IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/gjagec/355799.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • von Gall , Philipp
  • Luy , Jörg
  • Köder, Moritz
  • von Meyer-Höfer, Marie

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.

Suggested Citation

  • von Gall , Philipp & Luy , Jörg & Köder, Moritz & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie, 2024. "How – and How Much? An Analysis of Major Conflict Lines Regarding the Transformation of German Animal Farming," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 73(1), May.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:355799
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.355799
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/355799/files/1318_von_Gall_et_al..pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.355799?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Twine, 2021. "Emissions from Animal Agriculture—16.5% Is the New Minimum Figure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-8, June.
    2. Hölker, Sarah & Steinfath, Holmer & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Spiller, Achim, 2019. "Tierethische Intuitionen in Deutschland: Entwicklung eines Messinstrumentes zur Erfassung bereichsspezifischer Werte im Kontext der Mensch-Tier-Beziehung," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 68(4), December.
    3. Timothy D. Searchinger & Stefan Wirsenius & Tim Beringer & Patrice Dumas, 2018. "Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change," Nature, Nature, vol. 564(7735), pages 249-253, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. von Gall, Philipp & Luy, Jörg & Köder, Moritz & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie, 2022. "How – and How Much? An Analysis of Options for a Transformation of German Animal Farming towards Sustainability," 62nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 7-9, 2022 329602, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    2. Suria Tarigan & Iput Pradiko & Nuzul H. Darlan & Yudha Kristanto, 2025. "Carbon Footprint Comparison of Rapeseed and Palm Oil: Impact of Land Use and Fertilizers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-13, February.
    3. Henrik B. Møller & Peter Sørensen & Jørgen E. Olesen & Søren O. Petersen & Tavs Nyord & Sven G. Sommer, 2022. "Agricultural Biogas Production—Climate and Environmental Impacts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-24, February.
    4. Róbert Csalódi & Tímea Czvetkó & Viktor Sebestyén & János Abonyi, 2022. "Sectoral Analysis of Energy Transition Paths and Greenhouse Gas Emissions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-26, October.
    5. Jiali He & Xiangfei Liu & Xuetong Wang & Xueyang Li & Linger Yu & Beibei Niu, 2024. "Spatiotemporal Evolution of Territorial Spaces and Its Effect on Carbon Emissions in Qingdao City, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-22, October.
    6. Sophie Saget & Marcela Costa & David Styles & Mike Williams, 2021. "Does Circular Reuse of Chickpea Cooking Water to Produce Vegan Mayonnaise Reduce Environmental Impact Compared with Egg Mayonnaise?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-18, April.
    7. Shang, Hua & Jiang, Li & Kumar Mangla, Sachin & Pan, Xiongfeng & Song, Malin, 2024. "Examining the role of national governance capacity in building the global low-carbon agricultural supply chains," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    8. Elena Tamburini & Mattias Gaglio & Giuseppe Castaldelli & Elisa Anna Fano, 2020. "Is Bioenergy Truly Sustainable When Land-Use-Change (LUC) Emissions Are Accounted for? The Case-Study of Biogas from Agricultural Biomass in Emilia-Romagna Region, Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-20, April.
    9. Maurer, Rainer, 2023. "Comparing the effect of different agricultural land-use systems on biodiversity," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    10. Liudmila Tripolskaja & Asta Kazlauskaite-Jadzevice & Eugenija Baksiene & Almantas Razukas, 2022. "Changes in Organic Carbon in Mineral Topsoil of a Formerly Cultivated Arenosol under Different Land Uses in Lithuania," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-19, March.
    11. Busch, Gesa & Spiller, Achim, 2020. "Warum wir eine Tierschutzsteuer brauchen: Die Bürger-Konsumenten-Lücke," DARE Discussion Papers 2001, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    12. Di Xu & Wenpeng Lin, 2025. "Carbon Emission Forecasts Under the Scenario of a 1.5 °C Increase: A Multi-National Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-13, April.
    13. Debuschewitz, Emil & Sanders, Jürn, 2021. "Bewertung der Umweltwirkungen des ökologischen Landbaus im Kontext der kontroversen wissenschaftlichen Diskurse," 61st Annual Conference, Berlin, Germany, September 22-24, 2021 317076, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    14. Bellassen Valentin & Drut Marion & Antonioli Federico & Brečić Ružica & Donati Michele & Ferrer-Pérez Hugo & Gauvrit Lisa & Hoang Viet & Knutsen Steinnes Kamilla & Lilavanichakul Apichaya & Majewski E, 2021. "The Carbon and Land Footprint of Certified Food Products," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 19(2), pages 113-126, December.
    15. Marian Gil & Mariusz Rudy & Paulina Duma-Kocan & Renata Stanisławczyk & Anna Krajewska & Dariusz Dziki & Waleed H. Hassoon, 2024. "Sustainability of Alternatives to Animal Protein Sources, a Comprehensive Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-27, September.
    16. Lisa Baldi & Filippo Arfini & Sara Calzolai & Michele Donati, 2023. "An Impact Assessment of GHG Taxation on Emilia-Romagna Dairy Farms through an Agent-Based Model Based on PMP," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-24, July.
    17. Kristin Jürkenbeck & Achim Spiller, 2020. "Consumers’ Evaluation of Stockfree-Organic Agriculture—A Segmentation Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-19, May.
    18. Dupoux, Marion, 2019. "The land use change time-accounting failure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    19. Enrico Balugani & Beike Sumfleth & Stefan Majer & Diego Marazza & Daniela Thrän, 2022. "Bridging Modeling and Certification to Evaluate Low-ILUC-Risk Practices for Biobased Materials with a User-Friendly Tool," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-19, February.
    20. Jakub Mazurkiewicz, 2023. "The Impact of Manure Use for Energy Purposes on the Economic Balance of a Dairy Farm," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-22, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:355799. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iahubde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.