How – and How Much? An Analysis of Major Conflict Lines Regarding the Transformation of German Animal Farming

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.52825/gjae.v73i1.1318

Keywords:

Future of Animal Farming, Future of Food, Sustainable Transformation, Social Acceptance of Agricultural Policies, Stakeholder Dialogue

Abstract

Based on the concept of a 'future workshop', this paper contributes to the understanding of major conflict lines and future pathways for animal farming in Germany. Participants in the future workshop were tasked with outlining their ideal vision of the future of animal farming, focusing on both its mode and quantity. We found three different types of visions differing in their motivation, farming methods, and the scale of envisioned animal farming: ‘Higher Standards’ (V1), ‘System Change and Reduction’ (V2), ‘Alternatives to Animal Farming’ (V3). V1 seeks to secure the quantities of supply and demand of animal products in Germany with minor adjustments towards improved animal welfare and investments in resource-efficiency and climate friendliness. V2 advocates for comprehensive social and environmental systemic changes throughout the agri-food sector, with substantially fewer animals involved. V3 aims to replace animal farming, with plant-based and other alternatives, whenever and wherever possible. Our findings suggest that there is little ground for a societal consensus on a single future mode and scale of animal farming. Stakeholder dialogues and policy initiatives should therefore allow for different pathways while focusing on compromises in the near future. Short-term solutions may be acceptable to supporters of all three visions, however, achieving this requires reframing the debate from ‘securing the future of animal farming’ to ‘guiding the future of animal farming’, acknowledging the potential – albeit partly – replacement of animal farming by suitable alternatives.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Busch, G., Spiller, A. (2018): Consumer acceptance of livestock farming around the globe. Animal frontiers: the review magazine of animal agriculture 8 (1): 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfx005.

DAFA (Deutsche Agrarforschungsallianz) (2022): Zielbilder für die Landwirtschaft 2049. Synthese des Zielbildprozesses der Deutschen Agrarforschungsallianz. https://www.dafa.de/wp-content/uploads/DAFA-Synthesebericht-Zielbildprozess.pdf, accessed: 23.2.2024.

Deonna, J., Teroni, F. (2012): The Emotions. A Philosophical Introduction. Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203721742.

Deutscher Ethikrat (2020): Tierwohlachtung – Zum verantwortlichen Umgang mit Nutztieren. Stellungnahme. Berlin.

European Commission (2007): Special Eurobarometer 270. Attitudes of EU Citizens towards Animal Welfare. Report. Brussels.

European Commission (2016): Special Eurobarometer 442. Attitudes of Europeans towards Animal Welfare. Report. Brussels.

Hölker, S., Steinfath, H., von Meyer-Höfer, M., Spiller, A. (2019): Tierethische Intuitionen in Deutschland: Entwicklung eines Messinstrumentes zur Erfassung bereichsspezifischer Werte im Kontext der Mensch-Tier-Beziehung. German Journal of Agricultural Economics 68 (4): 299-315. http://dx.doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.319825.

Hopwood, C.J., Bleidorn, W., Schwaba, T., Chen, S. (2020): Health, environmental, and animal rights motives for vegetarian eating. PloS one 15 (4): e0230609. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230609.

Janssen, M., Rödiger, M., Hamm, U. (2016): Labels for Animal Husbandry Systems Meet Consumer Preferences: Results from a Meta-analysis of Consumer Studies. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29 (6): 1071-1100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-016-9647-2.

Jungk, R., Müllert, N.R. (1997): Zukunftswerkstätten. Mit Phantasie gegen Routine und Resignation. Heyne-Bücher 19, Heyne-Sachbuch, Issue 73. Heyne, München.

Kemmerer, L. (2014): Eating Earth. Environmental Ethics and Dietary Choice. Oxford University Press USA - OSO, Cary. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Ladwig, B. (2020): Politische Philosophie der Tierrechte. suhrkamp taschenbuch wissenschaft, Heft 2315. Suhrkamp, Berlin.

Luy, J. (2018): Der faire Deal. Basis eines neuen Rechtsverständnisses im Tier-, Natur- und Umweltschutz. Das Recht der Tiere und der Landwirtschaft, Band 9. Nomos, Baden-Baden.

Luy, J. (2022): Von der Theorie zur Praxis - und zurück. Die industrielle Tierhaltung als Nebenwirkung einer wissenschaftlichen Fehleinschätzung. In: Sachser, N., Kästner, N., Zimmermann, T. (Eds.): Das unterschätzte Tier - Was wir heute über Tiere wissen und im Umgang mit ihnen besser machen müssen. Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, Hamburg: 84-99.

Morach, B., Clausen, M., … , Stolt-Nielsen Meinl, O. (2022): The Untapped Climate Opportunity in Alternative Proteins. Food for Thought. Boston Consulting Group. https://www.bcg.com/de-de/publications/2022/combating-climate-crisis-with-alternative-protein, accessed: 23.2.2024.

NABU (Naturschutzbund Deutschland) (2023): Es geht: Wie wir unsere Ernährung sichern und gleichzeitig die Natur und das Klima schützen können. NABU-Statement basierend auf einer CAPRI-Modellierungsstudie. https://www.nabu.de/imperia/md/content/nabude/landwirtschaft/230113-nabu_flaechennutzungsstudie.pdf, accessed: 23.2.2024.

Schrot, O.G., Traxler, J., Weifner, A., Kretzer, M.M. (2021): Potential of ‘future workshop’ method for educating adolescents about climate change mitigation and adaptation: a case from Freistadt, Upper Austria. Applied Environmental Education & Communication 20 (3): 256-269. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533015X.2020.1816515.

Searchinger, T.D., Wirsenius, S., Beringer, T., Dumas, P. (2018): Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change. Nature 564 (7735): 249-253. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0757-z.

Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T.D., Castel, V., Rosales, M., de Haan, C. (2006): Livestock's long shadow. Environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rom.

Twine, R. (2021): Emissions from Animal Agriculture—16.5% Is the New Minimum Figure. Sustainability 13 (11): 6276. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116276.

von Gall, P., von Meyer-Höfer, M. (2021): Gremien zur Transformation der landwirtschaftlichen Tierhaltung: Welche Ansätze versprechen Erfolg? Vortrag anlässlich der 61. Jahrestagung der GEWISOLA (Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.) "Transformationsprozesse im Agrar- und Ernährungssystem: Herausforderungen für die Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften", 22. bis 24. September 2021, GEWISOLA. http://dx.doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.317067.

von Meyer-Höfer, M., Schütz, A., Winkel C., Heise, H. (2020): For the future of pig farming: a transdisciplinary discourse organised as a future workshop. Journal of Sustainable and Organic Agricultural Systems (70.1): 59-65. https://doi.org/10.3220/LBF1597673589000.

Weis, T. (2013): The Ecological Hoofprint. The Global Burden of Industrial Livestock. Zed Books, London.

Willett, W., J. Rockström, … , Murray, C.J.L. (2019): Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet (London, England) 393 (10170): 447-492. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4.

ZKL (Zukunftskommission Landwirtschaft) (2021): Zukunft Landwirtschaft. Eine gesamtgesell-schaftliche Aufgabe. Empfehlungen der Zukunftskommission Landwirtschaft. https://www.bmel.de/DE/themen/landwirtschaft/zukunftskommission-landwirtschaft.html, accessed: 23.2.2024.

Downloads

Published

2024-05-17

How to Cite

von Gall, P., Luy, J., Köder, M., & von Meyer-Höfer, M. (2024). How – and How Much? An Analysis of Major Conflict Lines Regarding the Transformation of German Animal Farming. German Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73(1). https://doi.org/10.52825/gjae.v73i1.1318