A new analysis suggests that reducing the consumption of smaller farmed animals, such as chickens, turkeys, and fish, can significantly decrease the overall suffering of animals in factory farming. The study, conducted by Chris Bryant and the animal welfare research group Faunalytics, quantifies the "suffering footprint" embedded in various animal products.
The research aimed to provide consumers with a new perspective on dietary choices by calculating the number of animal lives and the days of suffering associated with producing one pound of different animal products. Researchers analyzed data from sources including the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the United Nations, incorporating factors like the lifespan of farmed animals and the use of "feeder" fish in the diets of farmed fish.
The analysis highlights shrimp as a major contributor to animal suffering, with a single serving potentially causing more suffering than an entire burger. However, considering the prevalence of seafood in American diets, the study emphasizes that reducing poultry consumption—chicken, turkey, and eggs—is the most effective dietary change for most individuals seeking to lessen their impact on farmed animals.
This focus on smaller animals is attributed to the "small body problem," where a greater number of individual animals are needed to produce the same amount of meat as larger animals. Chickens and turkeys, for instance, are smaller and are farmed in higher numbers, often under conditions with lower welfare standards. For example, chickens raised for meat are bred for rapid growth, leading to health issues, and many egg-laying hens are confined to small cages.
While larger animals like cattle and pigs also experience significant suffering, including procedures performed without pain relief and confinement, their larger size means their suffering is distributed across more edible product. This makes each bite of beef or pork less impactful in terms of individual animal lives and suffering days compared to smaller animals.
One surprising finding is the impact of egg consumption. Despite not directly involving the slaughter of hens for meat, the welfare conditions for egg-laying hens are often poor. Many are kept in confined cages, and their beaks are trimmed without anesthetic. When their egg production declines, they are typically slaughtered. The study suggests that reducing egg consumption or opting for "pasture-raised" eggs can contribute to reducing animal suffering.
Researchers acknowledge limitations in the study, particularly its focus on "days of life" as a primary metric for suffering. Trevor Woolley, an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, noted that while the numbers are estimates, they provide a reasonable approximation. The study does not deeply account for the varying severity of suffering experienced by different species. For example, while dairy cows may have better daily conditions than caged hens, their longer lifespans on farms could represent a different scale of suffering that is not fully captured by the current metric.
The findings offer a practical approach for individuals who may not wish to adopt a fully vegetarian or vegan diet, suggesting that a targeted reduction in the consumption of smaller animals can still lead to substantial positive change for farmed animal welfare.