“As a farmer you can no longer rely on anything”

class=”sc-3778e872-0 cKDKQr”>

Old cows are good for the climate. The federal government hopes to save 1,270 tons of methane annually if farmers bring their cows to slaughter a few years later than is common today. Because older animals emit less of the very climate-damaging greenhouse gas when farming than young animals. In the long term, the federal government estimates, at best, agriculture could even reduce greenhouse gas emissions by six percent.

So that the old cows are worthwhile for the farmers, there are new special subsidies for them. The federal government wanted to pay a maximum of 200 francs per year and cow from next year.

Only half

That was what it said when the Federal Bureau of Agriculture (FOAG) presented the measure a year ago. It is part of a package put together by Parliament as a kind of unofficial counter-proposal to the pesticide initiatives. To take the wind out of the sails of the supporters of a pesticide ban.

But now the federal government wants to reduce the amount just decided for climate protection. Before it’s even introduced. Instead of 200, there should now be a maximum of 100 francs per old cow. And this despite the fact that the federal government realizes that it takes more effort, not less, to achieve the proposed climate goals.

“Hust and Hott”

The federal government’s approach was met with incomprehension among farmers’ associations and trade associations. “Reducing the contribution before it is introduced is not credible,” the associations criticize. Farmer’s Union Chairman Markus Ritter (56), Reich Councilor in the middle, speaks of a “Hüst und Hott” of the federal government and laments: “As a farmer you can no longer rely on anything.” Green National Councilor and farmer Kilian Baumann (42) cannot understand the project either.

Heads are also shaken in the cantons. Several voices have criticized the planned cut as “inexplicable” and “not believable”.

Save on animal welfare

It is not the only change planned by the federal government that has met with resistance from those affected and the cantons. Probably the most controversial measure is the reduction of animal welfare contributions. Almost half of the farms in Switzerland receive subsidies for “particularly animal-friendly stables” (BTS). For example, the animal welfare program prescribes that there must be two separate areas in the barn for eating and lying down. And the floor in the lying area must not be bare concrete.

Here too, the federal government wants to cut costs for economic reasons. The premiums are reduced by a maximum of 20 percent. For farmers chairman Markus Ritter, the plans are “a big surprise” – a bad surprise. The farmers’ union accuses the federal government of sending a completely wrong signal. The BTS contributions are an important incentive for farmers to invest in animal welfare. The planned reduction goes against the expectations of society, which recently rejected the factory farming initiative on the basis of current politics. Many cantons also criticize this.

Practice 33 million savings

In total, the federal government wants to save 33 million francs by reducing contributions for old cows and animal-friendly stables. The reason for the austerity exercise is that politicians have invented numerous new subsidies for which you have to scrape the money from somewhere.

According to the Federal Bureau of Agriculture, not less money is flowing to animal welfare measures, but even slightly more. Organic farmer Ritter thinks not. It is clear to him: In general, the federal government wants to save on animal welfare. There is new money for farmers if their cattle mainly eat grass from the pasture. However, he is convinced that for many farmers this does not realistically outweigh the cuts.

No incentive for more animals

The FOAG justifies the reduction of the stable fees by stating that these are very high nowadays and that farmers can also use investment aid to convert the stable. It also refers to the argument that the animal welfare funds have created an incentive to keep more animals. The union does not want that. Which of course many farmers don’t like to hear.

Source:Blick