Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell
Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell
Embedded Files
Sources – Meat Torture
Sources – Meat Torture
We thank our experts for their feedback:
Hannah Ritchie
Deputy Editor and Lead Researcher, Our World in Data
Researcher, Oxford Martin Programme in Global Development, University of Oxford.Kevin Kuruc
Senior Researcher, Population Wellbeing Initiative, University of Texas
Senior Research Affiliate, Global Priorities Institute, University of Oxford (sponsored by Open Philanthropy)
Cynthia Schuck-Paim
Research Director, Welfare Footprint Project (sponsored by Open Philanthropy)
Romain Espinosa
Researcher in Economics, Centre international de recherche sur l'environnement et le développement, Centre national de la recherche scientifique
—We’ve all heard the arguments against eating meat, and yet in the EU and US between 1% and 6% of people don’t eat it.
The estimates vary between studies, countries and years. Most studies rely on self-reporting.
#Stahler, Charles; Mangels, Reed (2022): “How Many Vegetarians and Vegans are there?” YouGov
https://www.vrg.org/nutshell/CulturedMeatYouGov2022.pdf
Quote:”We found in 2022 that six percent of U.S. adults are vegetarian (including vegans), and that three percent of U.S. adults are vegan.”
#Palakis, Georgios; et al. (2020): ”Prevalence and psychopathology of vegetarians and vegans – Results from a representative survey in Germany” Scientific reports, vol. 10, 1, 6840
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7176641/
Quote: “The prevalence of vegetarianism varies around the world with recent polls indicating that approximately 5% of Americans, 8% of Canadians, and 4.3% of Germans follow a vegetarian die”
#Faber, Ilona; et al. (2020): “Attitudes and knowledge towards plant-based diets of young adults across four European countries. Exploratory survey” Appetite, vol 145, 104498
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195666319300911
Quote: “[O]nly a tiny minority is self-defined as vegetarian or vegan (Denmark: 4% (Coop, 2011), Belgium: 1.7%, Spain: 1.5–4%, and the Netherlands: 4.5% (Dagevos, Voordouw, Van der Weele, & De Bakker, 2012)).”
—Most of us have pets and genuinely believe in animal rights. Few things make the internet as angry as animal cruelty.
#Applebaum, Jennifer W.; Peek, Chuck W.; Zsembik, Barbara A. (2020): “Examining U.S. pet ownership using the General Social Survey” The Social Science Journal, vol. 60, 1, 110–119.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03623319.2020.1728507
Quote: “About 60% of the U.S. population owns at least one pet, most commonly a dog.”
The number is lower for the EU
#European Comission (2023): ”Questions and Answers on the welfare of dogs and cats”
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_23_6253
Quote: “When it comes to pets overall, around 44% of all households in the EU have a companion animal, and over 90% are dogs or cats.”
Public attitude to animal rights is overwhelmingly positive.
#Animal-Human Policy Center of Colorado State University (2024): “United States Resident Survey on Animal Protection Issues and Policy Solutions”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c6z9RjapQ_dR4LhwJ21qbGa9kBl-JqTk/view
Quote: “For all five case studies examined, the majority of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed with all potential proposed state or federal policies to reduce animal suffering caused by humans. More than 75% of the sample somewhat or strongly supported most proposed state or federal policies, and support for proposed state-level policies was typically slightly higher than support for federal policies. The highest level of support was for a state law expanding space for pigs in factory farms: specifically, 90.4% of respondents indicated they would be somewhat or very supportive of a state law requiring that all farming operations provide sufficient space, at the minimum, for pigs to stand up, turn around, and stretch their legs.”
#European Comission (2023): “Attitudes of Europeans towards animal welfare”
https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2996
Quote: “84% of Europeans believe that the welfare of farmed animals should be better protected in their country than it is now. A similar number (83%) support limiting the transport time of animals. Almost three quarters of respondents (74%) support better protection of the welfare of pet animals in their country and 90% of Europeans consider that farming and breeding practices should meet basic ethical requirements.”
—A short disclaimer: The farming industry is complicated. Many farmers are genuinely trying to give their animals the best life possible, but they are trapped in a complex system with extreme market pressure to keep prices low. No two countries have the same standards, no two farms are equal, and solid data is often scarce. We’ve done our best to combine data from different regions and the prices YOU pay in the end.
We are most interested in retail price data, as it is the one that consumers like yourself perceive.
However, retail data is not always available. In these cases, we have derived differences in retail prices from differences in wholesale prices (that is, prices that shops or supermarkets pay for a product that they will sell to an end consumer) and differences in production costs (that is, how much more expensive it would be for a farmer to follow one method of production compared to another).
In both cases, we have assumed that differences in production costs are transferred one-to-one to the wholesale price and to the final customer.
Sometimes, where data of one type or one region was incomplete, we have supplemented it with data of another type or region.
—At any given time there are about 26 billion chickens alive on Earth – as many as all other birds combined.
#FAO (retrieved 2024): FAOSTAT, Crops and livestock products
https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL
According to FAO estimates, in 2022 there were 26,561,634,000 chickens while more than 75 billion chickens were slaughtered.
If other birds such as ducks, geese or turkeys were added to the list, there would be another 17 billion animals as livestock.
Though this calculation has a very high uncertainty, it may be just as much as all other birds alive today:
#Callaghan, Corey T.; Nakagawa, Shinichi; Cornwell, William K. (2021): “Global abundance estimates for 9,700 bird species”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118, 21
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2023170118
Quote: “We calculate that there are likely to be ∼50 billion individual birds in the world at present: about six birds for every human on the planet. This represents the midpoint of our estimates (i.e., the median), albeit with considerable uncertainty (Fig. 2). Compared with the median estimate, the mean estimate of the aggregated distribution for all birds in the world was ∼428 billion individual birds (Fig. 2).”
—Chickens seem dumb, but they are social, can communicate, solve problems and feel empathy. And yet, we keep the vast majority in insane torture.
#Smith, Carolynn L.; Zielinski, Sarah L. (2014): “The Startling Intelligence of the Common Chicken” Scientific American
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-startling-intelligence-of-the-common-chicken/ Quote: “Few people think about the chicken as intelligent, however. In recent years, though, scientists have learned that this bird can be deceptive and cunning, that it possesses communication skills on par with those of some primates and that it uses sophisticated signals to convey its intentions. When making decisions, the chicken takes into account its own prior experience and knowledge surrounding the situation. It can solve complex problems and empathizes with individuals that are in danger.”
—Let’s start with eggs. Worldwide, about 90% of laying hens live in torture camps – crammed in extremely tight cages where they can barely move. They are unable to show any natural chicken behavior like nesting, roosting, foraging or pecking at the ground, so they become extremely frustrated and end up hurting each other badly. To stop this, many farms clip their beaks.
Percentage calculated from:
#Our World in Data (2020): “Laying hens in cages and cage-free housing”
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/laying-hens-cages-and-cage-free
Based on the publication:
#Schuck-Paim, Cynthia; Negro-Calduch, Elsa; Alonso, Wladimir J. (2021): “Laying hen mortality in different indoor housing systems: a meta-analysis of data from commercial farms in 16 countries”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-81868-3
Other reports with similar findings, when taken from country data and by egg production:
#Sentience Institute (2019): “Global Farmed & Factory Farmed Animals Estimates: Hen Estimates”
https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/global-animal-farming-estimates
Beak trimming is a common practice used to mitigate feather pecking and cannibalism:
#USDA Agricultural Research Service Livestock Behaviour Research Unit (2010): “Laying Hen Welfare Fact Sheet”
https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/50201500/beak%20trimming%20fact%20sheet.pdf
—In the US and Europe, legal bans and consumer initiatives have improved the situation quite a lot in the last few years. But still, more than 50% of hens still remain in cages.
#USDA Economic Research Service (2023): “Growing share of egg-laying hens are cage-free”
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=107564
The EU banned battery cages in 2012:
#European Comission (2008): “Animal Welfare: Commission report confirms the potential benefits of banning conventional battery cages for laying hens”
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_08_19
But about half of all laying hens are still in enriched cages
#Guyonnet, Vincent (2022): “How laying hens are kept around the world” WATTPoultry
Quote: “At the end of 2020, data from the EU27 showed that fewer hens were housed in enriched cages (48%) than in alternative systems – 33.9% for barn and aviary, 11.9% for free range and 6.2% for organic.
Considering Europe as a whole, including countries such as Russia, the U.K. and Ukraine, in 2020, 64.7% of the estimated 623 million hens were in cages, conventional in many non-EU countries, 20.7% in barn/aviary and 14.6% had access to the outdoors.”
—The insane thing is that this doesn’t even save a lot of money. Let’s say a dozen eggs costs you around 3.60 euro or dollar – 30 cents per egg. How much does it cost to free the hens?
Loosely based on the prices of eggs in the US and Germany at the time of writing:
#U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: “Average Price: Eggs, Grade A, Large (Cost per Dozen) in U.S. City Average” (retrieved 2024)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APU0000708111
#Study in Germany: “Cost of Living in Germany – Updated for 2024”
https://www.studying-in-germany.org/cost-of-living-in-germany/
—The main alternative to cages are “barn systems”. Hens are still kept indoors but have twice as much space and roam freely. Barns are prisons. Still not amazing but so much better. In the EU, barns increase the consumer price by about… 2 cents per egg.
The area per chicken in a battery or conventional cage is of 450cm2:
#Our World in Data (2023):”Do better cages or cage-free environments really improve the lives of hens?”
While for a barn cage-free or barn system, the area per hen is of about 1000 cm2:
1m2/ 9 hens = 0.1m2 per hen = 1000 cm2 per hen
#European Union (1999): “Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens”
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/1999/74/oj
Quote: “CHAPTER I
Provisions applicable to alternative systems [to cages]: [...]
4. The stocking density must not exceed nine laying hens per m2 usable area.”
In the EU, the wholesale price of eggs of barn chickens is around 30€ per 100 kg more expensive than that of caged chickens.
#European Commission Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (2024): “Eggs prices”
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardEggs/EggsPrice.html
Assuming an egg weights around 70 g this corresponds to a difference per piece of:
0.07 kg × 30€/100 kg = 0.021€
—The somewhat decent alternative is “free range”, where hens are allowed outdoors, often with proper access to vegetation. In the EU, this increases the price by about 7 cents per egg.
These refer to eggs eligible for marketing as “free range” in the European Union:
#European Union (2018): “SUMMARY OF: Regulation (EC) No 589/2008 — marketing standards for eggs”
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/rules-on-marketing-standards-for-eggs.html
Quote: “Open-air runs must be mainly covered with vegetation and not used for other purposes other than orchards, woodland and livestock grazing.
The maximum stocking density of open-air runs must not be greater than 2,500 hens per hectare or one hen per 4 m2.”
In the US, free-range laying hens must be allowed continuous access to the outdoors, but not necessarily access to vegetation.
#USDA (2024): “Does the label "free range" pertain only to poultry or also to meats?”
https://ask.usda.gov/s/article/Does-the-label-free-range-pertain-only-to-poultry-or-also-to-meats
Quote: “The claim "Free Range" can be used on any meat or poultry food product. In order to obtain label approval for labels bearing the claim "Free Range," producers must provide a brief description of the housing conditions with the label when it is submitted to United States Department of Agriculture's Labeling Program and Delivery Division for approval. The written description of the housing conditions is reviewed to ensure there is continuous, free access to the out-of-doors for through their normal growing cycle.”
The difference in the wholesale price between eggs of free-range and caged chickens is around 100€ per 100 kg of eggs in the EU.
#European Commission Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (2024): “Eggs prices”
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardEggs/EggsPrice.html
Assuming an egg weights around 70g, this corresponds to a difference per piece of:
0.07 kg × 100 € /100 kg = 0.07€
or 7 cents.
—Housing aside, one of the cruellest practices is chick culling. Male chicks don’t lay eggs so they are killed right after birth, usually by gassing or grinding. This is a really widespread practice used for caged, barn and even organic eggs. 7 billion baby chickens are killed this way each year. France and Germany have banned this, so many breeding eggs here are scanned early and only female hens hatch. Which may have increased costs by only 2 to 5 cents per egg.
#University of Copenhagen News (2024): “Researcher: Seven billion newly hatched chicks are killed every year – but a ban is not the solution”
https://science.ku.dk/english/press/news/2024/researcher-seven-billion-newly-hatched-chicks-are-killed-every-year--but-a-ban-is-not-the-solution/
Quote: “In stark contrast is the fact that around seven billion male layer chicks, are shredded or gassed alive by the egg industry every year, just hours after they hatch. [...]
In the wake of pressure from animal rights organisations, a few countries have now banned chick culling, including Germany, Austria and France. [...]
The killing of male layer chicks occurs in all types of egg production – including among free-range and organic hens.”
The only publicly available data about the cost of in-ovo sexing for chickens is sourced from companies and interest groups that promote these technologies, so there is no conclusive independent data. However, the cost reported by these sources is between 2 and 5 cents:
#Smithsonian Magazine (2021): “Can New Technologies Eliminate the Grim Practice of Chick Culling?”
Quote: “Currently, a company based in Germany and the Netherlands called respeggt GmbH uses in-ovo sexing by creating a tiny hole into the egg using a laser, extracting fluids, and sexing the chick by testing for specific hormones, explains Kristin Hoeller, head of business development and public affairs for respeggt.
[...]
While respeggt plays no role in how supermarkets price eggs, the cost to consumers ranges between 2 and 5 Euro cents more per respeggt egg than regular ones.”
—Chicken meat is a different story. Most meat chickens today are genetic freaks, bred to reach amazing weights incredibly fast. Their internal organs are under a huge amount of stress and they can’t even walk properly because of their weight, which causes them a lot of pain for much of their lives.
Modern broiler breeds have been selected for increased weight growth and feed conversion efficiency:
#Zuidhof, Martin J. et al. (2014): “Growth, efficiency, and yield of commercial broilers from 1957, 1978, and 2005” Poultry Science, vol. 93, 12, 2970-2982,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032579119385505
This causes them significant distress:
#Schuck-Paim, Cynthia; Jimenez Alonso, Wladimir (2022): ”Quantifying Pain in Broiler Chickens” Welfare Footprint Project (sponsored by Open Philanthropy)
https://welfarefootprint.org/broilers/
Quote: “Intensive management and genetic selection for traits desirable for fast and cheap meat production has taken a heavy toll on the health and well-being of broilers. Growing birds are now afflicted by a range of conditions, including poor cardiorespiratory and immune function, sudden death and ascites syndrome and a high incidence of lameness-causing conditions as a result of the high stress placed on relatively immature bones and joints, changes in body conformation, problems of ossification and infections. These conditions, in turn, cause chickens to spend extended periods of time sitting or lying on litter, which will often produce skin lesions.”
And long periods of pain:
#Our World in Data (2022): “Time that fast and slower-growing chicken breeds spend in pain over their lifespan” (retrieved 2024) (data from Welfare Footprint Project (sponsored by Open Philanthropy) )
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/pain-broiler-chickens
—It is hard to give exact numbers here, but if farmers were to switch to breeds that grow slower and suffer far less, a serving of chicken breast that you buy at 1.5 dollars would become 9 cents more expensive in the US.
A pound of chicken breast is around 4 dollars. If a serving of chicken breast is around six ounces, then a serving of chicken breast costs:
4 $ × 6 ounces / 16 oz. per lb.= 1.5 $
#US Federal Reserve Economic Data: “Average Price: Chicken Breast, Boneless (Cost per Pound/453.6 Grams) in U.S. City Average” (retrieved 2024)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APU0000FF1101
The wholesale price of chicken is 93 cents per ounce in the US. For chicken breast this price could be larger, as it is generally considered the most expensive cut, but we do not have data specific to the wholesale price of chicken breast.
#National Chicken Council: “Wholesale and Retail Prices for Chicken, Beef, and Pork” (retrieved 2024)
Production overcosts of using legacy chicken breeds are of about 25%
#Lusk, Jayson L.; Thompson, Nathanael M.; Weimer, Shawna L. (2019): “The Cost and Market Impacts of Slow Growth Broilers”, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, vol. 44, 3
If a serving of chicken breast is around 6 ounces, then the total production overcost is:
93 cent/lb. × 0.25 × 6 ounces / 16 oz. per lb. = 8.7cents
—90% of meat chickens in the EU live in prisons or torture camps. They are kept indoors in extremely crowded conditions, with sometimes dozens of birds per square meter, often in the dark and with poor ventilation. So what if we moved them all to prisons? One EU study found that giving them 30% more space, perches, fresh air and daylight would increase the price by another 13 cents per serving.
Around 90% of broilers in the European Union are industrially farmed in holdings that correspond to our “torture camp” or “prison” classification.
#European Parliamentary Research Service (2020): “The EU poultry meat and egg sector”
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/644195/EPRS_IDA(2019)644195_EN.pdf
Quote: “Intensive broiler farming is characterised by high stocking densities, fast growth rates, very large holdings and indoor rearing. This farming model accounts for around 90 % of broiler production in the EU.The main EU producing countries tend to adhere to stocking densities of 33 kg/m2 or higher, and a slaughter age in the range of five to six weeks.”
In the US, it is almost all of them
#Our World in data (2023): “How many animals are factory-farmed?” https://ourworldindata.org/how-many-animals-are-factory-farmed
Legally, 39 kg/m2 of broilers are permitted in the EU, 42 kg/m2 under special circumstances.
#European Union (2007): “Consolidated text: Council Directive 2007/43/EC of 28 June 2007 laying down minimum rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat production (Text with EEA relevance)Text with EEA relevance”
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2007/43/ojf
Quote:“2. Member States shall ensure that the maximum stocking density in a holding or a house of a holding does not at any time exceed 33 kg/m2.
[...]
4. Member States shall ensure that, when a derogation is granted under paragraph 3, the maximum stocking density in a holding or a house of a holding does not at any time exceed 39 kg/m2.
5. When the criteria set out in Annex V are fulfilled, Member States may allow that the maximum stocking density referred to in paragraph 4 be increased by a maximum of 3 kg/m2.”
This corresponds with dozens of birds per square meter.
#Albert Schweitzer Foundation (2023): “European Chicken Commitment” (retrieved 2024) (sponsored by Open Philanthropy)
https://albertschweitzerfoundation.org/campaigns/european-chicken-commitment
Some studies suggest that higher “daytime” luminosity would increase chicken welfare.
#Albert Schweitzer Foundation (2023): “European Chicken Commitment” (retrieved 2024) (sponsored by Open Philanthropy)
https://albertschweitzerfoundation.org/campaigns/european-chicken-commitment
Quote: ”Sheds approved prior to 2009 are not required to provide the animals with any daylight. Although more recently constructed sheds are required to have windows, in reality only very little daylight actually enters the sheds. Consider the following comparison: the standard 20 lux is roughly equivalent to moonlight, while the 50 lux demanded in the European Chicken Commitment offers at least as much light required for, say, a person to read a newspaper. This is relevant because chickens are unable to practice their normal behavioral repertoire at less than 50 lux.”
Intoxication by ammonia is common due in part to poor ventilation
#EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (2023): “Welfare of broilers on farm”, EFSA Journal, vol. 21, 2
https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7788
Quote: “Air quality is fundamentally important for both the poultry and the farmers working in the barn.Chickens have respiratory tracts that differ from those of humans, in which air sacs ensure that air continuously flows through the lungs. However, the environment in which the animals are kept produces emissions that are harmful for animals, humans and the environment. In the barn, the animals are mainly exposed to ammonia (NH 3), carbon dioxide (CO 2) and dust.Ammonia is the main emitted pollutant gas from poultry farms (Adler et al., 2021). Ammonia is formed when protein from the excreta of the animals is converted by microorganism into NH 3 together with water from moist litter. A too high concentration of NH 3 in the ambient air can irritate mucous membranes, including the conjunctiva, and promotes the proliferation of coccidia, clostridia, and other bacteria in broiler. However, ammonia is especially harmful to the respiratory organs, which can be damaged. This is especially the case when concentrations exceed 30 ppm (Miles et al., 2004). In this context, it is important that air concentration is measured at the animals’ head height. The legally prescribed maximum value in many countries is also set at 20 ppm ammonia in the stable air, as in theCouncil Directive 2007/43/EC 5.ABMs have been described by Liu et al. (2021b). The authors showed that head shaking correlatessignificantly with the increase in ammonia concentration. Compared to an ammonia concentration of0 ppm, chickens increased their head shaking significantly at 15 ppm, while losses in performance were only visible at 35 ppm. The higher the concentration, the more the animals shook their heads.With an increase in ammonia concentration, average daily feed intake, average daily gain, and feed/gain also decreased. In all cases, 0 ppm ammonia was optimal for the welfare of animals. More detailed thresholds would be desirable but are not available currently.”
This study calculates the cost of higher standards of indoor farming for broilers. The difference in production cost is of around 80 cents per kilo
#The Association of Poultry Processors and Poultry Trade in the EU Countries (2024): ”Costs and implications of the European Chicken Commitment in the EU”
If we consider a serving to be around 170 g of meat, the added cost per serving is:
(277.4 cents per kg– 201.8 cents per kg) × 170 grams / 1000 grams per kg = 12.8 cents
—Probably less than 5% of meat chickens live free range in relatively decent conditions. This meat is actually noticeably more expensive, double the price of “regular” chicken. But chicken is the cheapest meat. So depending on the cut, you would pay 35 cents to 1 euro or dollar more for a serving of chicken that had a decent life.
Due to differences in regulations that make comparing data impossible, there is no international data on how many broilers live in free-range farms. However, the percentage is generally considered to be low in most developed countries.
#Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (2022): “Welfare of Meat Chickens”
Quote: “In the UK, it is indeed estimated that only about 3.5% of meat chickens are reared in free-range systems and less than 1% in organic systems.”
#Chan, Iris; Franks, Becca; Hayek, Matthew N. (2022):”The ‘sustainability gap’ of US broiler chicken production: trade-offs between welfare, land use and consumption” Royal Society open science, vol.9, 6, 210478.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9156924/
Quote: “Currently, less than 1% of chickens are raised in a free-range or pasture-raised system”
There is similarly inconsistent data for the difference in cost between conventional factory farming and free-range farms, meaning farms in which chickens have free access to a well suited outdoor space. The data that does exist is normally about organic, not exclusively free-range, farms. It also deals mostly, though not always, with retail instead of production price. No studies exist for the US or EU on a broad scale. Some are for industries in other countries, some are broad estimates for specific cuts, some estimate retail prices and not costs, and some are old enough that it is reasonable to think the industry has significantly changed since they were published. It suggests an increase in price of roughly 100%
#Çobanoğlu, Ferit et al. (2014): ”Comparing the profitability of organic and conventional broiler production”, Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science, 16, 4
https://www.scielo.br/j/rbca/a/TJVRnmHdM3Gm8d7mFSR7W9r/
Quote: “Results showed that organic broiler meat can cost from 70% to 86% more with respect to variable and fixed costs when compared with conventional production.”
#Staudigel, Matthias; Trubnikov, Aleksej (2022): “High price premiums as barriers to organic meat demand? A hedonic analysis considering species, cut and retail outlet”, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, vol. 66, 309-334
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8489.12472
Quote: “Assumed premiums are at 200 per cent for organic poultry (p.74), 100 per cent for organic meat (p.80), and 100 per cent to 300 per cent for products offering higher animal welfare. Except for a comparison of select chicken breast products (p.296), these numbers are not supported by empirical evidence.”
#Husak, R.L.; Sebranek, Joseph G.; Bregendahl, Kristjan (2008): ”A Survey of Commercially Available Broilers Marketed as Organic, Free-Range, and Conventional Broilers for Cooked Meat Yields, Meat Composition, and Relative Value” Poultry Science vol. 87, 11, 2367-2376
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032579119393885
Quote: “At the time of the study, March through May of 2006, the average retail prices for US broilers were $3.19, $2.78, and $1.29 per pound ($7.03, $6.13, and $2.84/kg) for organic, free-range, and conventional, respectively. “
Taking this broad estimate of percentage change, we can estimate the numbers for the increase in production cost:
The wholesale price of chicken is of 93 cents per ounce in the US
#National Chicken Council: “Wholesale and Retail Prices for Chicken, Beef, and Pork” (retrieved 2024)
If a serving of chicken breast is around 6 ounces, then the total production overcost is:
93 cent/lb. × 6 ounces / 16 oz. per lb. = 34.9 cents
The wholesale price of a kilo of chicken breast in the EU is about 577 cents.
#European Commission: “Poultry prices” (retrieved 2024)
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardPoultry/PoultryPrices.html
If the overproduction costs are proportionally the same, and the chicken breast serving is of approximately the same size:
577 cent/kg. × 170 g / 1000 g per kg = 98.1 cents
—Pigs are basically dogs. They are as intelligent, social and playful as our wolf buddies and make loveable pets – so pigs really feel how they live and arguably have it the worst of all animals we eat.
Even though it is difficult to compare intelligence directly between different species, pigs possess characteristics that have been found in a similar way in other animals and which suggest a certain form of intelligence.
The following review lists different categories and gives an overview of the findings within these categories for different animals. The categories are:
Object discrimination, learning, time perception, spatial learning and memory, novelty seeking, inquisitiveness and play, discriminating conspecifics and others, perspective-taking, self-awarenes, emotion and personality.
#Marino, L. & Colvin, C. M. (2015): Thinking Pigs: A Comparative Review of Cognition, Emotion, and Personality in Sus domesticus. International Journal of Comparative Psychology
https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=acwp_asie
Quote: “Novelty Seeking, Inquisitiveness and Play. Play is related to creativity and innovation and, therefore, forms the basis for complex object-related and social abilities (Bateson, 2015) in humans and other animals.
(...)
Social play, which involves creating new interactions and situations, has an important role in the development of canids and other social mammals (Bekoff, 1974, 2014). Therefore, curiosity and the preference for novelty are, arguably, related to cognitive complexity and certain personality traits (see below). Play is found most predominantly in the most cognitively complex and adaptable nonhuman species, such as primates (Bencke, 2015), dogs (Bekoff, 2015), dolphins (Janik, 2015) and birds (Emery & Clayton, 2015). However, play behavior also exists in fish and reptiles (Burghardt, 2015), and the most cognitively complex invertebrates, such as the octopus (Zylinski, 2015). Therefore, play appears to be a marker of cognitive complexity. Pigs, too, are playful animals (Donaldson, Newberry, Spinka, & Cloutier, 2002; Olsen, Simonsen, & Dybkjaer, 2002; Newberry, et al. 1988; Wood-Gush and Vestergaard, 1991, 1993), exhibiting a wide range of behaviors in this domain. A recent study of play behavior in pigs shows that they engage in quite complex types of play that include social play and object play (Horback, 2014).
(...)
Whereas domestic and wild pigs are social animals, relatively little is known about how these capacities manifest in their natural lives and what cognitive and emotional abilities underwrite their sociality. What is known points to the possibility that pigs are as socially complex as many other highly intelligent animals, possibly sharing a number of cognitive capacities related to social complexity.
(...)
Like these other socially complex animals, pigs discriminate among conspecifics and show a preference for familiar individuals over strangers (de Souza, Jansen, Tempelman, Mendl, & Zanella, 2006; Kristensen, Jones, Schofield, White, & Wathes, 2001; McLeman, Mendl, Jones, White, & Wathes, 2005).
(...)
In this paper we have identified a number of findings from studies of pig cognition, emotion, and behavior which suggest that pigs possess complex ethological traits similar, but not identical, to dogs and chimpanzees. The main conclusion from this review is that essentially every domain of research with pigs would profit from further explanation as many of the current findings are promising but only suggestive.”
#GIeling, E.T. et al. (2011): Assessing learning and memory in pigs. Animal Cognition, Vol. 14
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-010-0364-3
Quote: “Pigs are cooperative animals and learn classical and operant conditioning tasks rapidly (Baldwin 1969; Baldwin and Stephens 1973; Chaput et al. 1973; Kratzer 1971). They are generally seen as being ‘intelligent’ by the public, probably because they can be trained. For example, Breland and Breland (1915) successfully trained pigs for some pig shows, based on B.F. Skinners’ operant conditioning methods. (...)
Animal welfare scientists, while sharing the opinion that pigs have considerable cognitive abilities, look at cognitive research in pigs from a different point of view from that of biomedical researchers. Their aim of studying this species is to become more aware of pigs’ cognitive abilities and sensory capacities, ultimately to improve the welfare of this intensively kept farm animal (Meehan and Mench 2007; Toates 2004). An additional aspect is that the public’s perception of the intelligence of an animal influences the importance attached to its welfare, and many people (consumers) consider farming practices that result in poor animal welfare to be unacceptable (Broom 2010). Cognitive ability should also be considered when designing methods of enriching the environments of captive animals.”
—Probably more than 90% of all pigs live in torture camps.
Specific figures are difficult to define. As the EU also states, there are many different forms of pig farming.
European Parliament (2020): The EU pig meat sector
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/652044/EPRS_BRI(2020)652044_EN.pdf
Quote: “Pig meat is produced across the EU, with huge differences in methods and sizes of farms in and between Member States: from small diversified farms keeping just one or two pigs to industrial installations with thousands of pigs, and from extensive organic farming to conventional intensive production.”
#Mateos, G. G. et al. (2024): Pig meat production in the European Union-27: current status, challenges, and future trends. Animal bioscience, Vol. 37 (4)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11016692/
Quote: “Pig farming in the EU corresponds to one of these four general systems: i) traditional small scale backyard production, ii) industrialized, large scale, intensive indoor production, iii) extensive outdoor operations, with pigs reared under free range conditions and direct consumption of natural resources, and iv) organic production, of limited economic importance at present time (less than 2% for the EU) but growing in the last years [10].
At least three quarters of the animals live on large farms.
European Parliament (2020): The EU pig meat sector
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/652044/EPRS_BRI(2020)652044_EN.pdf
Quote: “In general, only 3 % of the pig herd in the EU is kept in backyard farms, and this share is even lower in most major producing Member States. In Denmark, for example, 97 % of pigs are kept on farms with 1 000 or more animals. Overall, over 75 % of EU pigs are in large commercial holdings. Among the top nine producer countries, Denmark has the largest commercial holdings with an average of 4 700 heads and Germany the smallest with an average of 1 900 heads per holding.”
—They spend their entire lives indoors in extremely crowded spaces, on concrete floors without straw or bedding. Since this is far from what they need, they get frustrated and often fight.
In addition, there are many other aspects of intensive pig farming that are deserving of criticism from the point of view of animal welfare and animal health. The following sources provide an overview and also explain the needs of the animals. They also show that the current forms of husbandry can also pose a risk to humans, as resistant strains of bacteria can develop due to the high use of antibiotics.
#Maes, D. et al. (2020): A critical reflection on intensive pork production with an emphasis on animal health and welfare. Journal of animal science, Vol. 98
#Albernaz-Gonçalves, R. et al (2021): My pigs are ok, why change? – animal welfare accounts of pig farmers. Animal, Vol. 15 (3)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731120301567?via%3Dihub
Quote: “Intensive pig production systems are a source of stress and reduced animal welfare. In these systems, pigs are often housed in small or barren environments that prevent them from exhibiting their natural behaviours. This, in turn, increases the frequency of abnormal and stereotypic behaviours, indicating stress (Cronin, 1985). Other common stressors of intensive farming are chronic hunger, painful mutilations, early weaning, high stocking density and successive social regrouping (Pedersen, 2018, Read et al., 2020). Ultimately, the pigs' immune system is compromised, making it susceptible to infections (Filipe et al., 2020). In an attempt to ensure herd productivity and prevent outbreaks of infection, intensive pig farms rely upon antimicrobials and thus maintain the herd health until slaughter (Sjölund et al., 2016). Such use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals is a significant contributor to the to the global issue of antimicrobial resistance and this problem has led to increased regulation of antimicrobial use in the veterinary sector (Van Boeckel et al., 2015, Van Boeckel et al., 2019). Policies that aim to control the spread of antimicrobial resistance call for monitoring/reducing antibiotic use and fostering good husbandry practices, including improving animal welfare (Magnusson et al., 2019). This adds to growing public pressure for food-producing animal sectors to act more coherently with sustainability and animal welfare goals (Pedersen, 2018).”
#Albernaz-Gonçalves, R. et al (2022): Linking Animal Welfare and Antibiotic Use in Pig Farming—A Review. Animal, Vol. 12 (2)
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/12/2/216
Quote: “However, intensive pig production systems, in general, fail many of these goals and offer few conditions for animals to experience positive affective states. As a result, many pigs spend their entire lives in conditions that do not ensure “a life worth living” [3]. Confinement housing limits free movement, the expression of highly motivated natural behaviours, such as nesting and rooting, and socialisation; additionally, pigs are exposed to painful management practices from moments after birth [4,5]. As a result, the pigs are stressed and more vulnerable immunologically and predisposed to contract environmental pathogens [6]. In addition, high stocking densities contribute to the spread of respiratory and enteric diseases. Altogether these factors contribute to the use of antibiotics (AMU) to control and prevent infectious outbreaks on farms [7,8]. The global consumption of veterinary antimicrobials is projected to increase 11.5% by 2030, over the estimated 93,000 tonnes used in 2017, when 10 countries used 75% of all veterinary antibiotics used in animal production (China = 45%; Brazil = 7.9%; the United States, Thailand, India, Iran, Spain, Russia, Mexico, and Argentina) [9].
(...)
In this section, we present an overview of known strategies focusing on the gains attained through environmental enrichment (including better feeding practices and on-farm resources organisation), reduction in stocking density, group-housing and family rearing, increased age at weaning, neonatal socialisation, the prevention and treatment of lameness, automatic feeding, and supply of fibre for sows.”
—Piglets have their tails docked to stop tail-biting.
Tail biting is a problem in pig farming. The animals suffer from the injuries and the consequences. To prevent this, the tails are docked, i.e. basically cut off. A practice that itself causes pain and only eliminates the symptoms but not the causes that lead to tail biting.
#D’Eath, R. B. et al. (2016): Why are most EU pigs tail docked? Economic and ethical analysis
of four pig housing and management scenarios in the light of EU legislation and animal welfare outcome. Animal, Vol. 10 (6)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731115002098?via%3Dihub
Quote: “Tail biting is a problematic behaviour in pig farming. It has a considerable welfare cost, in terms of immediate painful consequences for the victims, and by injured tails becoming an entrance for infection resulting in further suffering. Moreover, it may lead to partial or total carcass condemnation and consequent economic loss for producers. Tail biting often occurs in unpredictable outbreaks, and multiple factors are known to increase tail biting risk, although sufficient access to substrates for rooting and foraging, and to resources such as food are thought to be of primary importance (D’Eath et al., 2014). Tail docking is known to reduce the risk and severity of tail biting but does not eliminate the problem (Sutherland and Tucker, 2011). Tail docking is an unsatisfactory ‘solution’ to tail biting: It is an acutely painful mutilation, which masks the underlying risk factors that lead to tail biting, which are in themselves harmful to other aspects of pig welfare. It has been argued that docking enables suboptimal environments to be used (Valros and Heinonen, 2015). For example, docked pigs can be reared in environments that lack sufficient space and substrate to fully occupy their behavioural need to root, chew and forage. However, tail biting does still occur in intact pigs in ‘improved’ environments and often at a higher level (Hunter et al., 2001; Forkman et al., 2010).”
#EURCAW-Pigs (retrieved 2024): Thematic factsheet - Tail biting and tail docking
Quote: “Tail biting
• Is an abnormal behaviour, involving the biting of pig
tails by penmates, resulting in tail injuries;
• Is a sign of stress, usually caused by inadequate
environmental conditions and management practices;
• Causes pain, and indicates reduced animal welfare in
both biter and bitten pigs. (...)
Tail docking
• Aims to reduce tail biting;
• Causes pain, fear and frustration in pigs;
• Is banned as a routine procedure in the EU;
• May be carried out only if there is evidence of
previous tail lesions and after all known risk factors
have been addressed.”
Buijs, S. & Muns, R. (2019): A Review of the Effects of Non-Straw Enrichment on Tail Biting in Pigs. Animal, Vol. 9 (10)
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/9/10/824
Quote: “Tail biting is a damaging behaviour shown by pigs, which not only causes harm to the victims (e.g., painful tail lesions that can lead to infection), but also results in production losses (e.g., decreased growth and partial carcass condemnation due to infection) [1]. The problem has become more pressing due to the EU ban on tail docking (removal of part of the tail shortly after birth, which greatly reduces tail biting but is painful itself [2]). As the causation of tail biting is multifactorial, there are also many different strategies to reduce this behaviour [3].”
—Most males are castrated after birth so that their meat will taste better, often without pain relief to save time.
#Bonneau, M. & Weiler, U. (2019): Pros and Cons of Alternatives to Piglet Castration: Welfare, Boar Taint, and Other Meat Quality Traits. Animals, Vol. 9(11)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6912452/
Quote: “The surgical castration of male piglets has been a traditional practice for ages and is still common in most countries. This procedure is motivated by the presence of boar taint in the meat from some entire male pigs. Even if some countries in Western Europe have promoted the use of anesthesia or analgesia, the procedure is still often practiced without any pain relief and is therefore facing increasing criticism because of the pain inflicted to the animal as a consequence of the surgery [1,2].
(...)
The main reason for castrating male pigs is the occurrence of boar taint, an offensive odor and flavor perceived when cooking and eating the meat from some entire male pigs. Two main compounds have been demonstrated to be associated with boar taint: androstenone and skatole [6]. Because these compounds are lipophilic, they accumulate in the adipose tissue of growing animals in relation to pubertal development. In carcasses where the concentration of compounds is higher than the individual sensitivity threshold, sensitive consumers can perceive the cooking odor or flavor of meat as unpleasant [7].
Lin-Schilstra, L. & Ingenbleek, P. (2021): Examining Alternatives to Painful Piglet Castration Within the Contexts of Markets and Stakeholders: A Comparison of Four EU Countries. Animals, Vol. 11 (2)
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11/2/486
Quote: “Each year in the European Union, about 90 million piglets undergo surgical castration (SC): a procedure in which the testicles are physically removed.
(...)
In 2010, 33 stakeholders in the pork supply chain (including scientists, veterinarians and animal-welfare organizations) voluntarily signed an agreement: the European Declaration on alternatives to surgical castration of pigs. The agreement aimed to eliminate the surgical castration of pigs without pain relief by 2012, thereafter phasing out the surgical castration of pigs in all EU and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries by 2018. To date, neither of the goals have been achieved. Three alternatives are available to pork-production sectors: surgical castration (SC) using pain relief, immunocastration (IC), and the raising of entire males (EM). In the first method, castration is performed with the use of pain relief, primarily through the application of general or local anesthesia and/or analgesia. Anaesthetics and analgesics for piglets are not authorized in all EU countries and, in many countries, their use is restricted exclusively to veterinary surgeons. With the EM method, piglets are left uncastrated, and the slaughterhouses apply detection methods to identify tainted carcasses before moving the meat further along the production line. Immunocastration refers to the use of a commercial vaccine (Improvac®), produced by Zoetis Ltd. (formerly Pfizer Ltd.), to stop the production of male hormones (i.e., gonadotropin-releasing hormone; GnRH). If applied appropriately by farmers, the vaccine could largely reduce the incidence of boar taint. All three of these methods are currently in use within the EU.”
#Fredriksen, B. et al. (2009): Practice on castration of piglets in Europe. Animal, Vol. 3 (11)
Quote: “In most EU countries, castration is performed on 80% to 100% of the male pigs in conventional production (Figure 1, Table 3). The exceptions are United Kingdom and Ireland where castration is hardly performed at all. Also, in some of the southern countries (Cyprus, Portugal and Spain), a limited percentage of the male pigs is castrated. Also, in Greece, production of entire males seems to be rather common. In most countries, there seems to be little difference between the percentages of piglets castrated in conventional and nonconventional production systems. The exceptions to this are the Netherlands, where an animal friendly production system without castration exists, as well as Spain and Portugal, where an extensive production system exists with all piglets being castrated because they are slaughtered at higher weights (150 to 180 kg live weight). Meat from these animals is mainly used for production of high-quality cured products.”
—Mothers are kept in “crates” – extremely tight metal straight jackets, where they can’t move at all. This leads to extreme suffering for the mother and for the piglets, which are held in a barren area, separated by metal bars and taken away at just three weeks old.
Although crating is contrary to the natural behavior and needs of sows and piglets, it is common practice in most countries because, among other things, it offers more safety for workers and animals and minimizes space requirements.
#Pedersen, L. J. et al. (2013): 5. Housing of sows during farrowing: a review on pen design, welfare and productivity. In: Livestock housing: modern management to ensure optimal health and welfare of farm animals
https://www.wageningenacademic.com/doi/abs/10.3920/978-90-8686-771-4_05
Quote: “The farrowing crate consists of a pen within which bars have been set up to prevent the sow from turning around. Outside the bars there is a separate space for the piglets and in some systems a roof covered creep area is situated in a corner of the pen. Usually, the creep area is installed with either floor heating and/or radiant heating from an infra-red lamp.
(...)
When kept under free range conditions, sows will isolate themselves from the rest of the herd
a few days prior to farrowing and choose a sheltered location where they can build a nest.
(...)
If the sows, however, are crated the ability to demonstrate actual nesting behaviour is very limited and is seen primarily as increased restlessness and redirected nesting activity against the equipment (Damm et al., 2003; Hartsock and Barczewski, 1997; Jarvis et al., 1997, 2001 Weber and Troxler, 1988) or as oral/nasal stereotypies (Weber, 1984; Damm et al., 2003). They have also no control over selection of a nest site, which contains the qualities preferred by sows in terms of for example isolation (Jensen, 1986; Stolba and Woodgush, 1984). Lactating sows will leave the nest site for dunging (Andersen and Pedersen, 2011; Damm and Pedersen, 2000; Pajor et al., 2000; Schmid, 1992) while crated sows are forced to dung at the nest site.
(...)
Crating during the gestation period has been shown to affect strength of muscles (Marchant
and Broom, 1996) and reduce cardiovascular fitness (Marchant et al., 1997) and bone strength
(Marchant and Broom, 1996). Crating during farrowing and lactation most likely will have similar
effects.
(...)
Crated sows will often bump against the equipment when they get up and lie down (Troxler and Weber, 1989; Harris and Gonyou, 1998) indicating disrupted getting up and lying down behaviour.
#Baxter, E. M. et al. (2010): Alternative farrowing systems: design criteria for farrowing
systems based on the biological needs of sows and piglets. Animal, Vol. 5 (4)
Quote: “Perhaps the most prevalent illustration of this occurs during the farrowing and lactation period for the domestic sow. During this period the majority of domestic sows (approximately 70% in United Kingdom, BPEX, 2004; 95% in EU and 83% in United States, Johnson and Marchant-Forde, 2009) are housed in farrowing crates, which are behaviourally and physically restrictive and raise serious welfare concerns. However, the farrowing crate was initially developed to reduce building space requirements, provide safe working access to the piglets, reduce labour input and improve piglet survival (Edwards and Fraser, 1997).”
#Baxter, E. M. et al. (2022): Transitioning from crates to free farrowing: A roadmap to navigate key decisions. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, Vol. 9
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/veterinary-science/articles/10.3389/fvets.2022.998192/full
Quote: “Close confinement systems, such as farrowing crates for periparturient and lactating sows, have known animal welfare detriments and raise ethical concerns due to the physical and behavioral restrictions they involve (1). Though there have been societal concerns over their use for more than 30 years, farrowing crates are only prohibited in three countries—Sweden (since 1987), Switzerland (since 1997) and Norway (since 2000). However, legislative plans to phase out their permanent use have been enacted in Austria (by 2033) and Germany (by 2036). Though no regulations exist on farrowing crates in the rest of Europe, a recent European Citizen's Initiative (ECI) to “End the Cage Age” (2) was debated in the European Parliament in June 2021. Subsequently the European Commission stated that “by the end of 2023, a legislative proposal to phase out, and finally prohibit all cage systems would be in place,” with possible implementation as soon as 2027. They stipulated that this would follow an appropriate transition period, after a robust scientific and impact assessment [since partially completed—(3)] as part of their “fitness check” of Council Directive 98/58/EC (the current animal welfare regulations). Outside Europe, only New Zealand has committed to phasing out farrowing crates (by 2025). However, in the USA, Proposition 12 (Californian ballot approving the “Farm Animal Confinement Initiative,” 2018) highlights the trend for greater debate amongst various stakeholders about the use of confinement systems, albeit with the current focus on the use of gestation stalls. Table 1 summarizes relevant text excerpts from regulations in countries restricting farrowing crate use.”
—First let’s get to the prison level. Getting rid of crates would raise the cost of a 2 euro serving of pork by about 20 cents.
Standardized data or figures on the exact price premium for better animal keeping are basically
impossible to find. The conditions vary too much in different government regulations, in production, etc. However, we try to approximate a rough figure with a back-of-the-envelope calculation.
For the following calculations, we take a study from Denmark. In this study, different forms of animal keeping were compared with conventional keeping ("mainstream" or "Danish Regulations"). The products in this study that are slightly more welfare-oriented compared to conventional husbandry are the labelled products "Antonius" and “Bornholmer” while the most decent keeping is called “organic” here.
#Olsen, J. V. et al. (2024): Why is welfare pork so expensive? Animal, Vol. 18 (9)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731124002209#t0020
“Organic” pork products have a retail price premium of 61% compared to mainstream pork products. For a pork serving of 2€ this means a plus of around 1,20€.
Let's take a look at where the €1.20 could come from and start with the upgrade from conventional or mainstream farming to "prison" (labeled products “Antonius” and “Bornholmer”) as a first step.
“Antonius” and “Bornholmer” have a retail price premium of around 20% (18% and 21%). In the case of a pork serving of 2€, this means a plus of 40 cents compared to mainstream keeping.
Let us try to figure out how these 40 cents come to be, and why 20 of them could be explained by increase in costs for banning crates.
It was difficult to find data. The following sources can therefore only provide a rough estimate.
On the one hand, we have data from California, which states a retail price premium of 20% (= 40 cents for a portion of €2).
#Hawkins, H. et al. (2024): Proposition 12 Reported Compliant Volumes and Wholesale and Non-Carcass Premiums. ARE Update, Vol. 27 (3)
https://s.giannini.ucop.edu/uploads/pub/2024/08/12/v27n3.pdf
Quote: “On average, Prop 12 compliance resulted in a 22% wholesale price premium, which aligns with the 20% retail price premium observed using Circana data (mentioned in the previous article). It is important to note that both the share of compliant products and the price premiums have fluctuated over the eight-month period. The table shows simple averages, which don't capture these variations.”
The following UK study estimated the increase in production costs of different scenarios to get rid of farrowing crates. If you go to the worst case scenario you see that running the farm without crates increases production costs by around 8/148 = 5%.
#AHDB (2020): Evidence report: Comparing the potential implications of widespread use of different farrowing systems in the British pig sector.
To this you have to add the investment costs that farmers have to make to adapt the farm, such as new buildings with more space. The study says that financing all this over 5 years would imply another 2 extra pence per kg of carcass, which means an increase of 10/148 = 7%.
#AHDB (2020): Evidence report: Comparing the potential implications of widespread use of different farrowing systems in the British pig sector.
Quote: “5-year transition:
Here, at a national level, 50% of previous equipment costs are still being paid for at the time of
transition, and 75% of previous building costs. This is equivalent to adding a further 2p/kg deadweight to production costs for the first five years, dropping back to an extra 1-1.5p/kg deadweight for the following decade.
10-year transition: Within this timeframe, we would expect all older equipment to be fully monetised. However, half of buildings would still need to be replaced before their time (assuming retrofitting is not possible), effectively adding 1p/kg deadweight to production costs over the following decade.”
What if a farmer decides to do it faster? Then it will be more expensive. So let’s say that in a worst case scenario, getting rid of farrowing crates increases production costs by around 10%.
So we have different figures:
The “Prop 12 compliance” study with an 20% increase in retail price. This means 40 cents for our 2€ serving.
The UK study by AHDB with an increase of around 10% (in a worst case scenario) in production price. This means 20 cents for a 2€ serving.
We are now trying to estimate what impact this increase in production costs could have on the retail price.
If you go to US data and equate wholesale price with production costs, you see that in 2023 production costs accounted for about 160/480 = 33% of the retail price.
#National Chicken Council (retrieved 2024): Wholesale and Retail Prices for Chicken, Beef, and Pork
If we settle for this 33%, for a 2€ serving you'd have 200*0.33 = 66 cents from production, and then 10% of that is 7 cents. We would then get an average of 23.5 To make it easier to visualize and understand and since it is only a rough estimate anyway, we round to 20 cents.
—Providing anesthesia for castration costs almost nothing, around 1 cent per kg of meat.
There are many options for anesthesia, from analgesia to general anesthesia. The prices also depend heavily on the size of the farm and who can or is allowed to carry out these procedures. In addition, the data is also very sparse here.
The following study provides an overview of the production costs per vaccination per piglets.
On average, the additional costs are around €1.3 per piglet.
#de Roest, K. et al. (2009): Resource efficiency and economic implications of alternatives to
surgical castration without anaesthesia. Animal, Vol 3 (11).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731109990516
A common slaughter weight is considered to be around 105 to 130 kg. If we take the lower end of this range, i.e. 105 kg, and assume that around 50% of this ends up in retail, we are looking at production costs of about 2,48 cents per kilo commercial cuts. Here too, the figures vary greatly depending on the pig and the type of processing and we cannot say how these prices are passed on from production to retail.
50% of 105 kg = 52,5 kg commercial cuts
52,5 kg / 130 cents = 2,48 cent per kg.
#Van den Broeke, A. et al. (2020): The effect of sex and slaughter weight on performance, carcass quality and gross margin, assessed on three commercial pig farms. Animal, Vol. 14 (7)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731119003033?via%3Dihub
Quote: “The economic margins on pig farms are small, and changing slaughter weights may increase pig farm profitability. This study shows that the optimal slaughter weight depends on the sex of the pigs. Barrows and gilts should not be slaughtered too heavy, but at lower weights than 130 kg BW to maximise profitability. In contrast, the slaughter weight of entire males and gonadotropin-releasing hormone-vaccinated males has no effect on profitability, as long as they are slaughtered between 105 and 130 kg BW.”
Oklahoma Dept. of Agriculture, Food, & Forestry (retrieved 2024): How Much Meat?
https://ag.ok.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/HOW-MUCH-MEAT-BROCHURE-HOG-MEAT.pdf
Quote: “Not all of the pig is edible pork. On average about 57% of a hog make it from the pen to the pan. A 250 lb. hog will yield approximately 144 lbs of retail cuts. Around 28% of a hog’s live weight is inedible product removed during the slaughter and dressing procedure bringing our 250 lb. live hog to 180 lbs. dressed. The internal organs, hair, blood, and other inedible products account for most of this loss. Once the carcass is sanitarily dressed it is hung on a rail and placed into a cooler where it is quickly chilled. Once the carcass is thoroughly chilled it can be cut into retail cuts where another 20% of the weight is removed bringing our 180 lb. carcass to 144 lbs. of retail cuts. Bone dust, fat trimming, boning, grinding, and moisture loss account for this unpreventable waste. Hams and bacon are typically cured and smoked after cutting.”
Washington State University (2021): From Pig to Pork Chop: How Much Meat to Expect from a Butcher Hog.
https://s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/2049/2021/02/02.21PorkFabVideoDataFactSheet02.16.2021.pdf
Quote: “Market hogs weighing between 250 – 325 pounds will dress on average 70% (range 68 to 72%) with the skin-on and the head-off, resulting in a hanging carcass weight range of 175 - 228 pounds. Dressing percentage reflects only that portion of the carcass that hangs on the rail after the animal is butchered and is the relationship between the live weight and hot carcass weight. The more muscle or the fatter an animal is, the higher the dressing percentage will be. Other factors that can affect dressing percentage negatively: gut fill, cleanliness of animal, carcass damage during harvest, a skinned carcass, etc. The skin is approximately 6% of the carcass weight. Some facilities will also leave the head on which will increase the hanging weight by approximately 6%. The hanging weight of a carcass is the weight that is typically used to calculate the cut and wrap fee. A hanging pork carcass will typically yield about 75% of the carcass weight, in mostly bone-in meat cuts, resulting in approximately 130-194 pounds of meat to take home. However, if you have more cuts made into boneless products, or more grind done for sausage or cured/smoked products, the hanging carcass will yield about 65% boneless retail meat cuts and some cured meat items, about 114-149 pounds of take-home meat. Fat trim, bone removal, and further processing such as curing/smoking will yield less take-home product”
As already discussed, the figures vary greatly, so a study from 2024 should be mentioned as an example in which the cost of local anesthesia with percaine per piglet in Denmark is 30 cents, while a certain general anesthesia in Germany is 1.93 - 3.81 €.
#Verhaagh, M. (2024): Comparison of the Competitiveness for Danish, Dutch, and German Piglet Producers under Consideration of Country-Specific Methods of Piglet Castration with Anesthesia. Agriculture, Vol. 14 (11)
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/11/1943
Quote: “Using typical pig farms from the agri benchmark Pig Network, the additional costs and economic impacts of animal welfare regulations are calculated. In Germany, isoflurane anesthesia increases costs by EUR 28.54 to EUR 49.86 per sow, or EUR 1.93 to EUR 3.81 per male piglet. This corresponds to a cost increase of around 5% per piglet. In Denmark, the costs of local anesthesia with procaine increase more moderately by EUR 3.55 to EUR 5.05 per sow, or around EUR 0.30 per male piglet. The cost increase here is less than 1% per piglet.”
—And a study in Denmark found that giving pigs more straw and bedding material and 30% more space and other things that are more animal-friendly would increase the price per serving by another 20 cents. This is still an awful life for an animal this intelligent, but obviously much better. For 40 cents more per serving.
The differences between conventional husbandry and the slightly better labeled products are mainly due to more space available and materials such as straw. Here the animals have 30% more space allowance.
So if we assume that the difference of 20 cents of a serving of 2€ between conventional keeping and the better keeping (“Antonius” and “Bornholmer”) already comes from the cost premium of crate-free housing, it stands to reason that the remaining 20 cents (or 18 cents if we take the cost of the anesthetics into account) from the calculated 40 cents (the total price premium from mainstream keeping to “Antonius” and “Bornholmer” of about 20% of a serving of 2€) may come from further improvements such as the increased space allowance.
(Note: the following graphic has been shortened for better readability. The focus here is on the space allowance. You will find some more items in the entire chart).
#Olsen, J. V. et al. (2024): Why is welfare pork so expensive? Animal, Vol. 18 (9)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731124002209#t0020
—Going one level further and giving pigs outdoor access for at least 40% of their lives and 300-400% more space when they are indoors would increase the price per serving by another 80 cents.
Here we are only talking about the decent keeping (labeled "organic" in the study). In the previous upgrade from conventional keeping to the labeled products "Bornholmer" and "Antonius", a price increase of 40 cents was already implied. The remaining 80 cents, which make up the previously mentioned price increase of around €1.20 for organic products, may therefore be attributed to further improvements such as the space available (see above). Please also take a look at the link with the complete table to see the other improvements that cause the price increase.
We know that other factors such as labor input or feed also have an influence on prices. However, as the data situation is very weak, we cannot provide an estimate for each individual point.
—Just over 1% of pigs in the EU live in these or similar conditions.
There were 132,861,770 pigs in the EU-27 in 2023 while 1,558,903 of them were declared with “organic livestock” (2022).
Even though there are farmers who work above the minimum standard, only 1.17% of pigs are kept organically.
#Eurostat (2024): Pig population - annual data
#eurostat (2024): Organic livestock
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/org_lstspec/default/table?lang=en&category=agr.org
—Cows raised for meat have it the best because they usually spend about 2/3 of their lives outdoors. Their lives are far from perfect, though. Especially its end. The vast majority of cows spend the last months of their short lives in “finishing feedlots” – either prisons or torture camps where they are fattened to reach their slaughter weight as fast as possible.
Here, too, there is no one way to raise cattle for meat; the following sources are examples from the USA but there are also regional differences (e.g. between the USA or Australia and the EU), which are based on different climatic or natural conditions, for example. Basically, however, the phases that cattle go through are similar.
#Stone Barns Center For Food & Agriculture et al. (2017): Back to grass: the market potential for U.S. grassfed beef. Research report
Quote: “Cattle production in the U.S. typically includes three phases: cow-calf, stocker and finishing. Almost all cattle spend the first two phases on pasture, eating mostly grass. In the conventional finishing phase, cattle are brought to feedlots (also known as animal feeding operations, or AFOs) at 9-15 months of age and fed a diet primarily composed of corn and other grains. After gaining weight quickly, these grain-fed cattle are slaughtered at 16-20 months. An estimated 97% of the cattle slaughtered for meat are fed grains.
There is a certain amount of “default” grassfed beef produced in the conventional system, as animals slaughtered at the cow-calf or stocker phase (for example, cull cows or bulls) may have spent their entire lives on pasture, eating mostly grass. Since these animals do not go through a proper finishing phase, their meat is usually lower-quality and is used to make ground beef or cheap beef cuts. It is usually sold through conventional channels without a grassfed label. The clearest distinction between grassfed and conventional beef occurs at the finishing stage. Grassfed cattle remain on pastures and are finished on a diet of predominantly grass or other forages. They grow more slowly and are typically slaughtered at 20-28 months of age. Meat from these animals is usually sold with a grassfed label approved by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and sold into niche grassfed beef markets for a premium.
(...)
To understand grassfed beef, we must start by understanding the conventional beef production system in the U.S. Cattle production in the U.S. typically includes three phases: cow-calf, stocker and finishing (see diagram to the right). The stocker phase is sometimes replaced by backgrounding, which involves feeding cattle a mixed ration of grass and grains in backgrounding yards. In the cowcalf phase, breeding cows give birth to calves, which are typically weaned at 6-8 months of age. The animals then enter the next phase as “stockers” (often on another farm), which generally lasts another 3-7 months and brings them to a weight of 800 pounds and an age of 9-15 months.1 The first two phases of production are nearly always pasturebased, meaning that livestock spend the majority of their time on grass and consume mostly forage (unless the animal is backgrounded). A summary of cattle production and market terminology is included in this report’s glossary. After the stocker phase, the cattle are referred to as “feeders” and enter the third and final stage of beef cattle production. Since the 1950s, the finishing phase for conventional cattle has largely moved off pastures and into feedlots. Feedlots, also known as animal feeding operations (AFOs), are defined as facilities where cattle are confined and fed for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period and where crops, vegetation, forage growth or post-harvest residues are not sustained in the normal growing season over any portion of the premise.2 Animals in feedlots are fed a diet of about 85% starch (in the form of corn or other grains) and 10-15% forage (such as hay or silage). The ration also includes protein sources such as soybean or cottonseed meal, sometimes in conjunction with urea. They are also fed other food manufacturing byproducts (e.g., cookie crumbs, sugar beet tops, orange pulp, candy, potato byproducts and potato waste) to reduce feed costs.3 More recently, ethanol co-products such as distiller’s dried grains with solubles (DDGS) and corn gluten feed can constitute 20- 50% of the ration. The highly engineered diet allows feeders to achieve rapid weight gain, reaching average daily weight gain of 2.5-4.0 lbs/day.4 Beef produced from these animals can be wellmarbled with fat. In feedlots, the finishing phase will increase the feeder’s weight to a minimum of 1,200 pounds in a period of 120-240 days, although animals may be fed longer and grown to over 1,400 pounds when grain prices are low. The 10-year average weight of grain-finished cattle to 2015 was 1,350 pounds.5 Grain-finished animals, called “fed cattle,” are usually 16-20 months old6 but can be 24 months or older. An estimated 97% of the cattle slaughtered for meat are fed grains.7 Most of them are finished in concentrated AFOs, or CAFOs,8 which are feedlots that discharge manure or wastewater into a natural or man-made ditch, stream or other waterway and are hence regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).9 CAFOs have accumulated huge economies of scale, with the largest ones having the capacity to feed 50,000 head of cattle or more at one time.10
#Greenwood, P. L. (2021): Review: An overview of beef production from pasture and feedlot globally, as demand for beef and the need for sustainable practices increase. Animal, Vol. 15
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731121001385?via%3Dihub#s0111
Quote: “Feedlots are used to fatten or finish cattle and can also help maintain the supply of nutrients to cattle when pasture availability is grossly inadequate to meet the nutritional needs of cattle such as in drought. Feedlot finishing assures the eating quality of beef for domestic markets and the supply of marbled beef for premium markets including the HRI trade and export markets such as Japan and Korea (Greenwood et al., 2018, Greenwood et al., 2019).
Cattle entering feedlots undergo induction programmes typically comprising vaccinations for respiratory and clostridial diseases and parasite treatments. They also include gradual adaptation to a feedlot diet using a starter ration with more roughage and less energy than finisher diets (Gaughan and Sullivan, 2014). Feedlot entry live weights in the USA average 364 kg, and in Australia, cattle live weights at feedlot entry typically range from 280 to 400 kg although for production of heavier carcasses 340–450 kg live weight at feedlot entry is preferred. Feedlot diets provide high energy and include grains such as corn, wheat, barley and sorghum, hay or silage for fibre, a protein source such as soybean, cottonseed, sunflower, canola and lupins, and vitamins and minerals. They may include by-products including dried distillers’ grains with solubles which can replace more traditional protein sources if cost-effective, and rumen modifiers (Gaughan and Sullivan, 2014, Hynd, 2014, Drouillard, 2018).”
#Hayek, M. N. & Garrett, R. D. (2018): Nationwide shift to grass-fed beef requires larger cattle population. Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 13 (8)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401
Quote: “While cattle are evolved to eat a diet primarily of grass and other forages not edible to humans, cattle are fattened in the final stages of their lives, or 'finished', on a diet of primarily grain in feedlots. The feedlot system has been the focus of concerns and investigations regarding food safety [7], environmental externalities [8], and animal welfare [9]. Feedlot systems rely on a high throughput of intensively grown crops, require frequent antibiotic and growth hormone usage, are located in regions where cattle are prone to heat exhaustion [9], and do not permit cattle to perform activities that conform with their natural instincts (i.e. grazing on open pasture). Furthermore, high volumes of manure and intensive manure management create odors which may result in human health consequences for agricultural workers and nearby residents [10] and undesirable aesthetic conditions. However, due to grain feed's higher nutrient density relative to grass, it requires significantly less land and generates less methane per unit of meat produced [3, 6].”
—Probably less than 5% of beef cattle in the US have lifelong access to outdoor pasture.
#Hayek, M. N. & Garrett, R. D. (2018): Nationwide shift to grass-fed beef requires larger cattle population. Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 13 (8)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401
Quote: “Because beef is the most land-demanding agricultural product in the US and the world, some have explored restricting cattle feed to pasturelands that are non-competitive with human food production [11]. Currently, 'grass-finished' beef accounts for less than 1% of the current US supply [12]. Imports of grass-finished beef to the US from Australia far outweigh the domestic US grass-finished beef supply [13].”
#Pennsylvania State University (2024): Grass-fed Beef Production
https://extension.psu.edu/grass-fed-beef-production
Quote: “Because of the aforementioned consumer perceptions, demand for the grass-fed beef is greater than the supply in much of the U.S. due to land values, lack of grazing infrastructure, lack of grass-finishing production knowledge, and other constraints. Despite the consumer demand, however, approximately 95% of the cattle in the United States continue to be finished, or fattened, on grain for the last 160 to 180 days of life (~25 to 30% of their life), on average.”
—And yet, a recent German study found that it only increases the price of beef by around 15%.
Here, too, the data situation was very sparse. However, we do have a study from Germany that analyzed the price premium of organic meat (including beef) in general. In the case of beef, a retail price premium of 15% compared to conventional farming was found. Of course, organic farming not only involves improving access to outdoor pastureland, but also other measures such as appropriate feed, so that these 15% include other measures and the price increase from access to outdoor pastureland alone would be lower. The 15% is therefore at the upper end of the price increase.
Staudigel, M. & Trubnikov, A. (2022): High price premiums as barriers to organic meat demand? A hedonic analysis considering species, cut and retail outlet. AARES, Vol. 66 (2)
—Dairy cows do have it much worse. They are often kept indoors for most of the year and suffer pain, sole ulcers and lesions from standing on concrete floors. But once again, none of these things seem to be needed to have affordable milk. In Germany, outdoor pasture increases the price of the milk by about 10 cents per liter.
#EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (2023): “Welfare of dairy cows”, EFSA Journal, vol. 21, 5
https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7993
Quote: “The most prevalent housing systems in the EU are cubicle housing systems, followed by open countries. The impact on animal welfare of each housing system is highly variable and affecen-bedded systems and tie-stalls. The proportion of farms offering access to pasture has declined in several EU MSs in the last decades, with an increasing number of farms converting to zero-grazing systems. The number of grazing days per year varies markedly between and within regions by the quality of the physical environment and management on a specific farm. However, there is substantive evidence that cows permanently tied in stalls have impaired welfare due to behavioural restriction compared to loose-housing systems (where cows are not tied).
[...]
Lameness is one of the major welfare issues in dairy cows and is often associated with pain and reduced ability to perform natural behaviour. Gait and foot lesion scoring are feasible ABMs to identify and score lameness. There is no clear evidence that one housing system is consistently better in terms of lameness reduction. Foot and leg disorders are multifactorial, resulting from interactions between the farm environment, management, nutrition and animal characteristics including genetic background, age and lactation stage.”
[...]
Regarding system comparison, temporary access to pasture is associated with a lower prevalence of integument damage compared to zero-grazing systems. Cubicles with shallow beds or mats (i.e. bedding less than 30 cm on concrete surfaces or less than 5 cm of compressed material on mats (compressed as a result of the animal lying on it)) are associated with an increased risk of claw disorders and a higher prevalence of lameness compared to a pasture-based systems.”
For milk to be sold as organic in the EU, it must be produced by cows grazing on pasture
#European Union (2007): “Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007”
https://www.clal.it/downloads/Reg_base_834_2007_en.pdf
Quote: “In addition to the general farm production rules laid down in Article 11, the following rules shall apply to livestock production: [...] with the exception of bees, livestock shall have
permanent access to pasture or roughage”
The wholesale price of organic milk in Germany is roughly 10 cents more than the non-organic milk
#CLAL: “Farm-gate milk prices, Germany” (retrieved 2024)
https://www.clal.it/en/index.php?section=latte_germania
#CLAL: “Organic milk prices, Germany” (retrieved 2024)
https://www.clal.it/en/index.php?section=latte_bio_germania
—We could go on with many other animals and farming practices, but the summary is clear. For the animals we consume the most, upgrading their life conditions from outright torture to something relatively decent may cost you about 15% more for beef and milk, 50% for eggs and pork, and 100% for chicken meat.
These calculations are directly derived from our assumed retail prices and the difference in price we have found for each, justified in their corresponding sections of this document.
For the milk, we have used the values from Germany, with an assumed retail price of a liter of milk of around 1€ per liter in the case of no added animal welfare measures, and slightly overestimated our result from 10% to 15% to make sure we cover countries where the calculation might not be so favorable.
#Milch NRW: “Deutschland: Verbraucherpreise für Milchprodukte 2023/24” (retrieved 2024) https://www.milch-nrw.de/fileadmin/redaktion/pdf/Mitteilungen_und_Marktberichte/Preise_und_Preisindex/BRD/BRD_Verbraucherpreise_Milchprodukte.pdf
The Core of the Issue
—Meat has gotten so cheap that we have to torture animals to keep the prices insanely low. This really is all there is to it. Food in developed countries is the cheapest it has been in history.
There is no data on the cost of “food” in general by country or a consensus of what countries count as “developed”.
Taking the US as an example, there seems to have been a general tendency towards a decrease of the percentage of disposable income that households need to use on food during the second half of the 20th century. However, this tendency has slowed down in the last decade and it has been reversed in the last few years, though this may have been a minor fluctuation.
#USDA: “Household food expenditures as a share of disposable personal income”
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-expenditure-series/interactive-charts-food-expenditures/
—In the US, the largest meat consumer in the world, an average person spends 337$ a month on food. 88$ on meat, eggs and dairy. If these became on average 50% more expensive, that would increase the monthly expenditure on food by about 43$. This may sound like a lot, but, relative to income, this only means paying as much for food as US consumers did in 1987.
There are no official published statistics for US expenditures in 2024 at the time of writing, so we generalize from past data.
In 2021, the US was the largest meat consumer of meat per day and per person:
#Our World in Data: “Daily meat consumption per person, 2021” (retrieved 2024)
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-meat-consumption-per-person
The most recent data available that shows the percentage of spending on different food items is from 2022:
#US Bureau of Labor Statistics: “Consumer expenditures in 2022” (retrieved 2024)
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/consumer-expenditures/2022/home.htm
Assuming that a consumer unit is formed by an average of 2.5 people, like it was in 2021:
#The Regents of the University of California (2022): “Food Spending: 2021”
https://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/blog/post/?id=2799
Quote: “The US Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey reported that there were 133.6 million US "consumer units" or households in 2021. They had an average of 2.5 persons, 1.3 earners and 1.9 motor vehicles; 63 percent were homeowners and the average age of the reference person in the household was 51.”
that makes for an average monthly spending on food per person of:
9,343 $ annual / (2.5 people × 12 months) = 311.4 $
Of which the expenditure on meat (including fish), eggs and diary was:
(1,216 + 532) $ annual / (2.5 people × 12 months) = 58.3 $
If the percentage of the expenditure on animal products is the same when eating away from home, this adds another:
(58.3/311.4) × 3,639 / (2.5 people × 12 months) = 22.7 $
Per month spent on animal products.
Adjusting for the food consumer price index in 2024, using mid-year values for 2022 and 2024:
#US Federal Reserve Bank Economic Data: “Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Food in U.S. City Average”
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIUFDSL
311.4 $ in 2022 × 330 CPI 2024/ 305 CPI 2022 = 337 $ in 2024
58.3 $ in 2022 × 330 CPI 2024/ 305 CPI 2022 = 63 $ in 2024
Adding food not eaten at home:
(58.3+22.7) $ in 2022 × 330 CPI 2024/ 305 CPI 2022 = 88 $ in 2024
—If all these products became on average 50% more expensive, that would increase the monthly expenditure on food by about 43$. This may sound like a lot, but really this only means paying as much for food as US consumers did in 1987.
From the argument immediately above in this document, Americans spent an estimated 88 $ dollars on animal food products in 2024. If these increased by 50% in price, the total expense would be approximately 131 $, or 43 $ more. This means, also with the calculation above, that the total monthly expense in food would rise to:
337 $ + 43 $ = 380 $
We consider 2021 as a year of reference for number transformation from this point, as 2022 had unusual inflation. In dollars from 2021, the monthly expense on food per person would be a difference between an original expense of:
337 $ × 276 CPI 2021/ 330 CPI 2024 = 282$
Which would represent a 10% of the disposable income:
#Our World in Data: “Food expenditure as a share of family disposable income in the United
States, 1929 to 2022” (retrieved 2024)
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-expenditure-share-family-disposable-income
And an expense, in the case of there being improved animal welfare, of:
380 $ × 276 CPI 2024/ 330 CPI 2024 = 317$
Which in return would be a percent of the disposable income:
317 $/(280 $ × 10) = 11.3%
Which roughly corresponds to the proportional expense in food in late 80s
#Our World in Data: “Food expenditure as a share of family disposable income in the United
States, 1929 to 2022” (retrieved 2024)
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-expenditure-share-family-disposable-income
—In Germany, the average person spends about 70€ a month on meat, eggs and dairy. If we increased prices by 50% on average to make the lives of these animals better in a really meaningful way, this would rise by about 35€, to about 100€.
The average household size in Germany os of 2 people:
#ArcGIS Online: “Average Household Size in Germany” (retrieved 2024)
https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=b6a82e2a656042b899bb88a1aeca5751/1000
Quote: “Nationally, the average household size is 2.0 people per household. It is calculated by dividing the household population by total households.”
Considering the average expenses of a 2-person household in meat, fish, eggs and diary in 2018:
Taken the average expenditure for households of 2 people in germany, we have an unadjusted 2018 expense on meat, fish, seafood, milk, cheese and eggs of:
58€+12€+46€= 116€
Which results in an expense per person of:
116€/2= 58€
#Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis): “Expenditure of households on food, beverages and tobacco” (retrieved 2024)
Adjusting for the mid-year consumer price index between 2018 and 2024:
#US Federal Reserve Bank Economic Data: “Consumer Price Indices (CPIs, HICPs), COICOP 1999: Consumer Price Index: Total for Germany” (retrieved 2024)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DEUCPALTT01IXOBSAQ
58€ 126 CPI 2024/105 CPI 2018 = 70 €
A 50% increase would represent spending 35€ more, that is, 105€ in total.
— If this still sounds too expensive, it may be because around 20 % of all meat people buy is simply thrown away.
This includes meat bought and wasted at every stage, including production, distribution and consumption. The stage where most waste comes from is consumption, with around 60% of the total waste taking place at this stage.
#Karwowska, Małgorzata; Łaba, Sylwia; Szczepański, Krystian (2021): ”Food Loss and Waste in Meat Sector—Why the Consumption Stage Generates the Most Losses?”, Sustainability. Vol. 13, 11, 6227
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/11/6227
Quote: “Due to the relatively high consumption of meat and meat products, the level of losses during production and of product waste by consumers in consumer stage becomes significant. It is estimated that as much as 23% of production in the meat sector is lost and wasted. The largest share is generated at the consumption level, representing 64% of the total food waste, followed by manufacturing (20%), distribution (12%) and primary production and post-harvest (3.5%).”
#Caldeira, Carla et al. (2019): “Quantification of food waste per product group along the food supply chain in the European Union: a mass flow analysis”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 149, 479-488
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344919302721#sec0065
—Organic brands often include, for a lack of a better word, stupid measures. Like forbidding GMO feed.
#European Union (2007): “Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007”
https://www.clal.it/downloads/Reg_base_834_2007_en.pdf
Quote: “Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and products produced from or by GMOs are incompatible with the concept of organic production and consumers' perception of organic products. They should therefore not be used in organic farming or in the processing of organic products”
#USDA (2013): “Can GMOs be used in Organic Products?”
https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Can%20GMOs%20be%20Used.pdf
Quote: “The use of genetic engineering, or genetically modified organisms (GMOs), is prohibited in organic products. This means an organic farmer can't plant GMO seeds, an organic cow can't eat GMO alfalfa or corn, and an organic soup producer can't use any GMO ingredients.”
—As we covered in another video: banning GMOs doesn’t do anything good for you or the animals. It just makes your food more expensive and seem more “natural”, while you are consuming unnatural animal breeds, living a deeply unnatural life.
#Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell (2017): “Are GMOs Good or Bad? Genetic Engineering & Our Food”
—There is one exception too good not to mention: Mussels. They suck up carbon and filter water, making coastlines cleaner.
Blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) play a crucial role in enhancing coastal water quality and combating the impacts of climate change through their natural filtration processes and ability to sequester carbon.
#van der Schatte Olivier, A. et al. (2021): Geographical variation in the carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus content of blue mussels, Mytilus edulis. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 167
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0025326X21003258?via%3Dihub
Quote: “Human activities have substantially increased the inputs of nutrients to coastal and estuarine waters (Boyer and Howarth, 2008) through increased use of chemical fertilisers and organic waste in intensive agriculture and human sewage in the form of nutrient waste from expanding cities (Petersen et al., 2019). Biogeochemical cycling of nutrients plays a significant role in nearshore coastal and estuarine systems in controlling densities of micro- and macro-algae (Clements and Comeau, 2019; Gobler et al., 2016; Rose et al., 2014). Excess nutrients can lead to a biogeochemical imbalance and substantial perturbation to coastal systems, and has led to an increased occurrence of eutrophic estuaries around the world (Rose et al., 2014).
In recent years mussel farms have been discussed as a mechanism for reducing the impact of terrestrial nutrient inputs to estuaries, through their ability to filter phytoplankton and incorporate nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and carbon (C) into their shells and tissue (Buer et al., 2020; Clements and Comeau, 2019; Hedberg et al., 2018; Kotta et al., 2020; Petersen et al., 2019; Rose et al., 2015).
(...)
As well as its role in nutrient remediation, bivalve aquaculture is also gaining widespread attention because of its potential role in the C cycle (Filgueira et al., 2015; Hickey, 2009; Tang et al., 2011; Waldbusser et al., 2013), due to the growing drive to mitigate climate change. Carbon is stored in shells for long periods of time, with some authors arguing that the C stored in shell represents a long-term sink. Others, however, argue that due to biogeochemical transformations during the calcification process, particularly the CO2 released into the water column, incorporation of C into shell material by bivalves should be considered to be a source of atmospheric CO2 (Filgueira et al., 2015; Fodrie et al., 2017). Whether carbonate formation in bivalve shell is considered a net sink or a net source, the amount of C stored in shell, and therefore removed from the marine system at harvest is one way to estimate the magnitude of this process carried out by cultured mussels.”
#Moody, J. & Kreeger, D. (2022): Ribbed mussel (Geukensia demissa) filtration services are driven by seasonal temperature and site-specific seston variability.
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, Vol. 522
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002209811830580X?via%3Dihub
Quote: “As filter-feeding bivalves, the ribbed mussel, Geukensia demissa, plays a key role in the pelagic-benthic coupling of intertidal salt marsh ecosystems. The transfer of nutrient rich particulate matter from the water column to either the animal, through physiological assimilation, or the subsurface of the salt marsh platform (Newell and Langdon, 2004) represents a nutrient sink with potential benefits to water quality. Similar to many global coastal habitats, mid-Atlantic estuaries experience considerable eutrophic degradation, fueled by excess nutrient runoff (Nixon et al., 1986; Valiela, 1992; Rabalais et al., 2009). Since much of these excess nutrients are taken up by phytoplankton (Valiela et al., 1990; Sfriso et al., 1992; D'Avanzo and Kremer, 1994), there has been strong interest in restoring native bivalve populations, such as oysters, to exert grazing pressure on algal blooms and to potentially facilitate nutrient burial and microbial denitrification via bivalve bio-deposits (Landry, 2002; Higgins et al., 2001; Stadmark and Conley, 2011; Gallardi, 2014; Petersen et al., 2014).”
#Sea, M.A. et al (2022): The influence of mussel restoration on coastal carbon cycling. Global Change Biology, Vol. 28
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/gcb.16287
Quote: “Conventionally, the influence of bivalves on coastal carbon cycling has been reduced to the summation of an individual's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (resulting from respiration and calcification) versus carbon stored in the individual's shell and tissue (see Filgueira et al., 2019). This, however, neglects to address the engineering role (Gutiérrez et al., 2003; Meadows et al., 2012) and upscaling effects (Sea et al., 2021) that bivalves demonstrate at the ecosystem level.
(...)
The effects of bivalves on carbon cycling are thus more complex than simple shell formation and dissolution equations at the individual scale, and questions regarding their implications on coastal carbon must be resolved using an ecosystem approach (e.g., Filgueira et al., 2015) which encompasses direct and indirect feedbacks (physical, biological, and biogeochemical) of bivalves on their environment. Using a more holistic standpoint, some bivalve systems have been deemed carbon sinks (e.g., Fodrie et al., 2017), although the magnitude and extent of this sink capacity across species and geographic locations is currently unknown.”
—Calling mussels dumb is giving them too much credit. With no central nervous system, and probably no thoughts or pain, they are basically moss. Really, everyone should eat more mussels.
The notion that mollusks like mussels could feel pain in a way that is recognisable to humans is highly controversial.
#Crook, Robyn J.; Walters, Edward T. (2011): ”Nociceptive Behavior and Physiology of Molluscs: Animal Welfare Implications”, ILAR Journal, vol. 52, 2, 185–195
https://academic.oup.com/ilarjournal/article/52/2/185/659960
Quote: “Because the definition of pain includes a subjective component that may be impossible to gauge in animals quite different from humans, firm conclusions about the possible existence of pain in molluscs may be unattainable. Evolutionary divergence and differences in lifestyle, physiology, and neuroanatomy suggest that painlike experiences in molluscs, if they exist, should differ from those in mammals. But reports indicate that some molluscs exhibit motivational states and cognitive capabilities that may be consistent with a capacity for states with functional parallels to pain.”
#Walters, Edward T. (2018): ”Nociceptive Biology of Molluscs and Arthropods: Evolutionary Clues About Functions and Mechanisms Potentially Related to Pain”, Frontiers in physiology, 9, 1049
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2018.01049/full
#Sneddon, Lynne U. (2015): “Pain in aquatic animals”, Journal of Experimental Biology, vol. 218, 7, 967-976
https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/218/7/967/14518/Pain-in-aquatic-animals
Google Sites
Report abuse