Does someone have a rough fermi on the tradeoffs here? On priors it seems like chickens bred to be bigger would overall cause less suffering because they replace more than one chicken that isn’t bread to be as big, but I would expect those chickens to suffer more. I can imagine it going either way, but I guess my prior is that it was broadly good for each individual chicken to weigh more.
I am a bit worried the advocacy here is based more on a purity/environmentalist perspective where genetically modifying animals is bad, but I don’t give that perspective much weight. But it could also be great from a more cost-effectiveness/suffering-minimization oriented perspective, and would be curious in people’s takes.
(Molly was asked this question in a previous post two months ago, but as far as I can tell responded mostly with orthogonal claims that don’t really engage with the core ethical question, so am curious in other people’s takes)
Welfare Footprint Project has analysis here, which they summarize:
Adoption of the Better Chicken Commitment, with use of a slower-growing breed reaching a slaughter weight of approximately 2.5 Kg at 56 days (ADG=45-46 g/day) is expected to prevent “at least” 33 [13 to 53] hours of Disabling pain, 79 [-99 to 260] hours of Hurtful and 25 [5 to 45] seconds of Excruciating pain for every bird affected by this intervention (only hours awake are considered). These figures correspond to a reduction of approximately 66%, 24% and 78% , respectively, in the time experienced in Disabling, Hurtful and Excruciating pain relative to a conventional scenario due to lameness, cardiopulmonary disorders, behavioral deprivation and thermal stress.
The reduction in suffering per chicken is probably >24% if this analysis is correct, and it accounts for longer lives. My guess is >50%, giving substantial weight to disabling pain relative to milder pain. Accounting for more chickens necessary for the same amount of meat (EDIT: although WFP assumes they grow to the same weight) wouldn’t flip things. (And there would be a reduction in demand to partially offset this, due to higher costs per kg of meat.)
Lameness-related pain primarily due to their breed seems to be the largest source of their suffering and responsible for a lot of suffering, so it makes sense to me that slower growing breeds would be better off.
I think it’s worth noting here that (if I’m understanding it right) the alternative breeds recommended by the better chicken commitment are slower-growing but don’t have a lower max weight. And the welfare footprint project numbers on pain durations already account for the longer time to reach full weight.
I think it’s worth noting here that (if I’m understanding it right) the alternative breeds recommended by the better chicken commitment are slower-growing but don’t have a lower max weight.
I’m not sure, but the optimal weight at slaughter could be lower, which I think Lusk et al. (blog post) found for the US. Even if they could reach the same maximum weight, it may be more profitable to slaughter them at lower weights.
And the welfare footprint project numbers on pain durations already account for the longer time to reach full weight.
Ya, I intended to imply that, but could have worded things better. I’ve edited my comment.
Gotcha, that makes sense! Even if producers slaughter at a lower weight, I think the number of chicken-days of life per kg of meat shouldn’t change much relative to what goes into the WFP analysis. So I don’t think that producers slaughtering earlier changes the quantity of time spent suffering very significantly, just whether it’s distributed among fewer longer-lived chickens or more shorter-lived chickens.
For the reformed scenario, represented by the use of a slower-growing strain, we assumed an average ADG of 45-46 g/day, hence that the same slaughter weight would be reached in approximately 56 days.
(Obvious flag that I know very little about this specific industry)
Agreed that this seems like an important issue. Some quick takes:
Less immediately- obvious pluses/minuses to this sort of campaign: - Plus #1: I assume that anything the animal industry doesn’t like would increase costs for raising chickens. I’d correspondingly assume that we should want costs to be high (though it would be much better if it could be the government getting these funds, rather than just decreases in efficiency). - Plus #2: It seems possible that companies have been selecting for growth instead of for well-being. Maybe, if they just can’t select for growth, then selecting more for not-feeling-pain would be cheaper. - Minus #1: Focusing on the term “Frankenchicken” could discourage other selective breeding or similar, which could be otherwise useful for very globally beneficial attributes, like pain mitigation. - Ambiguous #1: This could help stop further development here. I assume that it’s possible to later use selective breeding and similar to continue making larger / faster growing chickens.
I think I naively feel like the pluses outweigh the negatives. Maybe I’d give this a 80% chance, without doing much investigation. That said, I’d also imagine there might well be more effective measures with a much clearer trade-off. The question of “is this a net-positive thing” is arguably not nearly as important as “are there fairly-clearly better things to do.”
Lastly, for all of that, I do want to just thanks those helping animals like this. It’s easy for me to argue things one way or the other, but I generally have serious respect for those working to change things, even if I’m not sure if their methods are optimal. I think it’s easy to seem combative on this, but we’re all on a similar team here.
In terms of a “rough fermi analysis”, as I work in the field, I think the numeric part of this is less important at this stage than just laying out a bunch of the key considerations and statistics. What I first want is a careful list of costs and benefits—that seems mature, fairly creative, and unbiased.
- Plus #1: I assume that anything the animal industry doesn’t like would increase costs for raising chickens. I’d correspondingly assume that we should want costs to be high (though it would be much better if it could be the government getting these funds, rather than just decreases in efficiency).
I think this feels like a very aggressive zero-sum mindset. I agree that sometimes you want to have an attitude like this, but I at least at the present think that acting with the attitude of “let’s just make animal industry as costly as possible” would understandable cause backlash, make it harder to come to agreements, and I think a reasonable justice system would punish people who do such things (even if they think they are morally in the right).
You asked for a “rough fermi estimate of the trade-offs”, I gave you a list of potential trade-offs.
If we’re willing to make decisions with logic like, “while genetically modifying unnaturally fast-growing chickens in factory farms would increase the pain of each one, perhaps the math works out so that there’s less pain overall”, I feel like adding considerations like, “this intervention will also make meat more expensive, which will reduce use” is a pretty vanilla consideration.
No, those are two totally separate types of considerations? In one you are directly aiming to work against the goals of someone else in a zero-sum fashion, the other one is just a normal prediction about what will actually happen?
You really should have very different norms about how you are dealing with adversarial considerations and how you are dealing with normal causal/environmental considerations. I don’t care about calling them “vanilla” or not, I think we should generally have a high prior against arguments of the form “X is bad, Y is hurting X, therefore Y is good”.
The chickens don’t end up weighing more at the point that they go to slaughter—the faster growth rate is so that they get to the same slaughter weight in a shorter space of time, which uses less feed. Chickens with faster growth rates therefore aren’t replacing more than one slower-growing chicken. The slower-growing breeds live for longer, which would be bad if it was extending the same pain intensity over a longer period of time, but this seems like it isn’t what happens: https://welfarefootprint.org/broilers/
Sure, I don’t think it makes a difference whether the chicken grows to a bigger size in total, or grows to a bigger size more quickly, both would establish a prior that you need fewer years of chicken-suffering for the same amount of meat, and as such that this would be good (barring other considerations).
FWIW, Molly’s comment you linked to quoted and cited Welfare Footprint Project and basically addressed something like “grows to a bigger size more quickly”:
The Welfare Footprint Project used the Cumulative Pain Framework to investigate how the adoption of the Better Chicken Commitment (BCC) and similar welfare certification programs affect the welfare of broilers. Specifically, they examined concerns that the use of slower-growing breeds may increase suffering by extending the life of chickens for the production of the same amount of meat. From their main findings they stated:
‘Our results strongly support the notion that adoption of BCC standards and slower-growing broiler strains have a net positive effect on the welfare of broiler chickens. Because most welfare offenses endured by broilers are strongly associated with fast growth, adoption of slower-growing breeds not only reduces the incidence of these offenses but also delays their onset. As a consequence, slower-growing birds are expected to experience a shorter, not longer, time in pain before being slaughtered.’
You are right! I had mostly paid attention to the bullet points, which didn’t extract the parts of the linked report that addressed my concerns, but you are right that it totally links to the same report that totally does!
Does someone have a rough fermi on the tradeoffs here? On priors it seems like chickens bred to be bigger would overall cause less suffering because they replace more than one chicken that isn’t bread to be as big, but I would expect those chickens to suffer more. I can imagine it going either way, but I guess my prior is that it was broadly good for each individual chicken to weigh more.
I am a bit worried the advocacy here is based more on a purity/environmentalist perspective where genetically modifying animals is bad, but I don’t give that perspective much weight. But it could also be great from a more cost-effectiveness/suffering-minimization oriented perspective, and would be curious in people’s takes.
(Molly was asked this question in a previous post two months ago, but as far as I can tell responded mostly with orthogonal claims that don’t really engage with the core ethical question, so am curious in other people’s takes)
Welfare Footprint Project has analysis here, which they summarize:
The reduction in suffering per chicken is probably >24% if this analysis is correct, and it accounts for longer lives. My guess is >50%, giving substantial weight to disabling pain relative to milder pain. Accounting for more chickens necessary for the same amount of meat (EDIT: although WFP assumes they grow to the same weight) wouldn’t flip things. (And there would be a reduction in demand to partially offset this, due to higher costs per kg of meat.)
Lameness-related pain primarily due to their breed seems to be the largest source of their suffering and responsible for a lot of suffering, so it makes sense to me that slower growing breeds would be better off.
Thank you! This is the kind of analysis I was looking for.
I think it’s worth noting here that (if I’m understanding it right) the alternative breeds recommended by the better chicken commitment are slower-growing but don’t have a lower max weight. And the welfare footprint project numbers on pain durations already account for the longer time to reach full weight.
I’m not sure, but the optimal weight at slaughter could be lower, which I think Lusk et al. (blog post) found for the US. Even if they could reach the same maximum weight, it may be more profitable to slaughter them at lower weights.
Ya, I intended to imply that, but could have worded things better. I’ve edited my comment.
Gotcha, that makes sense! Even if producers slaughter at a lower weight, I think the number of chicken-days of life per kg of meat shouldn’t change much relative to what goes into the WFP analysis. So I don’t think that producers slaughtering earlier changes the quantity of time spent suffering very significantly, just whether it’s distributed among fewer longer-lived chickens or more shorter-lived chickens.
Ah, ya:
(Obvious flag that I know very little about this specific industry)
Agreed that this seems like an important issue. Some quick takes:
Less immediately- obvious pluses/minuses to this sort of campaign:
- Plus #1: I assume that anything the animal industry doesn’t like would increase costs for raising chickens. I’d correspondingly assume that we should want costs to be high (though it would be much better if it could be the government getting these funds, rather than just decreases in efficiency).
- Plus #2: It seems possible that companies have been selecting for growth instead of for well-being. Maybe, if they just can’t select for growth, then selecting more for not-feeling-pain would be cheaper.
- Minus #1: Focusing on the term “Frankenchicken” could discourage other selective breeding or similar, which could be otherwise useful for very globally beneficial attributes, like pain mitigation.
- Ambiguous #1: This could help stop further development here. I assume that it’s possible to later use selective breeding and similar to continue making larger / faster growing chickens.
I think I naively feel like the pluses outweigh the negatives. Maybe I’d give this a 80% chance, without doing much investigation. That said, I’d also imagine there might well be more effective measures with a much clearer trade-off. The question of “is this a net-positive thing” is arguably not nearly as important as “are there fairly-clearly better things to do.”
Lastly, for all of that, I do want to just thanks those helping animals like this. It’s easy for me to argue things one way or the other, but I generally have serious respect for those working to change things, even if I’m not sure if their methods are optimal. I think it’s easy to seem combative on this, but we’re all on a similar team here.
In terms of a “rough fermi analysis”, as I work in the field, I think the numeric part of this is less important at this stage than just laying out a bunch of the key considerations and statistics. What I first want is a careful list of costs and benefits—that seems mature, fairly creative, and unbiased.
I think this feels like a very aggressive zero-sum mindset. I agree that sometimes you want to have an attitude like this, but I at least at the present think that acting with the attitude of “let’s just make animal industry as costly as possible” would understandable cause backlash, make it harder to come to agreements, and I think a reasonable justice system would punish people who do such things (even if they think they are morally in the right).
I feel like that’s pretty unfair.
You asked for a “rough fermi estimate of the trade-offs”, I gave you a list of potential trade-offs.
If we’re willing to make decisions with logic like, “while genetically modifying unnaturally fast-growing chickens in factory farms would increase the pain of each one, perhaps the math works out so that there’s less pain overall”, I feel like adding considerations like, “this intervention will also make meat more expensive, which will reduce use” is a pretty vanilla consideration.
No, those are two totally separate types of considerations? In one you are directly aiming to work against the goals of someone else in a zero-sum fashion, the other one is just a normal prediction about what will actually happen?
You really should have very different norms about how you are dealing with adversarial considerations and how you are dealing with normal causal/environmental considerations. I don’t care about calling them “vanilla” or not, I think we should generally have a high prior against arguments of the form “X is bad, Y is hurting X, therefore Y is good”.
The chickens don’t end up weighing more at the point that they go to slaughter—the faster growth rate is so that they get to the same slaughter weight in a shorter space of time, which uses less feed. Chickens with faster growth rates therefore aren’t replacing more than one slower-growing chicken.
The slower-growing breeds live for longer, which would be bad if it was extending the same pain intensity over a longer period of time, but this seems like it isn’t what happens: https://welfarefootprint.org/broilers/
Sure, I don’t think it makes a difference whether the chicken grows to a bigger size in total, or grows to a bigger size more quickly, both would establish a prior that you need fewer years of chicken-suffering for the same amount of meat, and as such that this would be good (barring other considerations).
FWIW, Molly’s comment you linked to quoted and cited Welfare Footprint Project and basically addressed something like “grows to a bigger size more quickly”:
You are right! I had mostly paid attention to the bullet points, which didn’t extract the parts of the linked report that addressed my concerns, but you are right that it totally links to the same report that totally does!