Lintner (2020) · LANDBAUFORSCH · J Sustainable Organic Agric Syst · 70(1):17–22 DOI:10.3220/LBF1590334788000 17 POSITION PAPER The need for an ‘animal ethics turn’ in animal husbandry Martin M. Lintner1 Received: October 10, 2019 Revised: December 2, 2019 Accepted: December 19, 2019 Konrad Glombik Konrad © Martin Lintner KEYWORDS animal welfare ethics, animal turn, animal husbandry, livestock farming, consumption of meat and animal products, climate change In the following paper I argue that there is an urgent need for transporting them over thousands of kilometres throughout an ‘animal ethics turn’ in animal husbandry. There are various Europe and beyond. In response to this incisive statement, reasons for this demand, such as the negative impact of live- Koch generated a huge number of counter-reac tions from stock farming on climate change and the fact that current farmers’ representatives. Finally, the then Federal Agricul- animal protection laws only address minimum standards of tural Minister, Christian Schmidt, felt compelled to declare: animal welfare, which, in some cases, are systematically vio- “With all due respect to the voice of the Church, food produc- lated. Some animal ethics approaches such as abolitionism tion deserves to be considered and discussed in a restrained argue that the only moral solution is to completely renounce way. I am, therefore, very surprised at some of the state- the use of animals as resources or products. The present ments. I expect care for our animals, but also for our farmers.”2 paper, however, represents an animal welfare position. It Koch reacted somewhat meekly and said that he was aware rejects the reduction of animals to a mere means for human that the vast majority of farmers would carry out their work purposes as morally offensive and unacceptable. This does with great awareness of their responsibility towards God’s not mean to reject the use of animals in any form as ethical- creation and thus also towards the animals. ly objectionable, but demands that humans should always b) On 15 March 2019, the Ulm District Court sentenced a respect animals’ pursuit of a flourishing life by responding pig farmer from Merklingen in Baden-Württemberg to three positively to their species-specific and individual needs and years’ imprisonment without probation (Herrmann, 2019; capabilities. ZEIT Online, 2019). According to the court’s ruling, several hundred pigs had died as a result of the poor housing condi- 1 Introduction: two examples tions or had to be killed on the instructions of the veterinary office due to their acute injuries. Altogether, over 1,600 pigs a) While attending ‘International Green Week 2017’ in Berlin, died on the farm. The 56-year-old defendant is said to have the Catholic Archbishop of Berlin, Heiner Koch, sharply crit- killed two injured animals with a sledgehammer. The poor icised the poor conditions in large-scale livestock farming conditions of animal husbandry on the farm were uncov- (Öhler, 2017). He reprimanded pig farmers whose animals ered in 2016 by an animal protection association. Activists never see daylight, who treat the creatures like industrial had filmed the animals on the farm. The proceedings against mass-market goods and slaughter them under cruel condi- tions. The cattle breeders who brutally violate their animals by 2 All translations by the author. 1 Philosophical-Theological College Brixen, Chair of Theological Ethics and Spiritual Theology, Italy CONTACT: [email protected] 18 Lintner (2020) · LANDBAUFORSCH · J Sustainable Organic Agric Syst · 70(1):17–22 them were suspended after a fine of 100 Euros was paid. The consumption. To feed these animals, huge areas of rain forest farm was closed. The court based its judgment on the argu- are cleared or burned. Soil degradation contributes signifi- ment that in this particular case of detected animal cruelty, cantly to global emissions of carbon dioxide. The produc- protecting animal welfare weighed more heavily than pro- tion of feed, which is often transported between continents, tection against trespassing. An interesting marginal detail requires enormous amounts of energy and synthetic fertil- revealed that the pig farmer’s produce had previously been isers. Soil degradation, loss of biodiversity, and the pollution sold EU-wide using various quality seals, for example, ‘qual- of soil, water and air are some of the serious consequences. ity produce from Baden-Württemberg’ and ‘animal welfare Finally, orientation towards the criterion of economic efficien- approved’. The Federal Agriculture Minister Julia Klöckner cy largely ignores animal welfare (Gottwald and Boergen, commented on the Ulm District Court ruling: “Our animal 2014). In order to radically change this system and to avoid protection laws do not constitute a suggested quality thresh- environmental trade-offs, there is a need for effective strate- old; they are there to be complied with. Anyone who treats gies and complex interactions. One aspect is the urgency to animals as though they are merely a commodity, lets them establish an animal ethics standpoint. An ‘animal ethics turn’ die in desolate conditions or torments them should not be in livestock would lead to the reduction of animal numbers allowed to keep animals. And it is right that those who tor- in farming and, therefore, change the use of land in many ture animals and do not obey our laws are punished. Farm- regions, which would consequently represent a significant ers who do not treat their animals properly harm not only climate change mitigation (Havlík et al., 2014; Stevanović et the animals, but the entire profession, and there are many al., 2017). farmers who behave in an exemplary manner.” These two examples serve to illustrate the same problem. 3 The ‘animal turn’ in our society and The livestock farming conditions that Koch reprimanded animal welfare in animal husbandry were neither invented nor exaggerated but correspond to a wide-spread reality. It is also noticeable that farmers’ associa- There is currently an ambiguous trend in our society. On the tions usually demonstrate an almost knee-jerk defensive one hand, a so-called ‘animal turn’ can be observed, i.e. an response in line with their policies; either they deny the issue increasing scholarly interest in animals, their abilities and entirely or they defend the farmers by lauding their personal functions, the relationships between human and non-hu- ethos and efforts in guaranteeing animal welfare standards. man animals, and in the role and status of animals in modern In my opinion, many farmers do indeed try to ensure the human society (Ritvo, 2007). Even a new scientific discipline welfare and health of their animals, but often the concrete has been established: Human-Animal Studies (Kompat- conditions and economic constraints do not permit appro- scher et al., 2017). On the other hand, although we know priate animal husbandry. The economic output required for much more than former generations about the behaviours, a farm to make a profitable income is often at the cost of needs, requirements, and sensitive, emotional and cognitive the health and welfare of livestock. The discussion is often abilities of animals, as well as how to keep and farm differ- confined to the question of the correct interpretation and ent animal species appropriately, the economic efficien cy of enforcement of legal procedures whilst disregarding the livestock farming is in great conflict with the goals of animal question of ethics. Legal requirements are largely based on welfare. Livestock farming is mainly orientated towards eco- minimum standards. There are, however, also cases of overt nomic efficiency and compatibility with technical systems. In pain and death-provoking cruelty to animals as the second other words, the technical systems in livestock farming are example shows. not adapted to the basic species-specific needs and behav- This introduction has already named a number of aspects ioural patterns of animals, but rather the opposite. which demonstrate the complexity of the issues within live- To clarify, this is not only a problem for farming, but also stock farming. I believe there is an urgent requirement for for trade and consumer behaviour. Wholesale and retail reform in agriculture. My two main reasons for this are out- trade as well as consumers are indeed co-responsible for lined below: the impact of livestock on climate change and the way animals are kept, treated and slaughtered. Owing animal ethical requirements. The focus of this position paper to the market dynamics of supply and demand, by buying will be on the second aspect. animal products, distributors, retailers and consumers not only implicitly approve of, but directly co-finance how these 2 Impact of livestock on climate change products are produced on farms and are treated at auctions, in transit and at abattoirs. Analogous to the basic principles According to the latest studies, intensive agriculture and of fair trade, it is therefore a matter of sensitising the pro- industrialised livestock farming account for up to 24% of ducers (farmers, butchers, and so on), distributors, retailers annual greenhouse gas emissions worldwide – particularly and consumers of animal products to the ethical concerns methane and nitrous oxide – and are thus significantly respon- of dealing with animals, and of motivating them to treat ani- sible for global climate change (PIK, 2016; Stevanović et al., mals fairly. Within the complex system of economics, no sin- 2017; Grossi et al., 2019). Furthermore, the livestock sector gle party is able to change things for the better by working requires a significant amount of natural resources. An esti- in isolation. Therefore, there is a need for strong collabora- mated 1.5 billion cattle and domestic buffalo, 15 billion poul- tion between all parties. At the same time, there is a need to try and nearly 1 billion pigs are kept worldwide for human overcome widespread practices within the livestock industry Lintner (2020) · LANDBAUFORSCH · J Sustainable Organic Agric Syst · 70(1):17–22 19 that still violate existing animal protection laws.