Philosophy, global priorities and animal welfare research. My current specific interests include: philosophy of mind, moral weights, person-affecting views, preference-based views and subjectivism, moral uncertainty, decision theory, deep uncertainty and cluelessness, and indirect effects on wild animals.
I've also done economic modelling for some animal welfare issues.
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.
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.
Are you effectively assuming that when they are awake and not experiencing hurtful pain or worse, that they are experiencing pleasure as intense as hurtful pain? I would probably assume only pleasure that intense for eating, dustbathing and playing, at most. Foraging might be annoying or hurtful intensity.
Given your (partial) success in court (reported here and here), have your plans changed for what you'd use extra funding for? And has the funding gap changed? Your post says:
We will now explore bringing private prosecutions against mega-farms that use Frankenchickens.
I could imagine that a higher human population could induce demand for agriculture and increased trash output which could increase terrestrial invertebrate populations.
So this would be more food/net primary productivity available for terrestrial invertebrates to eat, and agriculture would have to increase net primary productivity overall (EDIT: or transform it into a more useful form for invertebrates), right?
My best guess is that more humans reduces wild terrestrial invertebrate populations in the near term / on Earth (so ignoring space colonization), largely through agricultural land use.[1] If you think:
then increasing human populations could be good for animals in the near term, with the effect on wild animals outweighing those on farmed animals.
It's unclear to me what's going on with wild aquatic animals.
See especially Tables 3 and 4 from Attwood et al., 2008.
Net primary productivity is also typically lower in crops, across crops, based on "Land Use Change" greenhouse gas emissions from OWID / Poore & Nemecek, 2018.
Gross primary productivity decreases when replacing forest with crops, but increases if replacing grassland with crops, according to the globally representative study Krause et al., 2022.
Some other studies support increased and others decreased net productivity in crops compared to nature (Tomasik, 2013–2022, a, b)
But pesticides and fertilizers also plausibly reduce arthropod populations based on my lit reviews (but less clear in the long run with repeated use), so even if primary productivity increased, arthropod populations could still be lower overall.
I'd guess other forage fish's life histories will give you a general idea of bristlemouths' life histories.
About Peruvian anchoveta, one of the most wild-caught fish, representing 28% of the number of fish caught annually on average (Mood & Brooke, 2024), Molina-Valdivia et al. (2020) write:
Early larval growth and mortality of anchoveta is highly variable at intra-seasonal and latitudinal scales along the Chilean coast. In northern Chile (23 °S), larval growth varies between 0.50- and 0.85-mm day−1, with daily losses of 16–23% (Contreras et al., 2017); meanwhile, in central Chile (36 °S), larvae grew at 0.40-0.57 mm day−1, with daily losses of 4–7% (Castro and Hernández, 2000; Hernández and Castro, 2000).
See also Fig. 4. H (and G for another species) for the drop in abundance over time as larvae, leaving less than 1% after 40 days according to their fitted model.
Butler et al. (1993, Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4) report fecundity and mortality estimates for northern anchovies (Engraulis mordax) and Pacific sardines (Sardinops sagax) at various life stages. A female northern anchovy spawns 5.3 to 23.5 times per year, 4,000 to 14,000 eggs each time. I have some calculations for mortality rates at various life stages based on this paper here.
I think bristlemouths just make up a large share of all fish, by numbers of individuals. Lanternfish do, too. When someone says "a quadrillion", this is an order of magnitude estimate, so it could easily be 3x too high or 3x too low. The estimates seem consistent to me as order of magnitude estimates, as long as bristlemouths do make up a decent share of all fish, like >30% of individuals.
The Micronekton Wikipedia page says:
Bristlemouths (Gonostomatidae), largely Cyclothone, account for more than 50% of the total vertebrate abundance between 100 and 1000 m. Twenty-one species of bristlemouths have been described globally. Lanternfishes are the secondmost abundant marine vertebrates, having diversified into 252 species.[24]
Futhermore, among pelagic fishes from 0-5000 m in the Sargasso Sea, northwestern Atlantic Ocean, “[t]he bristlemouth, Cyclothone braueri, dominated the catches both above (47%) and below (41%) 1000 m” (Sutton et al., 2010).
The number of bristlemouths has been estimated to be in the “hundreds of trillions — and perhaps quadrillions, or thousands of trillions” (Broad, 2015), so 10^14 to 10^16.
I estimated the number of lanternfish to be approximately between 10^14 and 10^16, based on a “total global biomass of 1.8 to 16 gigatonnes, accounting for up to 65% of all deep-sea fish biomass” (Lanternfish - Wikipedia, based on Hulley, 1998, pp. 127–128, ISBN 0-12-547665-5) and an average weight of "two to six grams" (Blacow, 2015).
This is all from my piece Which animals are most affected by fishing?
On whether they're R-strategists: ecologists may have moved on from that classification, but either way, bristlemouths are fish, and almost all fish species, as far as I know, have many offspring (at least hundreds?) and high juvenile mortality rates (>90%?). Bristlemouths are forage fish, so food for predators. But they also probably eat zooplankton, like copepods.
Ah, ya: