Corrected days-of-suffering formula. The old formula multiplied indirect impacts (like feed fish and pre-slaughter mortality) by the primary animalâs lifespan. A wild-caught anchovy used as feed suffers for one day regardless of what eats them. The corrected formula treats indirect impacts separately.
Have Faunalytics and Bryant Research (@Chris Bryant đ¸ or @Richie?) considered excluding effects on wild animals (such as wild fishes used for feed)? I am very uncertain about whether expanding agricultural land increases or decreases the welfare/âsuffering/âhappiness of soil invertebrates, and Ibelieve effects on these may be much larger than the effects on farmed animals and wild animals used for feed.
I also do not know whether decreasing the catch of wild fishes for feed increases or decreases animal welfare. Michael St. Jules concluded âdecreasing the catch of wild aquatic animals for feed is likely to decrease aquaculture and increase insect farming, but has unclear effects on brine shrimp nauplii and other live feedâ.
We do calculate both âtotalâ (including feed fish and pre-slaughter mortality) and âdirectâ (excluding feed fish and pre-slaughter mortality) numbers of animals and days of suffering, and that data is in the sheets on the OSF page!
We also differentiate fish by species which are commonly farmed (e.g. salmon) vs. species which are commonly wild-caught (e.g. tuna), and wild-caught species get 1 day of suffering per animal life (i.e. the day they get fished).
As feed, wild-caught fish are overwhelmingly used in aquaculture (92%), and then a little bit in pigs (5% IIRC) and poultry (3% IIRC), so those are the species driving that number (cows are not commonly fed fish.)
On the broader point about the counterfactual impact on wild animal sufferingâIâm afraid that is mostly a factor that this model does not consider, but is a great candidate for a feature to add in future versions.
My ill-informed read is that the ultimate net impact on wild animal suffering would be extremely difficult to predict. For example, tuna (mostly wild-caught) are carnivorous, so the counterfactual there is that theyâd be eating many times more fishâbut then some of those fish also eat other fish! So the whole thing feels quite intractable quite quickly, but as I say, I donât know a ton about this topic, so maybe thatâs a cop-out...!
I hope this was helpful, and Iâd be happy to be corrected on the tractability of considering net impact on wild animal suffering!
Hi Chris. Thanks for the clarifications. I agree including more effects on wild animals would be difficult. Note my question was whether you have âconsidered excluding effects on wild animals (such as wild fishes used for feed)â. You might have read âincludingâ instead of âexcludingâ. Would it be better to exclude effects on all wild animals? It could be that the wild fishes used for feed would have suffered more if they were not caught.
Hi Jienna. Thanks for the update.
Have Faunalytics and Bryant Research (@Chris Bryant đ¸ or @Richie?) considered excluding effects on wild animals (such as wild fishes used for feed)? I am very uncertain about whether expanding agricultural land increases or decreases the welfare/âsuffering/âhappiness of soil invertebrates, and I believe effects on these may be much larger than the effects on farmed animals and wild animals used for feed.
I also do not know whether decreasing the catch of wild fishes for feed increases or decreases animal welfare. Michael St. Jules concluded âdecreasing the catch of wild aquatic animals for feed is likely to decrease aquaculture and increase insect farming, but has unclear effects on brine shrimp nauplii and other live feedâ.
Hi @Vasco Grilođ¸, thanks for your comment!
We do calculate both âtotalâ (including feed fish and pre-slaughter mortality) and âdirectâ (excluding feed fish and pre-slaughter mortality) numbers of animals and days of suffering, and that data is in the sheets on the OSF page!
We also differentiate fish by species which are commonly farmed (e.g. salmon) vs. species which are commonly wild-caught (e.g. tuna), and wild-caught species get 1 day of suffering per animal life (i.e. the day they get fished).
As feed, wild-caught fish are overwhelmingly used in aquaculture (92%), and then a little bit in pigs (5% IIRC) and poultry (3% IIRC), so those are the species driving that number (cows are not commonly fed fish.)
On the broader point about the counterfactual impact on wild animal sufferingâIâm afraid that is mostly a factor that this model does not consider, but is a great candidate for a feature to add in future versions.
My ill-informed read is that the ultimate net impact on wild animal suffering would be extremely difficult to predict. For example, tuna (mostly wild-caught) are carnivorous, so the counterfactual there is that theyâd be eating many times more fishâbut then some of those fish also eat other fish! So the whole thing feels quite intractable quite quickly, but as I say, I donât know a ton about this topic, so maybe thatâs a cop-out...!
I hope this was helpful, and Iâd be happy to be corrected on the tractability of considering net impact on wild animal suffering!
Hi Chris. Thanks for the clarifications. I agree including more effects on wild animals would be difficult. Note my question was whether you have âconsidered excluding effects on wild animals (such as wild fishes used for feed)â. You might have read âincludingâ instead of âexcludingâ. Would it be better to exclude effects on all wild animals? It could be that the wild fishes used for feed would have suffered more if they were not caught.