Whoever wants to manage grassland with and for his horses is allowed to do so only if he does this commercially and is orientated towards the economy. The extensification of grassland, its conversion to species rich habitat using 22 grasses and over 50 different meadows is paradigm shift, no business model. The considerable effort of time, energy and money that we operate generates home for pollinating insects, birds and others, but not a competitive product. The requirements of the market lead in the greenland order that no species-rich plant companies are established there, but a selection of less performance grasses is used: the proportion of up to 60% rye grasses (tetraploid hybrid forms), allows up to six harvests per year and determines the market price for hay. Instead of the flower meadow, which could be habitat for many animals, one generates grassland deserts and nevertheless draws a breeder there, the first cut in May will remove him. We´ve lost already more than 80% of the peewits. Why? The standards of management are set by the dairy industry, whose cows have a daily milk yield of 60 liters and therefore require high, for horses unsuitable contents in the basic fodder. A cow gives milk only when she is a mother and you should think that 60 liters are enough to feed the baby aswell. Far from it, for after two days, when sufficient colostrum has been taken, they are separated and fed with palm oil and soybean products. But where oil palm plants, as well as soybean or sugar cane plantations are planted on increasingly large areas, they are seriously interfering with nature and the lives of the farmers. Regional agriculture, which is the livelihood of many people and whose products contribute significantly to the diet of the surrounding countryside, is being ousted. The farmer with knowledge and experience from generations becomes a day-laborer. We are still not talking about the use of glyphosate and genetically modified plant material, not about AMPA (metabolite of glyphosate) and super-weeds, not disturbances of the water circuits, eutrophication of the water bodies, nitrate pollution of the groundwater, clearing primeval forests by burning..... But only with the most intensive intensification, mass production and the use of genetic engineering is it asserted that one could feed the rising world population. The question arises as to why the milk industry, which fulfills the first-mentioned requirements, must be subsidized throughout Europe in order to keep them alive. In the end, are not only the food groups subsidized, which can thereby take over market shares with dumping prices? Who subsidizes the African dairies, whose product is unsalable for our milk powder from overproduction? Flowery meadows and herbal hay can also feed on the cow, who gives 20 liters daily and whose milk has quite different protein quality, but this is wishful thinking. If this does not happen there, at least with our horses, whose stocks become fatter and sicker, a consequence of feeding high-power grasses. Yours