Here are some related notes. For a given group of farmed animals (the 2 1st points are the ones that matter):
“Annual suffering” = “suffering per living time as a fraction of the welfare range (1/animal-year)”*“welfare range”*“population (animal-year/year)”*“1 year”.
“Population (animal-year/year)” = “supply (kg/year)”/“supply per living time (kg/animal-year)”.
“Final supply (kg/year)” = “initial supply (kg/year)”*(1 + “elasticity of supply with respect to price”*“relative variation in price (caused by an intervention)”).
“Decrease in the annual suffering” = “initial annual suffering”—“final annual suffering” = “initial suffering per living time as a fraction of the welfare range (1/animal-year)”*“welfare range”*“initial supply (kg/year)”/“initial supply per living time (kg/animal-year)”*(1 - “final suffering per living time as a fraction of the initial one”*(1 + “elasticity of supply with respect to price”*“relative variation in price”)/“final supply per living time as a fraction of the initial one”).
“Relative decrease in the annual suffering” = “decrease in the annual suffering”/“initial annual suffering” = 1 - “final suffering per living time as a fraction of the initial one”*(1 + “elasticity of supply with respect to price”*“relative variation in price”)/“final supply per living time as a fraction of the initial one”.
One wants to maximise the above, i.e. minimise “final suffering per living time as a fraction of the initial one”/“final supply per living time as a fraction of the initial one”.
Annual suffering is inversely proportional to the supply per living time. So, everything else equal, it would be good to have broilers which grow faster, and hens which lay eggs more frequently. Unfortunately, everything else is not equal, as higher supply per living time tens to be associated with more suffering per living time. I estimate the suffering per living time of broilers in a reformed scenario is 18.3 % that of ones in a conventional scenario, whereas the ones in a conventional scenario grow 74.6 %[1] (= (45 + 46)/(60 + 62)) as fast as ones in a conventional scenario. So, instead of the final annual suffering being 18.3 % the initial one, it is 24.5 % (= 0.183/0.746) because of the increase in the number of broilers need to sustain a given meat supply. This ratio is still much lower than 1, so moving broilers from conventional to reformed scenarios is robustly good even accounting for the resulting increase in the number of broilers.
Hi Keyvan,
Here are some related notes. For a given group of farmed animals (the 2 1st points are the ones that matter):
“Annual suffering” = “suffering per living time as a fraction of the welfare range (1/animal-year)”*“welfare range”*“population (animal-year/year)”*“1 year”.
“Population (animal-year/year)” = “supply (kg/year)”/“supply per living time (kg/animal-year)”.
“Final supply (kg/year)” = “initial supply (kg/year)”*(1 + “elasticity of supply with respect to price”*“relative variation in price (caused by an intervention)”).
“Decrease in the annual suffering” = “initial annual suffering”—“final annual suffering” = “initial suffering per living time as a fraction of the welfare range (1/animal-year)”*“welfare range”*“initial supply (kg/year)”/“initial supply per living time (kg/animal-year)”*(1 - “final suffering per living time as a fraction of the initial one”*(1 + “elasticity of supply with respect to price”*“relative variation in price”)/“final supply per living time as a fraction of the initial one”).
“Relative decrease in the annual suffering” = “decrease in the annual suffering”/“initial annual suffering” = 1 - “final suffering per living time as a fraction of the initial one”*(1 + “elasticity of supply with respect to price”*“relative variation in price”)/“final supply per living time as a fraction of the initial one”.
One wants to maximise the above, i.e. minimise “final suffering per living time as a fraction of the initial one”/“final supply per living time as a fraction of the initial one”.
Annual suffering is inversely proportional to the supply per living time. So, everything else equal, it would be good to have broilers which grow faster, and hens which lay eggs more frequently. Unfortunately, everything else is not equal, as higher supply per living time tens to be associated with more suffering per living time. I estimate the suffering per living time of broilers in a reformed scenario is 18.3 % that of ones in a conventional scenario, whereas the ones in a conventional scenario grow 74.6 %[1] (= (45 + 46)/(60 + 62)) as fast as ones in a conventional scenario. So, instead of the final annual suffering being 18.3 % the initial one, it is 24.5 % (= 0.183/0.746) because of the increase in the number of broilers need to sustain a given meat supply. This ratio is still much lower than 1, so moving broilers from conventional to reformed scenarios is robustly good even accounting for the resulting increase in the number of broilers.
Ratio between the means of the lower and upper bounds provided by the Welfare Footprint Project.