tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18935445.post8057058152090590476..comments2024-02-15T06:35:18.238-05:00Comments on *Reflective Disequilibrium*: Trends in farmed animal life-years per kg and per human in the United StatesCarlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16384464120149476437noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18935445.post-79212011862704136942016-09-28T20:43:57.904-04:002016-09-28T20:43:57.904-04:00I'm late to this discussion, but Dr. Sara Shie...I'm late to this discussion, but Dr. Sara Shields, an animal welfare scientist at the Humane Society, has also assigned some welfare scores on Norwood's scale. In the case of dairy cattle, Shields gives a score of 0, which is supposed to mean "The positive emotions experienced by the animal is equal to negative emotions. The animal is indifferent to living."<br /><br />See this excerpt from Veganomics by Nick Cooney, reproduced here (with permission) by Matt Ball:<br /><br />http://www.mattball.org/2014/07/part-1-analyzing-numbers-to-optimize.html<br /><br />This is the scale that is supposed to be used:<br /><br />https://snag.gy/abgcyj.jpg<br /><br />I should note that I've sent some time trying to understand how Norwood and Shields arrived at these scores, and have reached the conclusion that both of their scores have some major problems.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04835084355460678847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18935445.post-75908804472017054242015-11-02T12:59:03.069-05:002015-11-02T12:59:03.069-05:00Thanks Douglas, I removed the quote.Thanks Douglas, I removed the quote.Carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16384464120149476437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18935445.post-32842695561938861912015-11-02T11:14:47.324-05:002015-11-02T11:14:47.324-05:00I am not sure you that you infer anything from it,...I am not sure you that you infer anything from it, but the claims in your second blockquote are incorrect. (The Atlantic misunderstood its poorly labeled sources.) The numbers it quotes are milk production per year, not lifetime. In fact, I believe that the lifetime production has not changed, the 4x productivity compensated by 1/4 lifespan, mainly due to aggressive culling. Since most of your discussion is about years, not lives, the correct figures are more relevant.<br /><br />Incidentally, I believe that the 4x productivity is due to a combination of 2x productivity while lactating and 2x time spent lactating.Douglas Knightnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18935445.post-17279448066432650082015-11-01T14:40:54.508-05:002015-11-01T14:40:54.508-05:00Pablo, a good project for factory farming prioriti...Pablo, a good project for factory farming prioritization might involve doing such estimates with a larger sample size than n=1, better definitions, and with good access to data for the raters (who could be drawn from philosophers, biologists, veterinarians, and so on).Carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16384464120149476437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18935445.post-34883133313917369762015-11-01T14:29:46.508-05:002015-11-01T14:29:46.508-05:00>I would guess that if one thinks the lives of ...>I would guess that if one thinks the lives of dairy cattle to be on average worse than nonexistence without mastitis, then the very large fall in the size of the dairy cow population, especially per human dairy consumer, could mean that rBGH, antibiotics, and selective breeding have led to net cattle welfare improvements in the United States, although advances may have increased consumption elsewhere.<br /><br />On the other hand, if the lives of dairy cattle are assumed to be on average better than nonexistence even with mastitis, as <a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4kMPIEI5Mb8YUhvdHd2Y01Vb28" rel="nofollow">F. Bailey Norwood in fact assumes</a> (p. 229), then the opposite conclusion follows. Brian Tomasik believes that Norwood's estimates are very optimistic; unfortunately these are, to my knowledge, the only estimates we have.Pablohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10363127923767597327noreply@blogger.com