Title : 
 Produktionsökonomische Analyse von Tierwohlmaßnahmen in typischen Milchviehbetrieben Nordwestdeutschlands 

 Abstract : 
 Farm animal husbandry is the most important sector of the German agriculture and food industry . With an overall share of 22 percent of the production value of agriculture , milk production is of particularly great economic importance and dairy cows are kept on every fifth farm . However , the husbandry practices for dairy cows in Germany are subject to increasing criticism . Insufficient space per animal or a lack of grazing possibilities are regular critiques . There is also scientific evidence of deficits in animal welfare in dairy farming . The legal framework for dairy farming in Germany is relatively unspecific . Whereas specific requirements are laid down in the Animal Welfare Husbandry Ordinance ( German : Tierschutz - Nutztierhaltungsverordnung ) for keeping poultry and pigs , these are lacking for dairy cattle farming . In addition , farm structures and husbandry conditions are highly heterogeneous . For example , on 24 percent of the farms – predominantly on very small farms – the dairy cows are kept in year - round tethered housing . From a professional , scientific perspective , these conditions lead to major restrictions on natural behaviour . However , deficits in animal welfare were also found on farms with loose housing , with a wide variation between farms . Various market participants have already established animal welfare programs in response to consumer demands for better animal welfare . These usually include a minimum level of resource - related requirements ( e.g. , space allowance , box length , etc . ) . However , the products produced in these animal welfare programs have only a small market share . This can be attributed to two main reasons : Firstly , the other market participants ' counter - financing of the additional costs is not guaranteed . Secondly , studies show that many consumers do not accept high price premiums for a higher level of animal welfare , even though the issue of animal welfare is given high priority in opinion polls . Voluntary labels , therefore , do not consequently lead to a higher level of animal welfare . The German Federal Ministry of Agriculture appointed the Competence Network Livestock Husbandry ( German : Kompetenznetzwerk Nutztierhaltung ( KNW ) ) to solve this dilemma . The KNW presented its recommendations for the sector 's future development in 2020 . These include introducing three animal welfare levels with a simultaneous gradual increase in the legal requirements for farm animal husbandry . In order not to endanger the competitiveness of German livestock farming and to prevent migration of livestock farming to countries with lower animal welfare standards , the additional costs associated with implementing the animal welfare levels are to be offset by a state animal welfare premium and investment support . The recommendations provide for the following three husbandry levels : • Level 1 : " Stable plus " , with a larger space , activity material , etc . • Level 2 : " Improved stables " , with additional space , climate incentives , etc . • Level 3 : " Premium " , with the most space , outdoor runs or pasture , etc . The recommendations of the KNW envisage that Level 1 will become the legal minimum standard for livestock farming from the year 2030 and Level 2 from the year 2040 . The detailed design of the levels with criteria was carried out by the KNW 's cattle working group - an expert group for cattle farming . At present , it is not foreseeable how the KNW 's proposals will be taken up by policymakers and implemented in concrete terms . Initially , the political discussion will focus on implementing the recommendations for transforming pig farming , other types of livestock will follow . Concerning a possible implementation for the transformation of dairy farming , it is essential to know ( 1 ) how dairy farms can adapt to the criteria of the cattle working group , ( 2 ) what effects these adaptations have on the husbandry system and production costs , and ( 3 ) what further optimisation of the criteria could look like . This thesis investigates these questions using a socio - economic mix of methods based on the example of dairy farms in the grassland regions of northwest Germany .    Five methodological approaches were combined for this purpose : ( 1 ) Using data from the 2010 agricultural census and the 2016 agrarian structure survey , dairy farms in northwest Germany were classified into different farm clusters as part of a cluster analysis . ( 2 ) Using the concept of typical farms , typical regional farms were developed from the structural critical data of the farm clusters . ( 3 ) Focus group discussions were conducted with farmers from the study region to determine and coordinate consistent , detailed production - economic data of the typical farms . These focus group discussions were then used to select and plan adaptation options to the criteria set by the cattle working group . An iterative approach was chosen in which the results of the first focus group discussion were evaluated and adapted in a second round of discussions . ( 4 ) The results of the focus group discussions were evaluated with the help of the individual farm calculation model TIPI - CAL . Two tools were added to the model to map resource - related and management - related adjustments to the production system . ( 5 ) The results of the previous investigations were discussed with livestock scientists in an expert workshop to evaluate individual animal welfare measures for achieving the various levels and to derive optimisation potential for the further design of the levels . Based on a cluster analysis of the agricultural structure data and within the framework of the first focus group discussion , three typical farms were built , based on which the effects of the criteria set by the KNW cattle working group were examined : • The typical farm DE-55_NWD represents the most common farm type in the region . In the cluster analysis , 59 percent of the farms in the study region were assigned to this cluster . The farm has 55 dairy cows and did not grow between 2010 and 2016 . It is the smallest of the three typical farms . The primary production system is based on a free - stall barn from the 1980s , renovated in the early 2000s . • The typical farm DE-140_NWD represents a medium - sized farm for the study region with 140 dairy cows . The lactating dairy cows are kept in a free - stall barn built in the 2010s . The production system is comparatively modern , and its basic features meet the regional recommendations for animal welfare in dairy cow husbandry . A total of 38 percent of the farms were assigned to this type in the cluster analysis . Between 2010 and 2016 , moderate growth of the dairy herd took place on the farm . • The large farms in the study region are represented by the typical farm DE-330_NWD , which keeps 330 dairy cows . The production system was also built in the 2010s , similar to the typical farm DE-140_NWD , and also complies with the regional recommendations for animal welfare in dairy cow husbandry . The cluster of large farms represents three percent of the farms in the study region . The typical farm represents a farm that increased the herd size by about 120 dairy cows between 2010 and 2016 . The necessary adaptions on the typical farms to the levels of the cattle working group vary greatly . Extensive adaptations are required on all typical farms to transfer the existing production system to Level 1 . These adaptations are most comprehensive on the small farm DE-55_NWD . The requirements can not be implemented in the existing barn . This farm can therefore only be transferred to Level 1 through a completely new barn construction . This leads to adaptation costs in the small typical farm of 2.48 cents per kilogram of energy - corrected milk ( ECM ) . However , comprehensive adjustments are also necessary on the other two typical farms , many of which can not be implemented within the existing production system . On both farms , cubicle spaces within the existing barn building must be dismantled and installed in an extension because of the requirement to allow a transition between walking and feeding aisles after a maximum of 13 cubicles . As a result , the additional costs for implementing Level 1 amount to 1.23 cents per kilogram ECM in the medium - sized farm DE-140_NWD and 0.74 cents per kilogram ECM in the large farm DE-330_NWD . A large part of the requirements in Level 2 correspond to those of Level 1 or are only slightly above this level , which is why the adaptation measures on the typical farms in both levels are mostly similar . Since Level 2 contains additional requirements likely to have a performance - enhancing effect , additional revenues offset the additional costs . Consequently , the additional costs for the small typical farm DE-55_NWD to obtain Level 2 amount to 2.48 cents per kilogram of ECM , similar to Level 1 . On the two larger farms , the impact of the increase in output is even higher . On farm DE-140_NWD , the additional costs in Level 2 amount to 1.10 cents per kilogram of ECM ; on farm DE-330_NWD , they amount to 0.65 cents per kilogram of ECM . This means the additional costs on the two larger farms are lower than those for Level 1 . Level 3 comprises the most extensive requirements for the housing of dairy cows . Among other things , this includes keeping dairy cows on pasture for at least 120 days per year . This criterion is not easily feasible for the typical farm DE-330_NWD due to the herd size and the site conditions of the study region . Therefore , a direct adaptation option to Level 3 for large farms could not be identified by the focus groups . In the long term , it would be theoretically possible to implement Level 3 in large herd sizes by splitting them across different sites . Due to the comparatively high resource - related requirements of Level 3 , both for the stables and grazing , the calculated additional costs and revenue changes on the other two typical farms are significantly higher than those of the previous levels . On farm DE-55_NWD , they are highest at 9.95 cents per kilogram ECM ; on the medium - sized farm , DE-140_NWD , they amount to 6.72 cents per kilogram ECM . In addition to the high costs for the conversion and new construction of the housing system , a reduction in milk yield is expected which will cause a decrease in revenue and an increase in costs per kilogram of ECM . The costs incurred in adapting to the cattle working group levels on the typical farms vary between the farms and the levels . From the focus group discussions , it emerged that Level 1 is not an attractive adaptation strategy for any of the typical farms since , on the one hand , it incurs very high costs compared to Level 2 and , on the other hand , it can not be considered as a long - term perspective if the legal eligibility of Level 1 ends in 2040 , well before the end of the depreciation period . Farms represented by the typical farm DE-55_NWD already face an economically challenging initial situation and unclear development perspectives . Therefore , it is yet to discuss whether they should participate in the KNW concept at all , or whether a ( possibly premature ) production exit from 2030 onwards might be the consequence . Not only for the small typical farm the available calculations show that from Level 1 onwards extensive adjustments are necessary in all farm types , leading to high additional costs . This raises the question of whether it is possible to modify the criteria so that the implementation causes lower costs but a similar animal welfare level . For this purpose , the animal welfare contribution of the individual criteria was discussed with farm animal ethologists in the framework of an expert workshop , and whether there are more cost - effective possibilities for adaptation through adjusting the criteria . The expert workshop identified basic correlations between different measures for fulfilling the required criteria and the resulting animal welfare contributions . However , evaluating these individual measures proved to be a considerable challenge . As there are interactions between the individual measures , removing single requirements from the criteria would not make sense . Therefore , the levels or bundled measures must be considered in a holistic approach . As a result , the livestock scientists could not agree on a cost - benefit matrix for alternative requirement criteria . However , based on the interaction discussed in the expert workshop , potential alternative criteria for Level 1 were conceived , and respective adaptation scenarios were simulated . The alternative criteria include changes regarding the widths of feeding and walking aisles , which are the main reasons the typical farm DE-55_NWD can not be transferred to Level 1 without major reconstruction of the production system . To compensate for the insufficient width of the feeding and walking aisles in the existing barn , transitions between walking and feeding aisles after only 10 cubicles are required as an alternative criterion . On the typical farms , DE-140_NDW and DE-330_NWD , the changes in the criteria also refer to the transitions between walking and feeding aisles . However , these were increased to up to 20 cubicles , as more comprehensive walking and feeding aisles were already present in the initial situation . These two changes – while retaining all other criteria – lead to a significant reduction in the extent of barn adaption , especially in the typical farms , DE-140_NWD and DE-330_NWD . The adaptation costs of the typical farms are significantly affected by the change in these criteria . In farm DE-55_NWD , the additional costs can be reduced with lower aisle width requirements by 37 percent to 1.56 cents per kilogram of ECM . In farms DE-140_NWD and DE-330_NWD , the potential for cost reduction is even higher . The adaption costs for farm DE-140_NWD are reduced by 54 percent to 0.56 cents per kilogram ECM , in the case of farm DE-330_NWD even to 0.16 cents per kilogram ECM , which corresponds to a reduction of 78 percent compared to the adjustment costs to the original criteria of the cattle working group for level 1 . Several conclusions can be drawn from the results of the production economics studies , the expert workshop , and the subsequent sensitivity analysis of the adaptation options : • In the study , the levels designed by the cattle working group did not prove to be an attractive way to participate in an animal welfare program . They showed constructive weaknesses , especially with regard to the design of Level 1 . The focus group farmers consider this an unattractive entry point into the animal welfare program . The fact that the additional costs for Level 1 on two of the typical farms are higher than the additional costs for Level 2 – and thus more money would have to be spent for " less " animal welfare – will be challenging to communicate to the funders or citizens . • Since extensive structural adaptations are already necessary for typical farms in Level 1 , it can be assumed that dept capital will be required for this . If Level 1 is no longer permitted from 2040 , as planned by the KNW , this would mean that the depreciation period would extend beyond the useful life . This makes the financing of Level 1 fundamentally uncertain for farmers . • Farms with older production systems are particularly affected . The barns ' aisle widths are usually insufficient to meet the criteria of Level 1 . In the study region , this mainly affects smaller farms . However , in other areas , such as eastern Germany , much larger farms operating in older barns would also be affected . While the criteria of the cattle working group allow farms with tethered housing to continue using their housing systems until 2040 , farms with older free - stall systems do not have this option without major modifications . This can not be easily explained to farmers and society . • The results of this thesis show that the design of animal welfare policy can directly impact agricultural structural policy . For example , a consistent application of the criteria of the cattle working group could lead to a substantial abandonment of dairy farms immediately before the year 2030 if Level 1 is made mandatory in 2030 . In this case , decision - makers would have to balance whether to accept the cattle working group 's proposal for the level design or to revise the criteria so that existing barns – as initially envisaged by the KNW for Level 1 – can participate in the KNW concept without extensive conversion measures . • The criteria of the cattle working group is very extensive , with a high level of detail for the resource - related requirements . The criteria of other animal welfare programs and labels that are already available on the market mainly include less detailed requirements . The conditions for organic farming , for example , are less restrictive and are even lower than the requirements for Level 1 in some cases . Therefore , it is necessary to check whether an animal welfare standard corresponding to the KNW objectives can be achieved with already implemented animal welfare programs . The effectiveness of these programs could be examined based on animal welfare - related indicator sets . This would aim to obtain indications for further optimising the cattle working group criteria for dairy cows . The socio - economic method mix used in this study consists of a cluster analysis of the agricultural structure data , the concept of typical farms , and focus group discussions . Individual farm analysis proved helpful in answering the question of how dairy farms in the study region can adapt to the criteria of the cattle working group and what costs are associated with this . In addition , optimising potentials for the further design of the criteria could be derived from the study . However , no concrete alternative level designs could be worked out in the expert workshop with livestock scientists . It should be examined whether changes in the criteria could be agreed upon in a different setting , including on - site meetings , more time , and more detailed " playing " with the data . Ultimately , examining a " given " set of criteria in more extensive negotiation processes with various stakeholders and using economic impact assessments to analyse the exceptional extent of criteria adjustments seems reasonable . For further systematic optimisation , it would be necessary to investigate how individual or bundled measures affect animal welfare . There is room here for other research efforts , which could be carried out based on already established animal welfare programs . German dairy production is characterised by great heterogeneity in farm structures . The results of this thesis provide an overview of the expected reactions and costs of the required farm adaptations to meet the criteria of the cattle working group in the study region of northwest Germany . Still , they can not be easily transferred to other production regions . Although this thesis provides transferable initial indications , it would be advisable to transfer this study ’s approach to other study regions for an all - encompassing picture .