Thank you for the post! This reinforces my view that industrial profitability is a much stronger leverage point than many of our other interventions.
Technologies like in ovo sexing, immunocastration, or controlled atmospheric stunning are good examples of solutions that are both positive for animal welfare and profitable for the industry, allowing for easier integration. In recent years, we have also begun to see genetic interventions at the intersection of welfare and profitability. For instance, the CRISPR-edited “Slick” gene, which addresses heat stress (a condition that costs the US beef industry over $1 billion annually) received FDA approval in 2022. Similarly, driven by the high costs and labor-intensive nature of dehorning, there is ongoing genetic work to develop and proliferate ‘polled’ (hornless) cattle. It has already been proven that these bulls can transmit the hornless trait to 100% of their offspring, potentially eliminating the need for those painful and costly procedures.
What I am currently reflecting on is whether these technological indicators justify moving toward more radical interventions that reduce suffering in the industry, such as genetically raising the pain threshold of animals. I have seen the topic of “genetic welfare” evaluated in theoretical EA discussions (it was exciting to see a week dedicated to it in the Sentient Futures fellowship!). However, I haven’t encountered even a BOTEC-style analysis regarding the technical feasibility of the subject. Are you aware of any sources I might have missed, or how does this prospect strike you at first glance?
My individual research has led me to speculate that creating “stress-resistant” herds through genetic intervention could (once initial R&D costs are covered) be profitable for the industry. Ultimately, the fear, panic, and chronic stress mechanisms that help animals to survive in the wild have no functional equivalent in the isolated and controlled environment of the industry. In fact, there are several reasons to suggest that stress is a significant operational cost:
Metabolic Waste: When an animal experiences fear or panic, the resulting cortisol spikes divert metabolic energy toward “fight or flight” mode rather than growth or tissue repair. This leads directly to a decline in Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) and results in increased costs.
Product Quality: Acute stress during transport or pre-slaughter alters meat chemistry, leading to irreversible quality defects like PSE (Pale, Soft, Exudative) or DFD (Dark, Firm, Dry), which lower market value.
Operational Losses: Increased antibiotic expenditures due to stress-induced immunosuppression, along with physical injuries and “shrinkage” caused by social conflict, further strain profitability.
Although the profitability of stress-resilient herds is speculative, I believe the argument bear a deep resemblance to a common argument for cultured meat. Cultured meat advocates describe the massive metabolic energy spent maintaining a central nervous system, skeletal structure, and digestive system (parts that do not become the “final product”) as systemic waste. Rather than trying to rebuild the current level of biological optimization from scratch in a lab, might it be a faster route to intervene in the system’s existing “software”? By genetically “dimming” stress responses (for example, partially silencing specific genes responsible for stress triggers), we could directly target this energy leak within the current “infrastructure” .
What are your thoughts on this reasoning? The industrial livestock sector may not have a reason to shoulder the high-risk, initial R&D costs of radical innovations. However, if independent ventures or altruistic funding can handle the early-stage R&D and show that this technology is actually profitable, could the change become self-sustaining without the need for external pressure from activists?
Thank you for the post! This reinforces my view that industrial profitability is a much stronger leverage point than many of our other interventions.
Technologies like in ovo sexing, immunocastration, or controlled atmospheric stunning are good examples of solutions that are both positive for animal welfare and profitable for the industry, allowing for easier integration. In recent years, we have also begun to see genetic interventions at the intersection of welfare and profitability. For instance, the CRISPR-edited “Slick” gene, which addresses heat stress (a condition that costs the US beef industry over $1 billion annually) received FDA approval in 2022. Similarly, driven by the high costs and labor-intensive nature of dehorning, there is ongoing genetic work to develop and proliferate ‘polled’ (hornless) cattle. It has already been proven that these bulls can transmit the hornless trait to 100% of their offspring, potentially eliminating the need for those painful and costly procedures.
What I am currently reflecting on is whether these technological indicators justify moving toward more radical interventions that reduce suffering in the industry, such as genetically raising the pain threshold of animals. I have seen the topic of “genetic welfare” evaluated in theoretical EA discussions (it was exciting to see a week dedicated to it in the Sentient Futures fellowship!). However, I haven’t encountered even a BOTEC-style analysis regarding the technical feasibility of the subject. Are you aware of any sources I might have missed, or how does this prospect strike you at first glance?
My individual research has led me to speculate that creating “stress-resistant” herds through genetic intervention could (once initial R&D costs are covered) be profitable for the industry. Ultimately, the fear, panic, and chronic stress mechanisms that help animals to survive in the wild have no functional equivalent in the isolated and controlled environment of the industry. In fact, there are several reasons to suggest that stress is a significant operational cost:
Metabolic Waste: When an animal experiences fear or panic, the resulting cortisol spikes divert metabolic energy toward “fight or flight” mode rather than growth or tissue repair. This leads directly to a decline in Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) and results in increased costs.
Product Quality: Acute stress during transport or pre-slaughter alters meat chemistry, leading to irreversible quality defects like PSE (Pale, Soft, Exudative) or DFD (Dark, Firm, Dry), which lower market value.
Operational Losses: Increased antibiotic expenditures due to stress-induced immunosuppression, along with physical injuries and “shrinkage” caused by social conflict, further strain profitability.
Although the profitability of stress-resilient herds is speculative, I believe the argument bear a deep resemblance to a common argument for cultured meat. Cultured meat advocates describe the massive metabolic energy spent maintaining a central nervous system, skeletal structure, and digestive system (parts that do not become the “final product”) as systemic waste. Rather than trying to rebuild the current level of biological optimization from scratch in a lab, might it be a faster route to intervene in the system’s existing “software”? By genetically “dimming” stress responses (for example, partially silencing specific genes responsible for stress triggers), we could directly target this energy leak within the current “infrastructure” .
What are your thoughts on this reasoning? The industrial livestock sector may not have a reason to shoulder the high-risk, initial R&D costs of radical innovations. However, if independent ventures or altruistic funding can handle the early-stage R&D and show that this technology is actually profitable, could the change become self-sustaining without the need for external pressure from activists?