Animal Welfare Has A Cost And Everyone Has A Role To Play

The societal demand for more animal welfare in livestock farming is great; for example through larger stables and more space to run around. The participants in the Covenant for Animal-Friendly Livestock Farming wanted to know what a substantially higher level of animal welfare in livestock farming would cost. These financial aspects have been calculated by researchers from Wageningen University & Research and Connecting Agri & Food. They arrive at a price tag of 4 to 5 billion euros.

The research was commissioned by the parties discussing the Covenant on Animal-Friendly Livestock Farming . This is a broad group consisting of NGOs such as animal welfare organisations, but also representatives from the livestock farming sector. Researchers Roel Jongeneel (WUR) and Gé Backus (Connecting Agri & Food) provide an interpretation of the figures.

1. Four to five billion euros, that's quite a sum?
“That amount immediately catches the eye,” Roel Jongeneel acknowledges, “But whether you consider this a large amount or not - and especially what value you attach to it - is different for everyone, depending on your point of view and values. Producers and animal welfare groups generally each look at the subject of 'animal dignity' in their own way and therefore also at the costs of it.”

2. Can you tell us how you arrived at that figure? What kind of adjustments are involved?
Gé Backus: “You have to realize that improving animal welfare requires major investments in barn adjustments, living and exercise space and improving the climate in the barn. Facilities to keep young animals with their mothers for longer and offering outdoor opportunities also cost a lot of money.”

3. Who should pay that amount?
“That is of course the big question. We do not make any statements about that in this study,” says Jongeneel. The researcher outlines that you can pass the costs on to producers, who of course include that in their cost price. “Only the strongest companies can handle that. You can also pass the bill on to the consumer. We have also done some calculations on that and then arrive at an amount per household of approximately 55 euros per year, or approximately 1 euro per week. A third option is that the costs are partially compensated by the government through subsidies. Then we all pay for it together in the end through taxes.”

4. Are there any critical comments to be made about the results?
Jongeneel: “An important side note is that we only did a financial calculation. While finance is of course not the only aspect or should not be the only aspect of more animal-friendly livestock farming. There are also ethical, ecological and political considerations. These are also important. In fact, you could say that they were ultimately the main reason to start covenant discussions on animal-friendly livestock farming. However, we did not investigate these aspects.”

5. What should happen next?
Backus: “A number of changes have already been initiated. European regulations that require companies to identify sustainability risks influence how buyers deal with producers. This has far-reaching consequences for the design of chains and how contracts are drawn up. Where it used to be just about weighing up return and risk, sustainability is increasingly becoming part of these considerations. In line with this, we are providing parties with a number of recommendations.”

6. What recommendations do you make?
The Dutch livestock farming sectors mainly produce for export. Increasing the cost price of their products is easier if other countries in Europe apply the same standards. Jongeneel: “We also think it would help and be fair if we set the same higher animal dignity requirements for what we import as we ask of Dutch livestock farmers.”

“There are still a few stumbling blocks to set up this animal-worthy livestock farming,” says Gé Backus, “The granting of permits for barn modifications or new construction is a particular problem. Our advice is to do something about that. New livestock farming systems also always have teething problems. We think it is crucial to solve these quickly by means of pilots.”
Roel Jongeneel: “There is more going on in agriculture than just animal welfare at the moment. That is why it is advisable to look at measures in the context of animal welfare and the area-specific policy on nitrogen, climate, water and biodiversity in an integrated manner and to tackle them together. That prevents wrong decisions or decisions that contradict each other.”

“Finally, you could say that everyone has a responsibility when it comes to improving animal welfare; government, consumers, producers and business,” Backus explains, “It is good to think about how everyone involved can contribute to this whole. We show that there are already good examples. The rise of the Better Life quality mark in the previous decade is an example of how all parties are taking their share. But it is also about the extent to which the market is moving. There is still room for improvement there. All parties must work together and take their responsibility.”

Accountability calculation method
The calculation method for this study is similar to that used for the analysis of the economic impact of other animal welfare standards (for example the Better Life quality mark). This method only calculates the additional costs. The advantage of this is that it is a tried and tested methodology. The current or existing situation is used as a starting point. This reference point was chosen for practical reasons as well as at the request of the partners in the covenant process.

The calculations distinguish between additional operational costs and additional expenditure in connection with investments that must be made. The annual costs of the investments are determined, taking into account interest costs, depreciation costs and maintenance costs). The costs of measures are based as much as possible on the data included in KWIN livestock farming , where necessary supplemented with existing quotations and expert information.