Table 7.
Average animal welfare evaluation of various food products
| Product | Life quality (−) | Life fraction (−) | Life duration (years) | Number affected (−) | Moral value (−) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Insectsa | 0.999 | 0.59 | 0.21 | 2720 | 1.6 × 10 −6 |
| Shrimpsb | 1.0 | 0.50 | 0.83 | 66 | 1.2 × 10 −6 |
| Poultryc | 0.39 | 0.060 | 0.18 | 0.63 | 0.0038 |
| Salmond | 1.0 | 0.21 | 1.3 | 0.40 | 0.0012 |
| Eggse | 0.60 | 0.24 | 0.71 | 0.10 | 0.0038 |
| Porkf | 0.80 | 0.16 | 0.48 | 0.018 | 0.027 |
| Beefg | 0.66 | 0.31 | 1.6 | 0.0039 | 0.035 |
| Milkh | 0.76 | 0.93 | 6.3 | 0.00013 | 0.035 |
| CV | 0.29 | 0.76 | 1.4 | 2.8 | 1.4 |
| S (indic. 1) | − 2.2 | – | 1.0 | 1.0 | – |
| S (indic. 2) | − 0.32 | − 0.23 | – | 1.0 | – |
| S (indic. 3) | − 2.0 | 0.89 | – | 1.0 | 0.069 |
The two worst performing products with regards to the criteria underlying the indicators are presented in bold, while the two best performing products are presented in italic. CV is the coefficient of variation between the eight product averages. The last three rows indicate the sensitivity (S) of the respective animal welfare indicators to changes in any of the criteria
a(Hanboonsong et al. 2013; Tran et al. 2016; Finke 2002)
b(Ziegler et al. 2011)
c(Alig et al. 2012; Castellini et al. 2006; Boggia et al. 2010)
d(Johansson et al. 2006; Bergheim et al. 2009; FRS Marine Laboratory 2006)
e(Dekker et al. 2011, Leinonen et al. 2012)
f(Basset-Mens and van der Werf 2005; Pelletier et al. 2010a; Honeyman 2005; Honeyman et al. 2006)
g(Ridoutt et al. 2012; Nguyen et al. 2010; Pelletier et al. 2010b)