To clarify, my post is about the calories consumed by the animals, not about the animal calories consumed by humans. However, I agree running a similar analysis for the calories provided per animal, and then factoring in their lifespan (and median welfare range, and ideally quality of life) would be quite interesting too! Just in case you are not aware, Brian Tomasik has a piece about âequivalent days of suffering caused per kg demandedâ. There is a website which weights days of suffering by various functions of the number of neurons, and also accounted for climate change, but I do not remember the name (Michael St. Jules should know). Maybe they could add an option to weight by Rethinkâs median welfare ranges.
I was thinking about welfare ranges per calories consumed by the animals with the goal of getting a sense of what type of beings would fill the world in order to increase welfare. For a given amount of energy, and welfare as a fraction of the welfare range, it looks like feeding bees produces much more welfare than feeding humans. Nevertheless, I do not think one should start tilling the universe with bees just yet! This is only one of many factors to consider.
There is a website which weights days of suffering by various functions of the number of neurons, and also accounted for climate change, but I do not remember the name (Michael St. Jules should know).
I asked Michael, and the website is Food impacts, which is now using Rethinkâs median welfare range estimates instead of functions of the number of neurons. In the methodology page, other analyses of welfare impacts per calorie are mentioned:
Rankings based on welfare have been developed previously by various individuals and groups such as Peter Hurford, Brian Tomasik, Charity Entrepreneurship and Dominik Peters. This tool is a minor extension of the work of Dominik Peters that also considers emissions in addition to welfare. I want to thank Dominik for kindly providing the data and methodology that he used.
I think Julian Galed also did one many years ago, looking into days of animal living time per calorie.
FYI, I also have a short draft related to the badness of eating farmed animals as a fraction of the human goodness supported by their calories. Your comments are welcome, but no worries if you have other priorities now. I trust your decision-making! Update on July 22: published!
Hi Vasco, Iâm not sure Food Impacts is calculating things correctly. They start off by calculating the number of animal hours lived to create 2,000 calories, which is reasonable. The next step should be to multiply that number by the average welfare of an animal, since that should tell you how many negative welfare units would be averted by not creating the demand for 2,000 calories.
But instead, they multiply by the welfare range of the animal.
This doesnât make sense to me. If a farmed cowâs actual welfare is â0.1, why does it matter that its welfare range is â0.25 to 0.25? To figure out how much negative welfare I can avert, I care about the â0.1!
Am I thinking about this correctly?
And if so, is there a good resource for actual welfare values for farmed animals, rather than the theoretical ranges?
And if so, is there a good resource for actual welfare values for farmed animals, rather than the theoretical ranges?
I have estimated the welfare per living time of chickens in various conditions in animal quality-adjusted life years (AQALYs) per chicken-year. 1 AQALY corresponds to 1 year of a practically maximally happy life. As a rough approximation, you can get the welfare in QALYs mutiplying the welfare in AQALYs by Rethink Prioritiesâ median welfare ranges[1].
Animal
Broiler in a conventional scenario
Broiler in a reformed scenario
Hen in a conventional cage
Hen in a cage-free aviary
Welfare per living time (AQALY/âyear)
-2.27
-0.161
-1.69
-0.333
I have some estimates for shrimp too (this post has estimates for chickens, but these rely on underestimates of the time they spend in pain, whereas the ones above try to correct for this).
This would only be 100 % correct if the welfare per time of the practically maximally happy life as a fraction of the welfare range is constant across species.
As a rough approximation, you can get the welfare an QALYs mutiplying the welfare in AQALYs by Rethink Prioritiesâ median welfare ranges
I might be misunderstanding something, but Iâm not sure thatâs right, even with your footnote. My understanding is that animal AQALYs per years and human QALYs per year both range from +1 at the top, to some species-specific negative value at the bottom. The same is true of the Rethink welfare units, but with a different scale. If so, shouldnât the formula be as described below?
This would only be 100 % correct if the welfare per time of the practically maximally happy life as a fraction of the welfare range is constant across species.
In this case, âmaximum welfare of a chicken-yearâ/â(âmaximum welfare of a chicken-yearâââminimum welfare of a chicken-yearâ) = âmaximum welfare of a human-yearâ/â(âmaximum welfare of a human-yearâââminimum welfare of a human-yearâ) â âmaximum welfare of a chicken-yearâ = (âmaximum welfare of a chicken-yearâââminimum welfare of a chicken-yearâ)/â(âmaximum welfare of a human-yearâââminimum welfare of a human-yearâ)*âmaximum welfare of a human-yearâ. Since âwelfare range of chickensâ = (âmaximum welfare of a chicken-yearâââminimum welfare of a chicken-yearâ)/â(âmaximum welfare of a human-yearâââminimum welfare of a human-yearâ), âmaximum welfare of a chicken-yearâ = â1 AQALY in chickensâ, and âmaximum welfare of a human-yearâ = â1 QALYâ, â1 AQALY in chickensâ = âwelfare range of chickensâ*â1 QALYâ. So, given the condition I mentioned in the footnote, one can get the welfare in QALYs mutiplying the welfare in AQALYs by the welfare range.
I am glad you found it interesting, Laura!
To clarify, my post is about the calories consumed by the animals, not about the animal calories consumed by humans. However, I agree running a similar analysis for the calories provided per animal, and then factoring in their lifespan (and median welfare range, and ideally quality of life) would be quite interesting too! Just in case you are not aware, Brian Tomasik has a piece about âequivalent days of suffering caused per kg demandedâ. There is a website which weights days of suffering by various functions of the number of neurons, and also accounted for climate change, but I do not remember the name (Michael St. Jules should know). Maybe they could add an option to weight by Rethinkâs median welfare ranges.
I was thinking about welfare ranges per calories consumed by the animals with the goal of getting a sense of what type of beings would fill the world in order to increase welfare. For a given amount of energy, and welfare as a fraction of the welfare range, it looks like feeding bees produces much more welfare than feeding humans. Nevertheless, I do not think one should start tilling the universe with bees just yet! This is only one of many factors to consider.
Oh I see! Thanks for the clarification!
I asked Michael, and the website is Food impacts, which is now using Rethinkâs median welfare range estimates instead of functions of the number of neurons. In the methodology page, other analyses of welfare impacts per calorie are mentioned:
I think Julian Galed also did one many years ago, looking into days of animal living time per calorie.
FYI, I also have a short draft related to the badness of eating farmed animals as a fraction of the human goodness supported by their calories. Your comments are welcome, but no worries if you have other priorities now. I trust your decision-making! Update on July 22: published!
Hi Vasco, Iâm not sure Food Impacts is calculating things correctly. They start off by calculating the number of animal hours lived to create 2,000 calories, which is reasonable. The next step should be to multiply that number by the average welfare of an animal, since that should tell you how many negative welfare units would be averted by not creating the demand for 2,000 calories.
But instead, they multiply by the welfare range of the animal.
This doesnât make sense to me. If a farmed cowâs actual welfare is â0.1, why does it matter that its welfare range is â0.25 to 0.25? To figure out how much negative welfare I can avert, I care about the â0.1!
Am I thinking about this correctly?
And if so, is there a good resource for actual welfare values for farmed animals, rather than the theoretical ranges?
Thanks for the comment, Chris!
Yes.
I have estimated the welfare per living time of chickens in various conditions in animal quality-adjusted life years (AQALYs) per chicken-year. 1 AQALY corresponds to 1 year of a practically maximally happy life. As a rough approximation, you can get the welfare in QALYs mutiplying the welfare in AQALYs by Rethink Prioritiesâ median welfare ranges[1].
I have some estimates for shrimp too (this post has estimates for chickens, but these rely on underestimates of the time they spend in pain, whereas the ones above try to correct for this).
This would only be 100 % correct if the welfare per time of the practically maximally happy life as a fraction of the welfare range is constant across species.
Thanks Vasco,
I might be misunderstanding something, but Iâm not sure thatâs right, even with your footnote. My understanding is that animal AQALYs per years and human QALYs per year both range from +1 at the top, to some species-specific negative value at the bottom. The same is true of the Rethink welfare units, but with a different scale. If so, shouldnât the formula be as described below?
In this case, âmaximum welfare of a chicken-yearâ/â(âmaximum welfare of a chicken-yearâââminimum welfare of a chicken-yearâ) = âmaximum welfare of a human-yearâ/â(âmaximum welfare of a human-yearâââminimum welfare of a human-yearâ) â âmaximum welfare of a chicken-yearâ = (âmaximum welfare of a chicken-yearâââminimum welfare of a chicken-yearâ)/â(âmaximum welfare of a human-yearâââminimum welfare of a human-yearâ)*âmaximum welfare of a human-yearâ. Since âwelfare range of chickensâ = (âmaximum welfare of a chicken-yearâââminimum welfare of a chicken-yearâ)/â(âmaximum welfare of a human-yearâââminimum welfare of a human-yearâ), âmaximum welfare of a chicken-yearâ = â1 AQALY in chickensâ, and âmaximum welfare of a human-yearâ = â1 QALYâ, â1 AQALY in chickensâ = âwelfare range of chickensâ*â1 QALYâ. So, given the condition I mentioned in the footnote, one can get the welfare in QALYs mutiplying the welfare in AQALYs by the welfare range.
Got it, thanks. For those following along at home, I misread your footnote and the graphs I made do not reflect the condition in the footnote.
If it makes things easier, you can copy the Google Slides source to tweak the illustration https://ââdocs.google.com/ââpresentation/ââd/ââ1LuSpONztS9Tl0OSn-YeyWJG7B6UIYtff49p1WREPPgA/ââedit#slide=id.p