5-State-Evaluation: Effects on animal welfare


Cattle stable (c) C. Weins
(© C. Weins)

On-going evaluation of the Rural Development Programmes of five German federal states in the programming period 2014 - 2020: Effects on animal welfare

The Thünen Institute of Farm Economics evaluates the effects on animal welfare of the Rural Development Programs (RDP) of North Rhine-Westphalia, Hesse, Schleswig-Holstein and Lower Saxony/Bremen.

Background and Objective

Various measures under the RDP such as the farm investment support, farm advisory services or animal welfare payments, aim at improving animal welfare. We assess if they achieve this goal. To this aim, the following questions are crucial:

  • Are the measures in principle suitable to achieve improvements in animal welfare?
  • Which effects do the measures unfold on the supported holdings?
  • What is the contribution of the measures to improve animal welfare in livestock farming and how efficient are they?

Evaluation of the effects on animal welfare takes place within evaluation of the whole Rural Development Programs.


To evaluate the effects of the various support measures, we use different methods and data-sources. Milk-inspection data, which contains information on the health status (i.e. mastitis, metabolic disorders) is used for the evaluation of the grazing premium in North-Rhine-Westfalia. The result-oriented animal welfare measure for pigs newly implemented in Lower-Saxony is accompanied in a first step by telefone- und written surveys on the administrative procedures and changes implemented on the supported farms. For Hesse and North-Rhine-Westfalia data from the Identification and Information System for Animals (HIT) is tested with respect to its use for evaluation puropses.

Data and Methods

For the analysis, we evaluate funding data (for example, animal numbers, funding amounts) but also self-collected data and information from statistical surveys. In addition to quantitative statistical methods (descriptive statistics, multivariate analyzes), we use qualitative methods (focus groups, content analysis).

Preliminary Results

Animal Welfare Payments (RDP-Measure M14)

For the evaluation of the result-oriented animal welfare measure for fattening pigs ("curly tail premium") and the action-oriented laying hen measure in Lower Saxony, written surveys were conducted at participating farms in the years 2017/2018. From these surveys, the following findings were obtained and conclusions and recommendations derived:

  • The participating farms were largely satisfied with the administrative implementation of the new support measures.
  • For the laying hen measure, the proportion of farms that had to make adjustments to participate was significantly lower than for the curly tail premium. This indicates high deadweight effects in the laying hen measure, which are partly due to the high proportion (about 70 %) of organic farms. These farms meet the majority of housing requirements per se.
  • The laying hen measure is purely action-oriented with requirements on space, feeding, materials for investigation and manipulation etc. Due to the lack of result-orientation, holdings with a high degree of feather pecking and cannibalism have also received payments for animal-friendly husbandry. Therefore, inclusion of result-based components into the funding measure is recommended.
  • For the curly tail premium, this result-orientation already exists. It represents a good approach to achieve the actual goal of promoting "intact animals". However, with the critical value of a minimum of 70 % intact curly tails, up to 30 % of the animals may suffer pain due to tail-biting. Therefore adjustments are recommended with respect to this threshold value.
  • Of the farms participating in the curly tail premium, those with conventional housing practices (pens with fully slatted floors) had more difficulties in achieving a high proportion of intact tails than those with straw based systems. The scientific literature and a number of projects aiming to reduce tail biting on conventional farms confirm this result. It is therefore necessary to discuss whether the measure should be extended to include provisions defining the conditions for keeping intact animals.

Farm Investment Support

The evaluated federal states have different requirements with regard to the animal welfare of the supported stables. Lower Saxony/Bremen and Schleswig-Holstein, and since 2019 also Hesse, have more demanding funding conditions than North Rhine-Westphalia.

Based on a written survey of the recipients conducted in 2018, it was possible to determine that:

- some improvements could be implemented, whereby the deadweight effects reduce the influence of the funding,

- the requirements of Appendix 1 are not always sufficient for animal-friendly husbandry and

- only a few dairy farms converted from tie-stalls to loose housing.

A further orientation of the AFP towards the promotion of animal-friendly housing is recommended, whereby the promotion guidelines should be continuously adapted to the state of knowledge and non-animal-friendly methods should be excluded from the support.

Links and Downloads



Involved Thünen-Partners


5.2015 - 12.2024

More Information

Projekt type:
Project status: ongoing

Publications to the project

Results 6 - 10 of 12

Begin   back   next   end

  1. Grajewski R, Bathke M, Bergschmidt A, Eberhardt W, Ebers H, Fengler B, Forstner B, Franz K, Gröner C, Peter H, Pollermann K, Pufahl A, Raue P, Reiter K, Sander A, Roggendorf W (2019) Ergebnisse der laufenden Bewertung von PFEIL : Beitrag zu Kapitel 7 des erweiterten Durchführungsberichts 2018. Braunschweig: Thünen-Institut für Ländliche Räume, 207 p, 5 Länder Eval 2019/13, DOI:10.3220/5LE1567668169000
    pdf document (limited accessibility) 2535 kb
  2. Bergschmidt A (2019) Tierwohlmaßnahme des PFEIL - Programms 2014 bis 2020 : besonders tiergerechte Haltung von Mastschweinen "Ringelschwanzprämie" (T2). Braunschweig: Thünen-Institut für Betriebswirtschaft, 50 p, 5 Länder Eval 2019/4, DOI:10.3220/5LE1550753499000
    pdf document (limited accessibility) 3543 kb
  3. Fährmann B, Grajewski R, Bergschmidt A, Fengler B, Franz K, Pollermann K, Raue P, Roggendorf W, Sander A (2018) Der ELER in der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik nach 2020 : wie bewerten EvaluatorInnen die europäischen Verordnungsentwürfe? Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 52 p, Thünen Working Paper 107, DOI:10.3220/WP1540817931000
    pdf document (limited accessibility) 865 kb
  4. Grajewski R, Bathke M, Bergschmidt A, Eberhardt W, Ebers H, Fährmann B, Fengler B, Flint L, Forstner B, Franz K, Peter H, Reiter K, Roggendorf W, Sander A, Schnaut G (2018) NRW-Programm Ländlicher Raum 2014 bis 2020 : Analyse der Inanspruchnahme und Umsetzung. Braunschweig ; Hannover: Thünen-Institut für Ländliche Räume ; entera, 208 p, 5 Länder Eval 2018/9, DOI:10.3220/5LE1541074874000
    pdf document (limited accessibility) 2173 kb
  5. Fährmann B, Bergschmidt A, Bathke M, Eberhardt W, Ebers H, Fengler B, Flint L, Forstner B, Grajewski R, Pollermann K, Reiter K, Roggendorf W, Sander A (2018) PFEIL - Programm zur Förderung im ländlichen Raum 2014 bis 2020 in Niedersachsen und Bremen : Analyse der Inanspruchnahme und Umsetzung. Braunschweig ; Hannover: Thünen-Institut für Ländliche Räume ; entera, 355 p, 5 Länder Eval 2018/8, DOI:10.3220/5LE1543226002000
    pdf document (limited accessibility) 5143 kb

Results 6 - 10 of 12

Begin   back   next   end