We are fed up!" versus "We'll make you fed up!" - these two cries, which are heard every year during the Green Week in Berlin are representative of the sometimes deep divide between consumers and farmers. The keeping of farm animals in particular is often sharply criticised.
The topic of livestock farming is extremely complex and although it is easy to think in black and white terms, it is certainly not expedient. There are a wide range of different attitudes and ideas about livestock farming. On the one hand, this is due to the fact that different stakeholders with different interests and needs are affected. On the other hand, livestock farming cannot be viewed in isolation from the environmental and climate debate, for example. And then, of course, there is not just one form of livestock farming, but very different ones. Just as there are not only the Farmer or the consumers, but many farmers and consumers who think differently. This article highlights key aspects of the network of different interests and difficulties and illustrates why joint discussions are particularly important.
To oversimplify, farmers, consumers and retailers can be described as the main players in this network. In most cases, "the" farmers produce according to the minimum legal standards. But even if they are thinking about changing the way they keep animals and are prepared to implement higher animal welfare standards, they often see little scope for such changes in a system of long depreciation periods and complicated authorisation procedures.
Higher animal welfare standards are associated with higher costs. The extent to which these costs can be covered and the extent to which the products produced will be purchased by consumers at a higher, cost-covering price can often only be hoped for at the time of the change in husbandry. As a result, many farmers are unwilling or unable to take the risk of changing their animal husbandry. When farmers are confronted with the uncertainty and anger of consumers, they often react with irritation or even incomprehension. They can do little with some of the accusations because it is unclear to them what problem a consumer might have with silage or feed fences, for example, and feel they are in a position of defence or forced to justify themselves. Added to this is the knowledge that most consumers reach for the cheapest products and therefore do not buy the products they demand. Mistrust and mutual accusations are the result.
Between the farmer and the consumer stands "the" trade: here it is primarily the sales figures that count. And from these, the preferences of the customers are quickly deduced. In the present situation, this means that primarily the products of the legal standard are listed and sometimes sold at an extremely favourable price. Meat and meat products in particular are regularly used as so-called loss leaders to attract consumers into the shop. After all, the individual retailer is in competition with other retailers. Products are also sometimes cheaper to buy abroad, for example because lower wages are paid there and animal welfare standards are often not comparable with those in Germany. This often results in lower sales prices for farmers.
At the end of the value chain is "the" consumer: most consumers buy inexpensive products that have been produced on the basis of minimum legal standards. And yet many of them dream of animal husbandry that corresponds more to a romanticised image or the depiction in a children's book than to agricultural reality. However, consumers are hardly able to judge what this reality looks like, if at all, because only a few have a realistic insight into practical farming. Instead, most are increasingly alienated from it and often unsettled by reports and images they have seen.
For example, they do not know how silage is produced and fear that unnatural additives are mixed into the feed. And a cow standing in a feed fence can also cause a lack of understanding, because this image is equated with tethering and there is a fear that the cow is fixed in this fence 24/7. However, consumers are usually unaware that this is not the case and that cows are sometimes not restrained at all or only temporarily, for example for necessary examinations or treatments.
not consciously. How could you be!
Consumers are confronted with a wide variety of information on livestock farming: Sometimes livestock farming is presented too positively, sometimes too negatively and sometimes correctly. But how is the consumer supposed to judge which information is correct?
When shopping, various additional conflicts of interest come into play. The most obvious is the desire for more animal welfare and a low price, while other conflicts arise, for example, with the question of what is more worthy of protection - the environment or animal welfare?
It is obvious that there is a lot of dissatisfaction on the different sides and the potential for conflict is high. This situation is also aggravated by the fact that for a long time people only talked about each other instead of with each other, that instead of constructive dialogue there was only generalised or destructive "chatter". But as simple as it sounds, talking to each other is one (not the only!) key to greater understanding.
As part of the project SocialLab group discussions were conducted by employees of the Thünen Institute for Market Analysis, the South Westphalia University of Applied Sciences and the University of Göttingen with farmers and consumers in various locations in Germany and on the three animal husbandry methods of pig farming, dairy farming and chicken farming. During the discussions, various topics relating to the respective animal husbandry were discussed together. Consumers were able to ask the farmers questions and the latter took the opportunity to explain themselves and present their views. For example, one consumer's uncertainty about silage was overcome.
In order to check whether a measurable rapprochement between the stakeholders is possible in the context of such discussions, different statements were asked at the beginning and end of the group discussions on topics that concerned both farmers and consumers. The analysis showed that neither farmers nor consumers remained unimpressed by the joint discussions, but changed their attitude during the joint discussion, sometimes with statistical significance. While both actors sometimes differed significantly in their assessment of livestock farming at the beginning of the discussion, this often changed as a result of the dialogue. It was observed that farmers remained more stable overall in their perception of livestock farming, while consumers changed their opinion more quickly or more strongly.
However, it should be emphasised that the changes depended on the chosen argumentation and the way in which it was presented. If the farmers succeed in responding to interested parties, taking the concerns of their counterparts seriously and conveying information in a credible and trustworthy manner without coming across as lecturing, the basis for a good dialogue is created. Most consumers are then able to listen and accept the information given. It is important that none of the dialogue partners starts with accusations. Because here too, as so often in life, the same applies: As you call into the forest, so it sounds out.
However, what sounds so easy to write and simple to read can sometimes be very difficult in everyday life. And talking will not lead to an immediate and prompt improvement in the situation. But it is an important step towards greater understanding and can be the start of something new. It is therefore absolutely positive that more and more farmers are summoning up the courage and time to engage in dialogue and that more and more consumers are speaking to those who should know best: the farmers.
