Hide table of contents
You are viewing a version of this post published on the . This link will always display the most recent version of the post.

In a table, I combine various estimates of the number of animals farmed with Rethink Priorities' welfare range or moral weight estimates (Fischer, 2023) or my own guesses for others based on them. The table is also accessible here with calculations and some notes for some of the figures.

 

Farmed animalsIndividual welfare range (Rethink Priorities' Fischer, 2023, and my own guesses for others in italics)Total welfare range of those alive at any time (billions)Welfare range * number killed per year (billions)Number alive at any time (billions)Number killed per year (billions)Total weight of animals harvested per year (millions of tonnes)Sources for animal numbers and tonnage
Pigs0.5150.50.767350.981.49123Šimčikas, 2020 and Our World in Data (a, b)
Cattle (and buffaloes)0.50.90.16791.70.335876Šimčikas, 2020 and Our World in Data (a, b)
Sheep and goats0.51.10.57052.21.1417Šimčikas, 2020 and Our World in Data (a, b)
Chickens0.3327.924.923.775139Šimčikas, 2020 and Our World in Data (a, b)
Fish (excluding wild fishery stocking)0.0899.29.910311160Šimčikas, 2020, FAO, 2022 (Figure 13)
Fish for wild fishery stocking0.0891.37.11580 Šimčikas, 2020, Šimčikas, 2019
Decapod shrimp0.0317.113.62304406.6Waldhorn & Autric, 2023
Insect larvae (2030 projection)0.0020.7823.8391119051.82030 production projection by de Jong & Nikolik, 2021 (pdf))
Brine shrimp nauplii (early larvae)0.00020.30108.014795400000.003Boddy/Shrimp Welfare Project, unpublished, tonnage from The Fish Site, 2019
Total of above 27.7187.92245552612224 

 

Some notes:

  1. When central estimates were not available, I've replaced ranges with my own best guess central estimates.
  2. The numbers for insect larvae are based on the projection of production by 2030 by de Jong & Nikolik, 2021 (pdf), for production only in North America and Europe and only for farmed animal feed and pet food, although they expected feed to account for most insect farming, and most investment had been for farms in North America and Europe. I use weights and lifespans reflecting black soldier fly larvae. I use Rethink Priorities’ welfare range estimate for silkworms for them.
  3. Some of the above estimates may not account for pre-slaughter/pre-harvest mortality, so may understate the number alive at a time or that are killed other than by harvest/slaughter.
  4. The figures for “Total weight of animals harvested per year” may be somewhat inconsistent, with some potentially reflecting only meat after removing parts, and others the whole bodies.
  5. There are other farmed animals not included above, but the above seems to account for almost all of them (Šimčikas, 2020, Waldhorn & Autric, 2023).

 

Brine shrimp nauplii

For some background on brine shrimp (Artemia) nauplii (early larvae), see Van Stappen, 1996The Fish Site, 2019Brine shrimp - Wikipedia and Aquaculture of brine shrimp - Wikipedia. They are largely used as feed for fish larvae and decapod shrimp larvae. The number estimates are based on unpublished estimates by Aaron Boddy from Shrimp Welfare Project. I assume, as a guess conditional on being sentient at all, brine shrimp nauplii are sentient for one day before they die, roughly between hatching from the cyst (egg) after being added to tanks as a cyst to feed fish or shrimp larvae and actually being eaten.

I doubt their (potential) mental capacities have been studied much at all. Their average weights as feed are probably around 5*10^-6 grams,[1] similar to nematodes.[2] Rethink Priorities has been fairly skeptical of nematode sentience, with representative probabilities around 0.4% to 7%, and lower than for silkworms, sea hares and earthworms, and even lower still than for mature insects and decapod shrimp (Schukraft et al., 2019, Duffy, 2023).

I consider brine shrimp nauplii to challenge expected value reasoning and moral aggregation (see Sebo, 2023). I am fairly inclined to ignore them altogether, perhaps no matter their number, or at least discount them more than linearly. This may be partly due to moral uncertainty and partly due to different attitudes towards risk and aggregation. However, further research on their mental capacities could be valuable. Furthermore, the table includes only nauplii, not the breeding stock, who probably have greater individual moral weights.

  1. ^

     180,000 nauplii per gram of (dried?) cysts, according to Alune, 2021 and 0.4*10^-5 grams per 1-mm brine shrimp according to Tong et al., 2000, Table 2.

  2. ^

     Around 10^-7 grams per individual based on Bar-On, Phillips & Milo, 2018, Table S1, with 0.02 gigatonnes of nematode carbon and 10^21 nematodes, and assuming nematodes are 15% carbon by weight. “0.04–7.34 µg per individual” for macrobenthic nematodes according to Sharma et al., 2011, which may be larger than typical.

Comments4


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thanks, Michael! For readers' reference, I have also estimated the scale of the welfare of various animal populations[1]:

PopulationIntensity of the mean experience as a fraction of the median welfare rangeMedian welfare rangeIntensity of the mean experience as a fraction of that of humansPopulation sizeAbsolute value of ETHU as a fraction of that of humans
Farmed insects raised for food and feed12.9 μ2.00 m3.87 m8.65E100.0423
Farmed pigs12.9 μ0.5151.009.86E80.124
Farmed crayfish, crabs and lobsters12.9 μ0.03050.05902.21E100.165
Humans6.67 μ1.001.007.91E91.00
Farmed shrimps and prawns12.9 μ0.03100.05991.39E111.05
Farmed fish12.9 μ0.05600.1081.11E111.52
Farmed chickens12.9 μ0.3320.6422.14E101.74
Farmed animals analysed here12.9 μ0.03620.07001.36E124.64
Wild mammals6.67 μ0.5150.5156.75E1143.9
Wild fish6.67 μ0.05600.05606.20E144.39 k
Wild terrestrial arthropods6.67 μ2.00 m2.00 m1.00E18253 k
Wild marine arthropods6.67 μ2.00 m2.00 m1.00E2025.3 M
Nematodes6.67 μ0.200 m0.200 m1.00E2125.3 M
Wild animals analysed here6.67 μ0.365 m0.365 m1.10E2150.8 M

I think it makes sense that Open Philanthropy prioritises chickens, fish and shrimp, as these are the 3 populations of farmed animals with the most suffering according to the above (1.74, 1.52 and 1.05 as much suffering as the happiness of all humans).

  1. ^

    ETHU in the header of the last column means expected total hedonistic utility.

Ah, I definitely saw your post before, but it looks like I forgot about it. Thanks for the reminder.

(I started building the table here for another piece that uses it, and decided to spin off a separate piece with the table. That next post should be up in the next few days.)

I guess I'll add humans for comparison, like you.

Executive summary: The number of farmed animals, especially small animals like fish, shrimp, and insect larvae, is extremely large and raises questions about the scale of animal welfare considerations in agriculture.

Key points:

  1. Estimates suggest there are over 2 trillion farmed vertebrate animals alive at any given time, with over 500 trillion killed per year.
  2. Farmed shrimp, fish, and insect larvae vastly outnumber farmed mammals and birds.
  3. Brine shrimp nauplii, with 1.5 trillion alive at a time and 540 trillion killed per year, challenge expected value reasoning and moral aggregation due to their small size and uncertain sentience.
  4. Further research on the mental capacities of small farmed animals like shrimp and insect larvae could be valuable for assessing their moral weight.
  5. The scale of animal farming, especially of small animals, raises important questions about the magnitude of animal welfare considerations in agriculture.

 

 

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Executive summary: The number of farmed animals, especially small animals like fish, shrimp, and insect larvae, is extremely large and raises questions about the scale of animal welfare considerations in agriculture.

Key points:

  1. Estimates suggest there are over 2 trillion farmed vertebrate animals alive at any given time, with over 500 trillion killed per year.
  2. Farmed shrimp, fish, and insect larvae vastly outnumber farmed mammals and birds.
  3. Brine shrimp nauplii, with 1.5 trillion alive at a time and 540 trillion killed per year, challenge expected value reasoning and moral aggregation due to their small size and uncertain sentience.
  4. Further research on the mental capacities of small farmed animals like shrimp and insect larvae could be valuable for assessing their moral weight.
  5. The scale of animal farming, especially of small animals, raises important questions about the magnitude of animal welfare considerations in agriculture.

 

 

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Curated and popular this week
trammell
 ·  · 25m read
 · 
Introduction When a system is made safer, its users may be willing to offset at least some of the safety improvement by using it more dangerously. A seminal example is that, according to Peltzman (1975), drivers largely compensated for improvements in car safety at the time by driving more dangerously. The phenomenon in general is therefore sometimes known as the “Peltzman Effect”, though it is more often known as “risk compensation”.[1] One domain in which risk compensation has been studied relatively carefully is NASCAR (Sobel and Nesbit, 2007; Pope and Tollison, 2010), where, apparently, the evidence for a large compensation effect is especially strong.[2] In principle, more dangerous usage can partially, fully, or more than fully offset the extent to which the system has been made safer holding usage fixed. Making a system safer thus has an ambiguous effect on the probability of an accident, after its users change their behavior. There’s no reason why risk compensation shouldn’t apply in the existential risk domain, and we arguably have examples in which it has. For example, reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) makes AI more reliable, all else equal; so it may be making some AI labs comfortable releasing more capable, and so maybe more dangerous, models than they would release otherwise.[3] Yet risk compensation per se appears to have gotten relatively little formal, public attention in the existential risk community so far. There has been informal discussion of the issue: e.g. risk compensation in the AI risk domain is discussed by Guest et al. (2023), who call it “the dangerous valley problem”. There is also a cluster of papers and works in progress by Robert Trager, Allan Dafoe, Nick Emery-Xu, Mckay Jensen, and others, including these two and some not yet public but largely summarized here, exploring the issue formally in models with multiple competing firms. In a sense what they do goes well beyond this post, but as far as I’m aware none of t
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
 ·  · 19m read
 · 
I am no prophet, and here’s no great matter. — T.S. Eliot, “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock”   This post is a personal account of a California legislative campaign I worked on March-June 2024, in my capacity as the indoor air quality program lead at 1Day Sooner. It’s very long—I included as many details as possible to illustrate a playbook of everything we tried, what the surprises and challenges were, and how someone might spend their time during a policy advocacy project.   History of SB 1308 Advocacy Effort SB 1308 was introduced in the California Senate by Senator Lena Gonzalez, the Senate (Floor) Majority Leader, and was sponsored by Regional Asthma Management and Prevention (RAMP). The bill was based on a report written by researchers at UC Davis and commissioned by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The bill sought to ban the sale of ozone-emitting air cleaners in California, which would have included far-UV, an extremely promising tool for fighting pathogen transmission and reducing pandemic risk. Because California is such a large market and so influential for policy, and the far-UV industry is struggling, we were seriously concerned that the bill would crush the industry. A partner organization first notified us on March 21 about SB 1308 entering its comment period before it would be heard in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources, but said that their organization would not be able to be publicly involved. Very shortly after that, a researcher from Ushio America, a leading far-UV manufacturer, sent out a mass email to professors whose support he anticipated, requesting comments from them. I checked with my boss, Josh Morrison,[1] as to whether it was acceptable for 1Day Sooner to get involved if the partner organization was reluctant, and Josh gave me the go-ahead to submit a public comment to the committee. Aware that the letters alone might not do much, Josh reached out to a friend of his to ask about lobbyists with expertise in Cal