Reduction of livestock numbers
The Russian war of aggression raised public awareness of a demand that environmental and animal welfare NGOs consider to be an integral part of the agricultural and food transition: The number of animals kept on farms must decrease. And the proportion of animal products in our (Western) diet should decrease in equal measure.
For years, the number of civil society organisations calling for animal numbers in Germany and the rich industrialised countries to be halved in the coming decades has been growing.1.2
Science supports reduction targets
In 2019, the EAT-Lancet Commission, an international panel of experts, published a proposal for a diet that is both healthy for people and climate-friendly.3
Assuming that Germany were to implement them and adjust its own livestock numbers accordingly, this would result in a significant reduction in animal numbers:
The number of cattle would fall by 84%, chickens by 81%, pigs by 91% and sheep and goats by 94% of the 2010 level.
In the face of the war in Ukraine, members of renowned German research institutes presented three key levers for tackling the food crisis in spring 2022:
They recommend “accelerating the switch to a healthier diet with fewer animal products in Europe and other high-income countries”4. This should significantly reduce the number of animals and the grain required for feed.
Reducing animal numbers to combat hunger
In Germany, between 60 and 70% of agricultural land is used for the production of animal-based food. Worldwide, including grazing land, this figure is as high as 83% of agricultural land.
Animal products provide a significantly lower proportion of the required nutrients. The proportion varies between 20% in the case of calories and 40% for proteins 5. By taking the diversions in the food chain of eating herbivores instead of plants, a lot of energy and, in particular, agricultural land is lost.
A shift towards more vegetables, cereals and fruit and fewer animal products in the European diet would therefore alleviate the pressure on grain markets worldwide.6
Conversely, a further increase in global demand for animal-based foods risks new hunger crises in poor countries that are dependent on grain imports. This is because grain prices rise in line with the demand for animal feed.
Germany itself has only a limited influence on the global demand for animal products. But all Western, rich countries together have a role model function because they have established the current system of animal husbandry globally. Rich countries have a great responsibility to do their bit to alleviate the negative consequences of this system. They can do this by including fewer animal products in their diets and reducing the number of animals.
Why is this good for animals?
But why is a reduction in animal numbers good for animals? There is an obvious answer to this question. Because animals suffer under the vast majority of farming practices and – if we were to give them the choice – would almost certainly vote against such “utilisation” and killing.
Who We Are – Animal Society is a non-profit organisation dedicated to advocating for the rights and interests of animals and encouraging society and politics to end animal suffering. Through our educational efforts and political campaigns, we create transparency to establish effective animal policy. More
“…then at some point there will be no more animals“
Occasionally, in the debate about animal rights, one hears the objection that it cannot be in the interest of animals if they become fewer and fewer and so-called livestock even end up extinct. Because – so the argument goes – if nobody uses them, they won’t be kept and won’t even be born.
Basically, if humans actively intervene in the reproduction of animals, for example by artificially inseminating them, they have a special responsibility to ensure that these animals and their offspring live well and can develop freely.
This is impossible in animal husbandry, which is geared towards profitability and performance. And would there be no more animals in human care without intensive utilisation? Some forms of domestic animal husbandry and farms where animals can live without being used show that other forms of coexistence are also being sought by humans.
However, it is also true that every single animal’s life has its own intrinsic value. When we discuss the “reduction of animal populations” purely from the perspective of resource and climate protection, this fact is sometimes forgotten: these are individuals with ethical and political demands.
In principle, a balance must be struck between relieving suffering and agony and the interest in the lives of the animals and their offspring. After all, ending the keeping of farmed “livestock” also offers the opportunity to utilise agricultural land that becomes available for wild animals. This is why the specific perspective of animal welfare and animal rights is so important in the social debate on “reducing animal numbers”.
Protection of farm animals only possible with lower animal numbers
However, there is another connection between animal welfare and animal numbers: The fewer animals are kept, the more material and human resources can be used for the welfare of an animal.
If individual animals are to have more space available, there is no way around reducing the number of animals. According to a recent calculation7 animal housing areas would have to increase sixfold if all animals were provided with as much space as required by the EU organic label.
With lower animal numbers, more can also be done for each individual animal in other respects: For example, each individual animal would benefit if the current veterinary care was spread over significantly fewer animals.
Between “conversion” and “dismantling” of animal husbandry
The reduction in livestock numbers is economically threatening from the point of view of many farmers: agriculture today is very closely interlinked with animal husbandry. Politics have also contributed to this. While the “reorganisation of animal husbandry”8 towards more animal welfare is also being sought by agricultural associations today, a policy of “reduction” is still a taboo.
The reorganisation of animal husbandry advertised as “more animal welfare” is intended to improve the acceptance of animal husbandry in order to maintain animal husbandry at its current level.9
Calculations suggest that the billions in state subsidies planned for the “reorganisation” of animal husbandry could keep the number of livestock farms, and thus ultimately also the number of “farm animals” in Germany, artificially high.10
The problem of global, free markets
A frequent objection to concrete measures to reduce livestock numbers within Germany is that this would not help anyone. Farms would then simply relocate their production abroad. There, the situation for the animals could become even worse.11
While the reference to the problem of international competition between production sites is important, such an argument is misguided. This is because the reduction in livestock farming can be conceptualised as an overall strategy in which national and international measures are interlinked.
Politicians must certainly keep an eye on the problem of international relocation of production and seek solutions in trade law, e.g. by banning imports from countries that do not implement sustainable animal welfare policies.
As international agreements are difficult and often require national role models, individual countries can begin to reduce livestock numbers within their own jurisdictions. Germany can use its policy to demonstrate internationally that a reduction in animal husbandry does not mean the end of agriculture.
It is also important to anchor the reduction targets at an international level, e.g. in the European Union or through the United Nations. National and international strategies for reducing livestock numbers are not mutually exclusive, but can only be successful together.
Transparency on subsidies to the livestock industry
As European and German agricultural policy has traditionally focussed on strengthening animal husbandry12, it must be assumed that the majority of current subsidies directly or indirectly benefit the agricultural sector of the livestock industry.
Current calculations estimate that 13.2 billion euros are channelled directly and indirectly from state funds into the livestock industry, i.e. animal husbandry plus upstream and downstream sectors13.
So far, however, agricultural policy has not provided any information on the total volume of funding and the consequences of the funding policy, particularly with regard to the development of animal numbers.
The fact that the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Food (BMEL) in Germany has so far not published a total figure for the subsidies that are to be eliminated seems particularly striking in light of the fact that Cem Özdemir, the Minister of Food and Agriculture himself, wants to significantly reduce animal husbandry14.
Who We Are – Animal Society is a non-profit organisation dedicated to advocating for the rights and interests of animals and encouraging society and politics to end animal suffering. Through our educational efforts and political campaigns, we create transparency to establish effective animal policy. More
Policy measures to reduce livestock farming
Policymakers can actively work towards a turnaround in the development of animal numbers in Germany – towards a significant reduction. Numerous measures are conceivable to achieve this.
A variety of measures can be taken to work towards a shift in consumption towards plant-based alternatives:
- Create transparency about the negative consequences of consumption and real prices that also take environmental costs into account,
- Farmers can be supported in the conversion to alternative incomes,
- Investments, including through financial and development funds, in animal agriculture or related industries can be reduced where possible.
In parallel, policy makers urgently need to name and list current government subsidies into animal husbandry and consumption of animal products (for example, through the low 7% VAT rate on meat and milk).
Subsidies should be terminated immediately if they unilaterally strengthen only the profitability of livestock farming and thus contribute to the artificial increase of livestock numbers.
Sources
1 Klimaschutzplan 2050 der deutschen Zivilgesellschaft (2016), Klima-Allianz (Hrsg. und Koordinatorin)
2 50by40, https://50by40.org/about/ (zuletzt aufgerufen am 16.08.2022), Summary Report.
3 EAT-Lancet-Kommission (2019). Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems. Food, Planet, Health. Summary Report Of the EAT-Lancet-Commission
4 Potsdam-Institut für Klimafolgenforschung (2022) Nahrungsmittelkrise durch Ukraine-Krieg erfordert Handeln auf der Nachfrageseite: weniger Tierprodukte, weniger Verschwendung und eine grünere EU-Agrarpolitik
5-6 Poore, J., Nemecek, T. (2018), Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers, Science 360 (6392), S. 987
7 Pörtner, L. M., Lamprecht, N., Springmann, M. et al. (2022, 04.04.), We need a food system transformation – in the face of the Ukraine war, now more than ever Stiftung für Tierschutz, Berlin
8, 12 von Gall, P. und Petrick, K. (2022): Weniger Tiere – mehr Raum. Zur Entwicklung der Tierzahlen aus Tierschutzsicht mit Blick auf den Flächenbedarf. Analyse im Auftrag von VIER PFOTEN – Stiftung für Tierschutz, Berlin.
9 BMEL (2022, 27.04.) Umbau der Nutztierhaltung in Deutschland – Der Borchart-Prozess (zuletzt aufgerufen am 16.08.2022)
10 BMEL (2020, 11.02.) Empfehlungen des Kompetenznetzwerks Nutztierhaltung
11 Deblitz, C., Efken, J., Banse, M., et. al., (2021). Politikfolgenabschätzung zu den Empfehlungen des Kompetenznetzwerks Nutztierhaltung, in: Thünen Working Paper 173, Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, S. 191
12 Feindt, P., Krämer, C. Früh-Müller, A., et al. (2019), Ein neuer Gesellschaftsvertrag für eine nachhaltige Landwirtschaft. Wege zu einer integrativen Politik für den Agrarsektor.
13 Studie (2021), Milliarden für die Tierindustrie. Wie der Staat öffentliche Gelder in eine zerstörerische Branche leitet, Bündnis Gemeinsam gegen die Tierindustrie (Hrsg.)
14 BMEL (2022, 05.05.) Wer Umweltinteressen ausspielt gegen die Interessen einer sicheren Ernährung, schadet am Ende allen, Interview mit Cem Özdemir in “Die Zeit” (zuletzt aufgerufen am 16.08.2022)
15 50by40, https://50by40.org/about/ (zuletzt aufgerufen am 16.08.2022)