Home / B. Harm, death and welfare / Part DIR
"Stressed animals make bad meat, so farmers take good care of them."
farmers have an incentive to avoid the suffering that reduces profit, not all suffering. Broiler chickens are the clearest example: they were bred to grow about four times faster than in 1957, which is profitable and, according to the European scientific authority, causes mobility problems and injuries. Economic interest and welfare sometimes coincide, and they diverge precisely where suffering is cheaper than the fix.
Short answer
Profit protects the animal only where suffering costs money. Where suffering is cheaper than the fix, the incentive points the other way. Broiler chickens were bred to grow about four times faster than in the 1950s, because that's profitable, and the European scientific authority reports that this growth causes injuries and mobility problems. The animal only has to be well enough to reach slaughter.
For children
Imagine a factory that only cares about how much money it makes. It looks after the machines that make money, but doesn't worry about anything that doesn't change the profit. Farms are similar: the owner takes care of whatever makes the animal produce more. But if the animal suffers in a way that doesn't change the money, no one has a reason to change anything.
"If profit guaranteed welfare, why were chickens bred to grow so fast that they can barely walk?"
Como pode aparecer
"No one would hurt their own profits."
"Stressed meat is tough."
"Well-treated animals produce more."
"Farmers care more about animal welfare than anyone."
"Animal welfare improves production indicators."
"The law guarantees animal welfare." (which is B8)
The strongest version
"No one hurts their own profits. Meat from stressed animals is tough, so farmers have every reason to take good care of them."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Stress before slaughter lowers meat quality.
- P2Sick or injured animals yield less.
- P3The farmer wants to maximize profit.
- CSo the farmer has an incentive to ensure the animals' welfare.
P1 and P2 are true: stress affects meat quality, and there are economic losses linked to disease and injury. The problem is the move from "there is an incentive to avoid part of the suffering" to "there is an incentive to avoid suffering".
The argument is valid if the conclusion is limited. It fails when it concludes that profit guarantees welfare, because the incentive is partial.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
Economic incentive and welfare only partly coincide:
Situation Does the incentive protect the animal? Stress right before slaughter, which spoils the meat Partly, yes Diseases that kill many animals Partly, yes Fast growth that causes pain but increases output No: the incentive works against the animal High stocking density that causes stress but lowers the cost per animal No, as long as total profit rises Fear, boredom and frustration that don't affect yield No: the farmer has no reason to act - b
Where the argument breaks
1. The incentive is partial.
The farmer is interested in the yield of the flock or herd, not in the welfare of each animal. An animal that suffers but reaches slaughter at the expected weight is no loss.
2. Genetic selection shows the conflict.
Between 1957 and 2005, genetic selection made broiler chickens about four times heavier at 42 days, on half the feed. The study's own authors pointed to possible musculoskeletal and immune problems. In 2023, the European scientific authority identified bone lesions and mobility problems among the main welfare consequences, and recommended limiting growth rates.
3. Density is a calculation, not care.
Putting more animals in the same space can raise mortality and lower individual performance, and still be more profitable overall. The economic optimum isn't the animal's optimum.
4. Suffering with no effect on profit stays invisible.
Fear, frustration of natural behaviors and chronic pain that doesn't reduce weight don't show up in any production indicator.
5. Death isn't a cost; it's the product.
Economic incentive will never protect the animal from the most important thing that happens to it, because death is the very goal of production.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Zuidhof et al., 2014, *Poultry Science* Compared broilers from 1957, 1978 and 2005 strains: the 2005 bird grows about four times more on half the feed The authors warn of possible musculoskeletal and immune problems EFSA, *Welfare of broilers on farm* (2023) Identifies bone lesions and mobility problems among the main welfare consequences; recommends limiting growth and lowering density Official EU scientific opinion; checked in the summary - d
The strongest counter-reply: the market can reward welfare
The most serious version grants that the current incentive is partial, but says consumers willing to pay more for welfare can change the calculation, and that certifications already do this.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
It concedes the point.
If a consumer paying more is needed for there to be welfare, profit alone doesn't guarantee it.
The premium reaches few animals.
Most production remains intensive (B2).
No certification includes not killing.
The market can improve the life, but it doesn't change the end.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Overgeneralization
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Not knowing about genetic selection
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Welfare reduced to yield
Biases
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "the economic interest of the user guarantees the welfare of the used".
If it applied to…WorkersTap to see
Labor laws would be unnecessary
History shows the opposite
If it applied to…Draft horsesTap to see
Owners would never work them to exhaustion
It happened many times
If it applied to…Broiler chickensTap to see
They wouldn't have been bred to grow until they suffer
They were
Contradictions
Labor laws exist because economic interest isn't enough.
If profit were enough, they wouldn't be needed.
The same incentive that "cares" for the animal is what takes it to its death.
What the argument gets right
What is true
There's a truth here: at many points, welfare and productivity go together, and many farmers know this and look after their animals partly out of self-interest. Welfare measures sometimes improve meat quality and reduce losses, and that alignment can be used to promote improvements.
But
But the alignment is partial. Where suffering is profitable or costs less than the fix, the incentive works against the animal. And at the most important point, death, no alignment is possible: it is the product itself.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after