All consumption is retail-weight edible meat (or very close proxies).
| Product | Retail consumption (kg/person/yr) | Animals per kg (biophysical) | Implied animals consumed per year | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beef | ≈ 26.5 kg | ≈ 0.0039 cows/kg | ≈ 0.10 cows/yr | ~1 cow every 10 years. Steer ~1,400 lb → ~258 kg boneless. |
| Pork | ≈ 23 kg | ≈ 0.016 pigs/kg | ≈ 0.37 pigs/yr | ~1 pig every 2–3 years; hog ~68–70 kg retail. |
| Chicken (broilers) | ≈ 44 kg | ≈ 0.59 chickens/kg | ≈ 26 chickens/yr | 3 kg live → ~1.7 kg boneless edible. |
| Turkey | ≈ 6.5 kg | ≈ 0.14 turkeys/kg | ≈ 0.9 turkeys/yr | ~7 kg edible per turkey. |
| Fish & seafood (mixed) | ≈ 8.9 kg | ≈ 17 aquatic animals/kg | ≈ 149 aquatic animals/yr | ≈12 finfish + 137 shellfish per person/year (central). |
Central per-capita totals (US): ≈ 27 land animals + ≈150 aquatic animals per person per year (ignoring bycatch and feed fish).
| Species / Product | Edible yield per animal Yᵢ (kg) | Animals/kg (1/Yᵢ, central) | Range (animals/kg) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beef cattle | ≈ 250–270 | ≈ 0.0039 cows/kg | 0.0035–0.0045 | Steer 1,200–1,400 lb, ~40–42% of live weight as boneless retail. |
| Pigs | ≈ 65–75 | ≈ 0.014–0.016 pigs/kg | 0.015–0.02 | 260–280 lb hog, ~53–54% to retail; central ≈0.016 pigs/kg. |
| Broiler chickens | ≈ 1.6–1.8 | ≈ 0.59 chickens/kg | 0.55–0.65 | 3 kg live, 72–75% dressing; 1.6–1.8 kg boneless edible. |
| Turkeys | ≈ 7 | ≈ 0.14 turkeys/kg | 0.12–0.17 | 17–23 lb live, ~80.5% dressing; 60–70% of carcass edible. |
| Seafood (mixed) | Highly heterogeneous | ≈ 17 animals/kg (central) | 10–30 | Big fish: ≈0.3–0.5 fish/kg; shrimp/mussels: tens–hundreds/kg. Central based on US per-capita kill estimates. |
mᵢ ≈ expected animals not produced per animal that would otherwise be consumed (~cumulative elasticity factor).
| Species group | Central mᵢ | Low mᵢ (pessimistic) | High mᵢ (optimistic) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beef | ≈ 0.70 | 0.50 | 0.90 | Based on ~0.74 “unit drop in demand → production” for mammals. |
| Pork | ≈ 0.70 | 0.50 | 0.90 | Treated similarly to beef. |
| Chicken (broilers) | ≈ 0.75 | 0.60 | 0.90 | EA-side estimates: ~0.76 lb production drop per 1 lb demand drop. |
| Turkey | ≈ 0.75 | 0.50 | 0.90 | Modeled similar to chicken. |
| Farmed fish | ≈ 0.69 | 0.50 | 0.90 | “Farmed fish” cumulative elasticity. |
| Seafood (all) | ≈ 0.70 | 0.50 | 0.90 | Applied to combined aquatic animals in simple models. |
Using central US consumption and central mᵢ.
| Species group | Animals consumed/yr (N_direct) | mᵢ (central) | Expected animals spared/yr (N_direct·mᵢ) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cows (beef) | ≈ 0.10 | 0.70 | ≈ 0.07 cows/yr | ~1 cow every ~14 years spared. |
| Pigs | ≈ 0.37 | 0.70 | ≈ 0.26 pigs/yr | ~1 pig every 3–4 years spared. |
| Chickens (broilers) | ≈ 26 | 0.75 | ≈ 19–20 chickens/yr | Dominant land-animal term. |
| Turkeys | ≈ 0.9 | 0.75 | ≈ 0.7 turkeys/yr | ~1 turkey/year spared. |
| Land total | ≈ 27 | — | ≈ 21 land animals/yr | Central case. |
| Aquatic animals | ≈ 150 | 0.70 | ≈ 105 aquatic animals/yr | Mix of finfish + shellfish. |
| Total animals | ≈ 177 | — | ≈ 126 animals/yr | Central total (100–175 plausible). |
Approximate ranges (annual, veg/vegan vs omnivore):
| Scenario | Land animals spared/yr | Aquatic animals spared/yr | Total animals spared/yr |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low (pessimistic mᵢ) | ≈ 14 | ≈ 50–80 | ≈ 60–100 |
| Central | ≈ 20–25 | ≈ 80–150 | ≈ 100–175 |
| High (optimistic mᵢ) | ≈ 25–30 | ≈ 180–250 | ≈ 200–280 |
Using annual central estimates and a sustained veg/vegan diet over adulthood.
| Case | Years T | Land animals spared (≈/T) | Aquatic animals spared (≈/T) | Total animals spared |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Central | 40 | ≈ 21·40 ≈ 840 | ≈ 105·40 ≈ 4,200 | ≈ 5,000 |
| Low (pessimistic, T=30) | 30 | 14·30 = 420 | 50·30 = 1,500 | ≈ 1,800–3,000 |
| High (optimistic, T=50) | 50 | 25–30·50 = 1,250–1,500 | 200±·50 = 10,000–12,500 | ≈ 10,000–14,000 |
Working lifetime range: ≈ 2,000–14,000 animals not raised/slaughtered per lifelong US veg/vegan vs typical omnivore, with a central band ≈ 3,000–7,000 (mostly aquatic).
For species i:
- cᵢ = annual consumption (kg/yr)
- Δcᵢ = change in consumption (kg/yr; negative for cuts)
- Yᵢ = edible yield per animal (kg/animal)
- Eᵢ ≈ cumulative elasticity factor (≈ mᵢ)
Then:
[ \Delta N_i \approx - \frac{E_i}{Y_i} ,\Delta c_i = k_i ,\Delta c_i,\quad k_i := \frac{E_i}{Y_i}. ]
If you model:
- animals consumed/yr ≈ cᵢ / Yᵢ
- mᵢ ≈ Eᵢ
then under “cut all of species i”:
[ \mathbb{E}[\Delta N_i] \approx m_i \cdot \frac{c_i}{Y_i}. ]
-
Uₐ,ᵢ^life = net lifetime welfare for species i in a given system.
-
Scale (shared across species):
Value Interpretation –10 Extremely bad life; near-maximal suffering 0 Life just worth living / neutral +10 Extremely good life; near-maximal flourishing
Negative values = life worse than non-existence. Scores are structured judgement informed by welfare science.
| Species / System | Pessimistic | Central | Optimistic | Qualitative summary (central) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Broiler chickens | –8 | –5 | –2 | Rapid growth, leg pain, burns, high density, stressful catching/slaughter; short life dominated by discomfort. |
| Layer hens (battery cages) | –9 | –6 | –3 | Extreme behavioral deprivation; beak trimming; bone fractures; chronic frustration and pain. |
| Pigs (intensive, mixed roles) | –7 | –4 | –1 | Painful mutilations, barren pens, disease and injuries; some positive periods but net negative. |
| Beef cattle (cow–calf + feedlot) | –2 | 0 | +3 | Early pasture life positive; feedlot/ procedures/transport negative; central ≈ neutral overall. |
| Dairy cattle (intensive) | –5 | –2 | 0 to +1 | Repeated calving, lameness, mastitis, metabolic disease & calf separation; some positive experiences. |
| Atlantic salmon (intensive farms) | –8 | –5 | –2 | Disease, lice, crowding, repeated handling, often poor slaughter; some neutral periods. |
Conservative for animal impact (optimistic about welfare):
| Species | Uₐ,ᵢ^life range |
|---|---|
| Broilers | 0 to –2 |
| Layers (battery) | –3 to –5 |
| Pigs (intensive) | –1 to –3 |
| Beef cattle | 0 to +3 |
| Dairy cattle | –1 to +1 |
| Farmed fish | –1 to –3 |
Middle-of-the-road:
| Species | Uₐ,ᵢ^life range |
|---|---|
| Broilers | –3 to –6 |
| Layers (battery) | –6 to –8 |
| Pigs (intensive) | –4 to –6 |
| Beef cattle | 0 to +3 |
| Dairy cattle | –1 to 0 |
| Farmed fish | –4 to –6 |
Pessimistic for animal welfare:
| Species | Uₐ,ᵢ^life range |
|---|---|
| Broilers | –7 to –10 |
| Layers (battery) | –9 to –10 |
| Pigs (intensive) | –8 to –10 |
| Beef cattle | –1 to –3 |
| Dairy cattle | –3 to –5 |
| Farmed fish | –7 to –9 |
Let:
- Uₐ,ᵢ^life = welfare score from above.
- wₐ,ᵢ = moral weight of species i relative to a human.
Then:
[ U_{a,i}^{\text{life,moral}} = w_{a,i} \times U_{a,i}^{\text{life}}. ]
These Uₐ,ᵢ^life and wₐ,ᵢ are separate dials: welfare profiles (this appendix) and moral weights (Appendix D).
| Component | Description (typical high-income / US adult) | Direction under well-planned plant-based shift (long run) |
|---|---|---|
| Sensory pleasure | Meat: concentrated umami, fat, texture; many find highly pleasurable. | Short-run: loss of familiar dishes; long-run: similar or higher enjoyment after adaptation. |
| Convenience | Meat is default in many restaurants, social events. | Some extra planning/search; decreases as environment & habits adapt. |
| Food cost | Meat and dairy are relatively expensive per calorie vs staples. | Whole-food plant-based diets often cheaper; alt-meat heavy diets can be similar or slightly more expensive. |
| Cultural & social | Many traditions are meat-centered (BBQ, holiday roast, Thanksgiving turkey, etc.). | Potential friction/feeling left out; offset by new veg-centered communities/rituals. |
| Health & physical functioning | Typical Western diet contributes to CVD, diabetes, obesity. | High-quality plant-based diets → lower chronic disease risk; “junk-food veg” may not. |
| Psychological: ethics & identity | Eating animals can create dissonance for people with strong animal-welfare/climate values. | Veg*ism can give strong moral alignment and identity benefits. |
| Psychological: constraint stress | Dietary restrictions can feel burdensome, especially in unsupportive environments. | Can cause stress early on; often declines with routines and social support. |
Overall: long-run ΔUₕ,per yr appears small (often ≈0, slightly positive, or mildly negative), compared to animal welfare terms in animal-friendly parameter regimes.
Approximate, mainly from Western cohorts and meta-analyses.
| Outcome | Relative risk (RR) or HR, plant-based vs meat-heavy | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Ischemic heart disease / CVD | RR ≈ 0.75–0.81 (≈19–25% lower risk) | EPIC-Oxford; plant-based dietary indices meta-analyses. |
| Stroke (total) | HR ≈ 1.20 (≈20% higher risk) | EPIC-Oxford: higher hemorrhagic stroke risk; absolute increase small (~3 events/1,000 over 10 yrs). |
| Type 2 diabetes | ≈ 38–54% lower incidence (before BMI adjustment) | Adventist Health Study-2; still lower after BMI adjustment. |
| Cancer incidence | Vegetarian: RR ≈ 0.92; vegan: RR ≈ 0.85 | Slightly lower total cancer, especially colorectal. |
| Cancer mortality | RR ≈ 0.88 | Plant-based indices vs typical. |
| All-cause mortality | RR ≈ 0.84 (≈16% lower) | High vs low adherence to healthy plant-based patterns. |
| BMI, hypertension, lipids | Lower BMI; SBP ↓ ~4–6 mmHg; LDL ↓ ~8–12 mg/dL | From trials of veg/vegan vs control diets. |
Rough, order-of-magnitude, for a lifelong shift from typical US omnivore diet to a high-quality plant-based diet.
| Quantity | Plausible range (per person lifetime) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Extra life expectancy | ≈ 0.5–2.0 years | Based on modeled composite changes in CVD, diabetes, cancer. |
| Extra healthy life-years (HLY / QALYs/HALYs) | ≈ 1–2 healthy years | Includes reduced morbidity burden (especially diabetes, CVD). |
| Health benefit for “junk-food vegan” | ≈ 0 or negative | Unhealthy plant-heavy indices sometimes associate with worse outcomes. |
You can encode this as a term like:
[ \Delta \text{HLY}_{\text{plant vs typical}} \sim 0.5\text{–}2.0 \text{ healthy years} ]
for strong adherence to a high-quality plant-based pattern.
| Channel | Direction under large-scale meat reduction | Relative magnitude vs animal-welfare term |
|---|---|---|
| Meat-sector revenue/profits | ↓ (reduced quantity, slight price effects) | Tiny if considering a single consumer; modest under large shifts; dominated by animal-utilitarian terms in animal-focused models. |
| Alternative food sectors | ↑ (plant-based foods, other foods) | Gains in revenue and profits; some innovation and new industries. |
| Agricultural & food-system jobs | Beef/animal jobs ↓; crop/alt-protein jobs ↑ | Net national employment changes small (<1% GDP), but distributional effects among regions/workers. |
| Macro GDP | ≈ neutral to slight ↑ | Some models find marginal increases due to efficiency/innovation. |
| Transition costs | Short-run localized hardship for farmers, workers | Can be modeled as small negative term if explicitly weighting transitional unemployment/poverty. |
Let:
- σ = average number of people materially influenced by one person’s diet choice.
- β = average strength of their adoption (1 = full veg/vegan, 0.5 ≈ “half as much reduction as the original,” etc.).
Empirical hints (Northern Netherlands prospective study + qualitative data):
| Quantity | Plausible range / description |
|---|---|
| Full “conversions” per veg person | σ_full ≈ 0.2–0.6 |
| Partial adopters per veg person | σ_partial ≈ 0.5–1.0 |
| Average strength (partial) | β_partial ≈ 0.3–0.5 |
| Partner β | ≈ 0.6–0.8 (if sharing most meals) |
| Friend/roommate β | ≈ 0.2–0.5 |
Define an effective multiplier:
[ M = 1 + \sigma_{\text{full}} \cdot 1 + \sigma_{\text{partial}} \cdot \beta_{\text{partial}}. ]
Plausible range:
| Scenario | M (spillover multiplier) | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Conservative | ≈ 1.1–1.3 | 10–30% extra impact via others. |
| Central | ≈ 1.3–2.0 | 30–100% extra impact. |
| Very optimistic | > 2.0 | Each veg person triggers >1 full-equivalent veg over time. |
Total dietary impact = M × (direct impact of the individual).
| Parameter / Choice | What it controls in the model | Why skeptics care |
|---|---|---|
| Lifetime welfare of farmed animals Uₐ,ᵢ^life | Whether each animal’s life is net positive, neutral, or negative; magnitude of welfare change per animal created/avoided. | Small changes in these values, multiplied by large animal counts, can flip the sign of the whole calculation. There is real disagreement even on the sign. |
| Moral weights for animals vs humans wₐ,ᵢ | Conversion rate from “animal welfare units” to human-equivalent utility. | Different plausible heuristics (neurons, cognition, welfare ranges) give orders-of-magnitude differences in wₐ,ᵢ. |
| Marginal animals affected per person (mᵢ, N_direct) | How many animals are actually affected by one person’s consumption, given elasticities and thresholds. | Early intuition “one animal eaten → one animal killed” is wrong; realistic mᵢ range from a few percent to ~0.8, changing impact per person by ~10–15×. |
| Human per-year utility change ΔUₕ,per yr | Net effect of diet change on the human’s own wellbeing (taste, cost, health, social life, ethics, stress). | If human costs are large and animal terms small (because of low U, w, or m), sign of the decision can flip; but evidence suggests ΔUₕ,per yr is modest. |
Ranges are for sensitivity analyses, not “truth claims.”
Chickens
| Scenario | w_chicken (fraction of a human) | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Extreme skeptic | ≈ 1×10⁻⁴ (0.01%) or less | 10,000 chickens ≈ 1 human. |
| Middle | ≈ 10⁻³–10⁻² (0.1–1%) | 100–1,000 chickens ≈ 1 human. |
| Animal-friendly | ≈ 10⁻²–10⁻¹ (1–10%) | 10–100 chickens ≈ 1 human. |
Pigs
| Scenario | w_pig |
|---|---|
| Extreme skeptic | ≈ 10⁻³ (0.1%) |
| Middle | ≈ 0.01–0.1 (1–10%) |
| Animal-friendly | ≈ 0.3–1.0 (30–100%) |
Cows
| Scenario | w_cow |
|---|---|
| Extreme skeptic | ≈ 10⁻³–10⁻² |
| Middle | ≈ 0.01–0.1 (1–10%) |
| Animal-friendly | ≈ 0.2–0.3 (20–30%) |
Farmed fish (e.g., salmon)
| Scenario | w_fish |
|---|---|
| Extreme skeptic | ≈ 10⁻⁵ (0.001%) |
| Middle | ≈ 10⁻⁴–10⁻³ (0.01–0.1%) |
| Animal-friendly | ≈ 10⁻² (1%) |
Scenario bundles:
| Scenario type | Chicken w | Pig w | Cow w | Fish w |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Animal-friendly | 0.01–0.10 | 0.10–0.50 | 0.05–0.30 | 0.001–0.01 |
| Middle | 0.001–0.01 | 0.01–0.10 | 0.01–0.10 | 1e-4–1e-3 |
| Human-centric skeptic | ≤ 1e-4 | 1e-3–1e-2 | 1e-3–1e-2 | 1e-5–1e-4 |
Per-species ranges for mᵢ (fraction of animals actually not produced per animal not consumed):
| Species group | Low mᵢ (skeptical) | Middle mᵢ | High mᵢ (animal-friendly) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chickens | 0.05–0.20 | 0.30–0.50 | 0.60–0.80 |
| Pigs | 0.05–0.10 | ≈ 0.20 | ≈ 0.50 |
| Cows | 0.01–0.02 | ≈ 0.05 | ≈ 0.10 |
| Farmed fish | ~0.15 | ~0.3–0.7 | ~0.7–0.9 |
Combined with N_direct from Appendix A, this yields low/mid/high ranges for animals spared per year.
For each species i:
[ \Delta U_i \approx N_{\text{direct},i} \cdot m_i \cdot U_{a,i}^{\text{life}} \cdot w_i. ]
Uncertainty comes from:
- N_direct (diet pattern and region).
- mᵢ (elasticities, market structure).
- Uₐ,ᵢ^life (welfare profiles, Section B).
- wᵢ (moral weights, above).
These interact multiplicatively; dialing all “animal-friendly” yields very large animal benefits, dialing all “human-centric/skeptical” makes animal terms small and possibly dominated by ΔUₕ,per yr.
Informal, but useful for sensitivity checks.
| Scenario | ΔUₕ,per yr (human utility units) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Ethically and hedonically happy | +0.1 to +0.3 | Enjoys plant food, feels healthier, moral alignment. |
| Essentially neutral | ≈ 0 | Adapts with minimal ongoing cost or benefit. |
| Mildly net negative | –0.1 to –0.5 | Misses meat, feels some social/cost friction. |
| Strongly negative (outlier case) | < –0.5 | Only if diet change seriously impairs mental health or social life. |
In most realistic high-income contexts with access to good plant-based options, ΔUₕ,per yr is unlikely to be extremely large in magnitude compared to animal-side terms under animal-friendly parameters.
Below is a consolidated reference list, grouped roughly by which deep-research report it originally supported. (Duplicates across groups are left as-is for traceability.)
-
Livestock Marketing Information Center. US Red Meat & Poultry Consumption, Per Capita, Retail Weight, Annual (2022 data; compiled from USDA-NASS & USDA-ERS). URL: https://www.agmanager.info/sites/default/files/pdf/AMSA_RMC_Tonsor_June2023.pdf
-
USDA Economic Research Service. Meat Price Spreads – Documentation. URL: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/meat-price-spreads/documentation
-
USDA ERS. Food Availability (Per Capita) Data System – Documentation. URL: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-per-capita-data-system/food-availability-documentation
-
UNL Beef Extension. How Many Pounds of Meat Can We Expect From a Beef Animal? URL: https://beef.unl.edu/beefwatch/2020/how-many-pounds-meat-can-we-expect-beef-animal/
-
Indiana Board of Animal Health. How Much Eating Meat. URL: https://www.in.gov/boah/consumer-information-dairy-meat-and-poultry/how-much-eating-meat/
-
University of Wisconsin Extension – Livestock. Bird Breakdown: Exploring Yields and Cuts of Poultry. URL: https://livestock.extension.wisc.edu/articles/bird-breakdown-exploring-yields-and-cuts-of-poultry/
-
NOAA Fisheries. Sustainable Seafood – Fact: 19.7 pounds of fish and shellfish (U.S. per capita seafood consumption, 2022). URL: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/sustainable-seafood
-
Animal Clock. 2025 U.S. Animal Kill Clock. URL: https://animalclock.org/
-
Harish Sethu, Counting Animals. Animals we use and abuse for food we do not eat. URL: https://countinganimals.com/animals-we-use-and-abuse-for-food-we-do-not-eat/
-
Harish Sethu, Counting Animals. How many animals does a vegetarian save? URL: https://countinganimals.com/how-many-animals-does-a-vegetarian-save/
-
Animal Ask. Meat reduction: do digital and mass media campaigns help? URL: https://www.animalask.org/post/meat-reduction-how-much-can-digital-media-and-mass-media-help
-
Effective Altruism Forum (Eli Nathan). What is the current best estimate of the cumulative elasticity…? URL: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fZp6Fpowmd5a8Lu2w/what-is-the-current-best-estimate-of-the-cumulative
-
National Fisheries Institute / Aqua Culture Asia Pacific. Top 10 List shows Americans eating more and different seafood. URL: https://aquaasiapac.com/2021/05/29/nfis-top-10-list-shows-americans-eating-more-and-different-seafood/
-
EFSA (2023). Welfare of broilers on farm. EFSA Journal 21(8):7788. URL: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7788
-
Kwon et al. (2024). Assessment of Welfare Problems in Broilers: Focus on Chronic Issues. URL: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11011155/
-
HSUS. An HSUS Report: The Welfare of Chickens in the Meat Industry. URL: https://www.humaneworld.org/sites/default/files/docs/hsus-report-welfare-chicken-industry.pdf
-
HSUS. An HSUS Report: The Welfare of Intensively Confined Animals. URL: https://www.humaneworld.org/sites/default/files/uploads/assets/pdfs/welfare-of-intensively-confined-animals-international-word-sept-4-08.pdf
-
HSUS. An HSUS Report: The Welfare of Cows in the Dairy Industry. URL: https://www.humaneworld.org/sites/default/files/docs/hsus-report-animal-welfare-cow-dairy-industry.pdf
-
HSUS. An HSUS Report: The Welfare of Piglets in the Pig Industry. URL: https://www.humaneworld.org/sites/default/files/docs/hsus-report-piglets-industry-welfare.pdf
-
Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association (HSVMA). Veterinary Report on Gestation Crates. URL: https://www.humanevma.org/assets/pdfs/hsvma_veterinary_report_gestation_crates.pdf
-
CIWF. Welfare issues for pigs. URL: https://www.ciwf.com/farmed-animals/pigs/welfare-issues/
-
CIWF. Understanding Pig Welfare: Challenges & Solutions. URL: https://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm-animals/pigs/pig-welfare/
-
Four Paws (2024). Mutilations of Pigs. URL: https://www.fourpawsusa.org/campaigns-topics/topics/farm-animals/mutilation-with-pigs
-
RSPCA Australia. What are the animal welfare issues with farrowing crates for sows? URL: https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/what-are-the-animal-welfare-issues-with-farrowing-crates-for-sows/
-
RSPCA Australia. What are the animal welfare issues with feedlots for cattle? URL: https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/what-are-the-animal-welfare-issues-with-feedlots-for-cattle/
-
ICFAW (2009). OIE guidelines for the on-farm welfare of cattle raised for beef (submission). URL: https://endive-deer-sfh4.squarespace.com/s/ICFAW-OIE-guidelines-for-the-on-farm-welfare-of-cattle-raised-for-beef.pdf
-
Grandin, T. (2016). Evaluation of the welfare of cattle housed in outdoor feedlot pens. URL: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7386639/
-
ScienceDirect. Increasing mud levels in a feedlot influences beef cattle... URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159122001769
-
Frontiers in Veterinary Science. The welfare of ill and injured feedlot cattle: a review. URL: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/veterinary-science/articles/10.3389/fvets.2024.1398116/full
-
Compassion Lebensmittelwirtschaft. Welfare Issues in Beef Cattle. URL: https://www.compassionlebensmittelwirtschaft.de/media/5822634/welfare-issues-table-beef-cattle.pdf
-
MSPCA-Angell. Farmed Animal Welfare: Cows. URL: https://www.mspca.org/animal_protection/farm-animal-welfare-cows/
-
Nielsen, S.S. (2023). Welfare of dairy cows. URL: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10186071/
-
WOAH (OIE). Animal welfare and dairy cattle production systems. URL: https://www.woah.org/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahc/2018/en_chapitre_aw_dairy_cattle.htm
-
arXiv. Effect of In-vitro Heat Stress Challenge on the function of Blood Mononuclear Cells from Dairy Cattle… URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.08801
-
Faunalytics / Mui, W. (2020). Farmed Atlantic Salmon: A Life Not Worth Living? URL: https://faunalytics.org/farmed-atlantic-salmon-a-life-not-worth-living/
-
Faunalytics (2022). Animal Product Impact Scales: 2022 Update. URL: https://faunalytics.org/animal-product-impact-scales-2022-update/
-
Charity Entrepreneurship (2018). Is it better to be a wild rat or a factory-farmed cow? A systematic method for comparing animal welfare. URL: https://www.charityentrepreneurship.com/post/is-it-better-to-be-a-wild-rat-or-a-factory-farmed-cow-a-systematic-method-for-comparing-animal-welf
-
Effective Altruism Forum (2024). The suffering of a farmed animal is equal in size to the happiness of a human. URL: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/MP4rNBu6ftG4QE3nL/the-suffering-of-a-farmed-animal-is-equal-in-size-to-the
-
80,000 Hours Podcast (2024). Bob Fischer on comparing the welfare of humans, chickens, and fish. URL: https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/bob-fischer-comparing-animal-welfare-moral-weight/
-
Holler, S. et al. (2021). Differences Between Omnivores and Vegetarians in Personality Profiles, Values, and Empathy: A Cross-Sectional Study. Nutrients. URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8530248/
-
Nesterok, M.D. (2023). The differences in life satisfaction between individuals following plant-based diets and meat-eaters. Rozprawy Społeczne. URL: https://rozprawyspoleczne.edu.pl/The-differences-in-life-satisfaction-between-individuals-following-plant-based-diets%2C168794%2C0%2C2.html
-
Hanras, E. et al. (2022). Do they differ in food choice motives, coping, and quality of life? A comparison of omnivores, flexitarians, vegetarians, and vegans. Appetite. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590250422000114
-
Oxford Martin School / University of Oxford (2021). Sustainable eating is cheaper and healthier – Oxford study. Main: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-and-healthier-oxford-study Summary: https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/sustainable-eating-is-cheaper
-
Springmann, M. et al. (2021). The global and regional costs of healthy and sustainable dietary patterns: a modelling study. The Lancet Planetary Health. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542519621002515
-
A Well-Fed World (2015). Feed-to-Meat Conversion Inefficiency Ratios. URL: https://awellfedworld.org/feed-ratios/
-
Ritchie, H. (2021). If the world adopted a plant-based diet, we would reduce global agricultural land use by 75%. Our World in Data. URL: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
-
Kateman, B. (2022). Why Do Food Waste Advocates Give Meat A Pass? Forbes. URL: https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankateman/2022/10/17/why-do-food-waste-advocates-give-meat-a-pass/
-
Tong, T.Y.N. et al. (2019). Risks of ischaemic heart disease and stroke in meat eaters, fish eaters, and vegetarians over 18 years of follow-up: EPIC-Oxford. BMJ 366:l4897. URL: https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l4897
-
Mahase, E. (2019). Vegetarian and pescatarian diets are linked to lower risk of ischaemic heart disease but higher risk of stroke. BMJ News. URL: https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l5397
-
Dinu, M. et al. (2017). Vegetarian, vegan diets and multiple health outcomes: A systematic review with meta-analysis of observational studies. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26853923/
-
Tan, J. et al. (2024). Plant-based diet and risk of all-cause mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Nutrition. Main: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2024.1481363/full Open-access: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11537864/
-
Tonstad, S. et al. (2013). Vegetarian diets and incidence of diabetes in the Adventist Health Study-2. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21983060/
-
Orlich, M.J. & Fraser, G.E. (2014). Vegetarian diets in the Adventist Health Study 2: a review of initial published findings. Am J Clin Nutr (summary link). URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916523048815
-
Adventist Health Study-2. Lifestyle, Diet & Disease Findings. URL: https://adventisthealthstudy.org/studies/AHS-2/findings-lifestyle-diet-disease
-
Springmann, M. et al. (2016). Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change co-benefits of dietary change. PNAS 113(15):4146–4151. URL: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1523119113
-
Springmann, M. et al. (2018). Health and nutritional aspects of sustainable diet strategies and their association with environmental impacts. The Lancet Planetary Health. URL: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30206-7/fulltext
-
Mason-D’Croz, D. et al. (2022). Ethical and economic implications of the adoption of novel plant-based beef alternatives in the USA. The Lancet Planetary Health. URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9364141/
-
Morais-da-Silva, R.L. et al. (2022). The expected impact of cultivated and plant-based meats on jobs: the views of experts from Brazil, the United States and Europe. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01316-z Extended report (GAIA): https://www.gaia.be/sites/default/files/2022-11/Second%20report%20-%20The%20expected%20impact%20on%20jobs%20BR%2C%20US%20EU_final%20version_1.pdf
-
Anthropocene Magazine (2025). A greener diet, a leaner workforce. URL: https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2025/11/a-greener-diet-a-leaner-workforce/
-
Green Queen (2025). ‘More Plants, More Jobs’: How A Protein Shift Can Boost Growth. URL: https://www.greenqueen.com.hk/plant-based-food-meat-dairy-jobs-economy-growth-gdp/
-
Thompson, K. et al. (2025). Social networks’ role in vegetarian diet adoption and maintenance: A prospective study from the Northern Netherlands. Appetite 209. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666325001047
-
Lifelines Biobank (2025). Social networks’ role in vegetarian diet adoption and maintenance – publication summary. URL: https://www.lifelines-biobank.com/researchers/explore/publications/social-networks-role-in-vegetarian-diet-adoption-and-1-maintenance-2-a-prospective-study-from-the-northern-netherlands
-
Animal Charity Evaluators. The Effects of Diet Choices. URL: https://animalcharityevaluators.org/research/reports/dietary-impacts/effects-of-diet-choices/
-
Animal Charity Evaluators. Dietary Impacts – overview. URL: https://animalcharityevaluators.org/research/reports/dietary-impacts/
-
Faunalytics. How Many Animals Does A Plant-Based Diet Spare? URL: https://faunalytics.org/how-many-animals-does-a-vegn-spare/
-
Charity Entrepreneurship. Is it better to be a wild rat or a factory-farmed cow? A systematic method for comparing animal welfare. URL: https://www.charityentrepreneurship.com/post/is-it-better-to-be-a-wild-rat-or-a-factory-farmed-cow-a-systematic-method-for-comparing-animal-welf
-
Rethink Priorities. Welfare Range Estimates – Research Area. URL: https://rethinkpriorities.org/research-area/welfare-range-estimates/
-
Rethink Priorities. Theories of Welfare and Welfare Range Estimates. URL: https://rethinkpriorities.org/publications/theories-of-welfare-and-welfare-range-estimates
-
F. Bailey Norwood & Jayson Lusk (2011). Compassion, by the Pound: The Economics of Farm Animal Welfare. Oxford University Press. Example PDF: https://www.ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/4575/1/246%20.%20F._Bailey_Norwood%2C.pdf
-
Open Philanthropy (2018). Update on Cause Prioritization at Open Philanthropy. URL: https://www.openphilanthropy.org/research/update-on-cause-prioritization-at-open-philanthropy/
-
World Bank Blogs – Berk Özler (2023). Is it time for development economists to start considering the welfare of non-human animals? URL: https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/impactevaluations/it-time-development-economists-start-considering-welfare-non-human-animals
-
Francis Crick Memorial Conference (2012). The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness. PDF: http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.