remain stable. The limits must be adhered to and in my opinion it is the duty to work to ensure that politicians in Germany and the EU recognize this and accept it as guard rails for future work.

The initiative by Mrs Hendricks and des is therefore not only to be welcomed. It is urgently needed.

Mr. Matthias Wohnig| 06.03.2017


The Federal Environment Ministry is not responsible for agricultural policy, nutrition or development in rural areas.A further weakening of the first pillar would be wrong, because agriculture would lose economic power in the area. The bad years 2015 and 2016 made it clear how important the single farm payments are for multi-family farms. Our farmers are very well trained and efficiently produce high quality food. They meet the highest environmental standards in the EU and probably worldwide in the production of these foods and raw materials. At the same time, they have to place their products in a global market. The higher environmental standards must therefore be balanced in some way (whether as state agricultural subsidies or through state-controlled higher producer prices - politicians can choose which of the two ways is easier to implement in Germany)! Also in the future

Mrs. Simone Hartmann| 06.03.2017


The current agricultural subsidy (area bonus) mainly helps the landowners. The practicing farmers may simply pass this contribution on as an increased rent. Incidentally, this is even higher in the ecological area. However, just switching to an ecological economy does not mean that the land is cultivated in a sustainable manner.
At this point, you should appeal to the landlords to think along, because if you have depleted soil after the lease has ended, they will not benefit from it either. The cultivated soil has to be given something back through fertilization in order to prevent "overexploitation". Simply dropping the area premiums is driving many farmers, however, into ruin given the current market situation. Therefore, please do not rush to.
It would be important to generate an appreciation for the work behind the food in the population again. Thus, to be able to justify higher prices for food again, as everywhere.

Mrs. Naughty| 06.03.2017


Farmers have been working sustainably for centuries and thinking in terms of generations. If they did not do that, they would destroy their most important factor of production. The EU funding must remain in the first pillar of agriculture. This is the only way they can meet the high German standards and make a living from them. The almost unlimited and increasingly greedy market power of the food retail industry must be put in its place. Inexpensive yes, inexpensive no! Only a production in Germany guarantees an agricultural production according to our value standards and ideas. Agriculture needs a culture of appreciation for its tireless and responsible daily work and not always new bureaucratic "monsters". Particularly environmentally friendly techniques and methods should be promoted in the investment area, but also in the process. After all, farmers preserve, maintain and cultivate our beautiful cultural landscape.

Mrs. Rotraud Weber| 06.03.2017


I think the agricultural subsidy falls within the remit of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture! Nevertheless: The EU direct payments secure the existence of our family businesses in Bavaria! Actually sad ...

Ms. Beate Stadler-Weikl| 06.03.2017


Intensive and professional farms are the only farms that still generate a reasonably modern income in agriculture and can offer young people prospects for the future. The area bonuses are currently indispensable. With all extensification measures, the loss of income for these farms must be compensated, otherwise one cannot recommend this profession to any young woman or man. Without effective external protection, extensification measures without compensation payments lead to a loss of income and accelerate the pressure to grow.
Organic farms are currently in vogue, but even if the area proportions are expanded to 20-30%, one should not lose sight of the remaining 70-80% conventionally farmed farms. Ultimately, it is they who produce sufficient, high-quality food at reasonable prices and thus secure food for the population. For this they deserve respect and recognition.

Mr. Volker Diels| 06.03.2017


The agri-environmental measures, which could also be listed under the subject of contractual nature conservation, must fundamentally be restructured towards a nationwide implementation and not, as in the past, be backed with fixed premium rates. The aim of variable compensation payments depending on the location's creditworthiness or livestock density must be to implement agri-environmental measures in equal parts of the LN in all regions. For this, for example, a significantly higher amount per hectare is required in the Hildesheimer Börde than in the Odenwald. With the currently fixed, uniform premium rates, there are hardly any necessary extensification measures in the intensive regions, but a disproportionately large number of extensification contracts at border locations with pronounced deadweight effects that are actually unacceptable for society. It would be best to distribute the premiums, e.g. according to districts or large municipalities, and an associated tendering process up to 100% use of the funds.

Mr. Jörg Meyer, Dipl.Ing.agrar| 06.03.2017


Rural family businesses (small businesses) in Bavaria are dependent on the EU direct payments (single farm payment). Without the farm payment, farm death would be accelerated.

Mr. H. Guard| 06.03.2017


Dear participants,

Thank you for your numerous comments and suggestions on the future of agriculture. Many of you write about the special framework conditions of small businesses.

Our agriculture only has a future if it protects our environment, the climate and our nature, takes the welfare of livestock into account, produces healthy food and ensures adequate living and working conditions for farmers.

The current framework conditions favor large companies. The decisive factor here is the current distribution of EU agricultural subsidies: These still make up 40% of the EU budget; in the current funding period from 2014-2020 this is around 400 billion euros across the EU. The vast majority of this money is distributed according to the cultivated area, so 1% of the farms in Germany receive 20% of the payments, although larger farms could often work profitably without subsidies. Smaller businesses, on the other hand, could be given more funding to adapt their production to the requirements of the environment and society.

Large companies should not be given any advantage in terms of legal requirements either. We take this into account in our current proposals. The current proposals by the Federal Environment Ministry to require a development plan for stable buildings, the proposals for immission control approval for pig and poultry houses or for the material flow balance in fertilizer law are aimed at large farms.

Many greetings from the


It should be more important to rural agriculture (which, in my opinion, is more concerned with the environment) than to the corporations, which cultivate a large number of large areas without primarily securing their livelihood, as well as the administration because it is more about financing jobs acts which should not fall under agricultural subsidies!

Mr. A. Bäuml| 06.03.2017


The EU agricultural policy must be realigned. The flat-rate area payments must be abolished. A new calculation and incentive system is needed that rewards agricultural services for the environment and society. The European agricultural policy must be coherent with the sustainable development goals.
There should be regular monitoring of their effects on the markets of the South as well as complaint mechanisms for producers in developing countries.
Competition policy must be reformed. It must also keep an eye on the well-being of producers and future consumers. Merger control needs to be tightened to address excessive buyer power and increased market concentration in the retail sector.
In addition, strong German and / or European regulations must be enforced that effectively prevent unfair trading practices.

Mrs. Anne Berk| 06.03.2017


1. No more funding for corporations / producers such as B. Nestle / Südzucker etc.
2. Swift conversion of all farms to organic (especially to association organic such as Demeter etc.). Promote this change particularly! Until then, the agricultural subsidies according to ha. With a reversed "tax system" (whoever has many (ha. Gets each ha. Less). In addition, please make sure to include a systematic "number of animals on the farm in relation to the ha. (Demeter has good guidelines!)

Mrs. Brig Wohnig| 06.03.2017


1st pillar must remain with the farmers. Redistribution through plus for farms under 100 ha and for farms with high biodiversity in cultivation. Introduction of a structural compensation premium for economic difficulties in small-scale corridors, low mountain ranges and areas that are naturally disadvantaged.

Mr. Harald Knebel| 06.03.2017


Agricultural subsidies are already helping farmers and society at large: on the one hand, it is currently an indispensable component of the farmers' income (up to a third, depending on the farm structure), and on the other, it indirectly ensures a low price level for food, so that it is affordable for all income groups in Germany are. At the same time, they help farmers to compensate for possible income disadvantages in international competition through different environmental and animal welfare standards. In this regard, it would be desirable to encourage investment in environmentally friendly technologies and scientific research even more.

Mrs. Marion Wendt| 06.03.2017


Our agricultural cooperative cultivates a very large area, but we pay great attention to crop rotation and environmental protection. We manage a lot of nature protection areas through less profitable grazing. If we stop doing that, these meadows will be covered with bushes in the future.
I don't understand why the work our employees do every day is worth less than the work of farmers on family businesses. If the funding is linked to the size of the company and even more money is withdrawn from us, then we can no longer provide the desired and meaningful environmental protection services in our low mountain range. Our employees also need more than the minimum wage to live!
If you redistribute compensatory payments, then it depends on the necessity of a payment in order to receive or support a certain form of management!

Mr. Gunter Martin| 06.03.2017


Farmers live with nature. Agricultural subsidies help the farmer to compensate somewhat for the already high requirements and the associated production costs. If you compare our standards with non-EU countries, we are worlds ahead.

Mr. Ulrich Bader| 06.03.2017


- Income support for farmers as the market only brings fluctuating income.
- The cultivated landscape is only maintained sustainably by the farmers

Mr. Andreas Lenz | 06.03.2017


The Ministry of Agriculture may have a higher level of competence to decide what to fund. This competence is not measured verbally, but on the current results. Are we satisfied with the current situation that there is no need for action? Maybe another ministry should provide support here, I think this action is good here. Thinking a little outside the box has not hurt anyone.

Mr. Heiko Fritschen| 06.03.2017


Ban on household cleaning agents with certain chemical components. Rewarding environmental, natural and social services of agriculture by the industry, which is responsible for the sealing of agricultural areas (infrastructure measures).

Mr. Heiko Fritschen| 06.03.2017


If we look at the actual situation, the polluters will only be held accountable for the damage by creating the compensation area: the farmers have to scoop up the soup. Perhaps that is not enough, and a species protection compensation payment should be introduced to create the compensation area? In this way, the polluter would at least financially support the promotion of agriculture.
Of course, this payment must be an incentive for the town planners and architects to include species protection in the planning at all, because then the payment would not be due.
See it as a motivation to include species protection in building and urban planning. The bad planners, and thus the cause of the problems and now also the additional costs for the builder, are then sorted out by the market itself.

Mr. Heiko Fritschen | 06.03.2017


If the farmers are overwhelmed with the tasks, the municipalities must be forced to take on partial tasks on their properties. Not every lawn in the city has to be designed in such a way that one can play golf on it. Introduce a fine for municipalities that do not mow at least 30 percent of their lawns just once a year; this is a logistics task and does not cause additional costs, but actually reduces them. The money from fines can be used directly to promote agriculture. To relieve the burden on agriculture, the pressure on the polluters must be increased significantly.

Mr. Heiko Fritschen | 06.03.2017


The funds are not distributed fairly, everyone talks about organic products, they don't know what that means, we in the village are switching to organic, only arable farms and meadows have no animals, the meadows are then supposed to be mowed and fed by a traditional farmer and the fields like giving grain for the biomass, then wants to say that he doesn’t produce anything, has less work, doesn’t have to buy anything (seeds, grain, lime) and less time expended, the soil is destroyed, but receives more than twice the subsidy than a traditional one Farmer: pure cash-cashing from the state, no farmers are left by the wayside, in a few years we will be like in the, only companies or real estate buy the land in large quantities

Mr. Adalbert Heigl | 06.03.2017


All calls for redeployment or dismantling of the EU equalization payments mean income cuts for all family farms, these payments partially secure the maintenance of the farms, as they often make up 40% and more of the income

Mr. Thomas Sedlmayr| 05.03.2017


It must also be possible to implement environmental measures for small farms and be remunerated accordingly. There must be no shift from the first to the second pillar, otherwise the money will not stay with the farmers. The various environmental organizations would benefit

Mr. Richard Götz | 05.03.2017


The following topics are very important to me, but unfortunately they do not fit into any of the topics mentioned:

1. Radically reduce the allocation of antibiotics in animal husbandry and prohibit the allocation of reserve antibiotics!

2. Significantly improve the keeping conditions for poultry and no longer look the other way when shredding chicks and ignore animal welfare!

Mr. Leonarda da Silva | 05.03.2017