The cattle farms in the Focus on Animal Welfare network are always very interested in current issues. The status of planning for the government's animal welfare labelling for milk was therefore the subject of discussions with Dr Kemmerling, representing the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL).
She is a consultant in the Future of Livestock Farming department, where she is responsible for technical issues and communication with various interest groups, among other things. She is also an active dairy farmer and knows very well where the shoe pinches. Although the autumn holidays and the maize campaign meant that the number of farms participating in the online exchange in mid-October remained manageable, the questions and comments on the speaker's remarks were all the more numerous.
Government animal welfare labelling for milk
A government animal welfare label has been sought for several years – not only in Germany, but also at EU level. After pigs, the focus in Germany has now shifted to dairy cattle. There is currently a proposal for a draft three-tier animal welfare label, although some points are still under discussion as no consensus has yet been reached. Practitioners and scientists, consultants and associations were involved in developing the concept.
Mandatory labelling of food would enable products to be compared. "The aim here would be to have a label that is valid throughout the EU, as this would avoid domestic discrimination," says Dr Kemmerling, explaining the results of the feasibility study. Currently, retailers only label the conditions in which animals are kept; the state animal welfare label would go further by also including animal-related factors. Information on the use of medication, especially antibiotics, would still be missing. However, it is to be expected that consumer confidence would be very high thanks to the animal welfare label from the public sector. All criteria must, of course, be verifiable within the framework of an audit.
Dr Kemmerling refuted the accusation of "ruler-based animal welfare", i.e. the mere consideration of structural dimensions, in her remarks. Farms must be comparable, which is why criteria such as the width of the walkway, the animal-feeding space ratio or the dimensions of the cubicles are taken into account. However, these are also supplemented by animal-related factors. According to the Animal Welfare Act (§ 11 (8)), every livestock farmer is obliged to assess and evaluate the welfare of their animals on the basis of animal-related characteristics (animal welfare indicators). Carrying out self-monitoring on the farm involves a certain amount of effort in order to adequately assess the three aspects of animal health, animal behaviour and the emotional well-being of the animals. The proposed set of indicators for carrying out self-monitoring on the farm within the framework of a statutory animal welfare label is based on the results of the "Q Check" and "EiKoTiGer" projects.
The results from existing audit systems (QM-Milch, Öko-Kontrolle) could be combined for assessment in the future to avoid duplicate checks. However, animal-related factors should be collected, documented and assessed equally for all three husbandry levels. In the case of an animal welfare label audit, however, only the existence of the necessary documents (e.g. documentation of self-monitoring of animal welfare) should be checked. When evaluating the results, however, full reliance is placed on the professional's own responsibility and it is assumed that the responsible persons will take countermeasures if the surveys reveal deficiencies in animal welfare. The required space per cow should not pose too much of a problem in all three husbandry stages, even for farms with older stables (6 m² – completely covered; 7.5 m² – at least 6 m² covered; 10.5 m² – at least 8 m² covered). Another important point is the qualification of the persons responsible. They must provide evidence of 24 hours of further training in animal welfare within three years.
Efforts have always been made to consider compensation options that would enable structurally disadvantaged farms to qualify for better husbandry standards. For example, tethered housing and so-called "type stables" in the eastern federal states were also taken into account. Whether and how tethered housing, for example, can be integrated has not yet been conclusively clarified. Proposals such as tethered housing with 2 hours of exercise per day on at least 300 days per year are also on the table, as are the requirements for organic farming (2 hours per week of outdoor access in winter and 120 days of grazing per year). Dr Kemmerling also sees the possibility of a ban on tethered housing in the future, although not today or tomorrow, as she adds, but the will is clearly recognisable. One thing is certain, however: the highest animal welfare label cannot be achieved without grazing. Additional labelling of origin and, where applicable, organic standards is to be included.
When asked whether there are signs that food retailers could overtake the state in promoting animal welfare for milk, Dr Kemmerling notes that there are no specific regulations for dairy cattle farming in the Animal Welfare Livestock Farming Ordinance, so it is not possible to advertise that something is "above the legal farming standard".
In view of the rush by a well-known discounter to sell only meat from outdoor rearing from 2030 onwards, the speaker urges caution in assessing the statements made by the trade, as this meat may also come from abroad.
The proposals are currently being discussed in the working groups and the competence network. According to Dr Kemmerling, one thing is certain: the political will of the next government will determine the further development of "animal welfare labelling".