The Small Body Problem: Why Eating Fewer Small Animals Reduces Suffering
Consumers looking to reduce animal suffering on factory farms do not necessarily need to adopt a strict vegan diet, according to a new analysis published by Faunalytics and researcher Chris Bryant. The study highlights the “small body problem,” demonstrating that eating fewer small-bodied animals like poultry and shrimp yields a major reduction in animal slaughter and harm.
Unpacking the Small Body Problem in Farm Animal Welfare
Many individuals exploring the realities of industrial agriculture initially turn to vegetarianism or veganism, though long-term adherence can prove challenging for the general public. Addressing this gap, a collaborative project led by Faunalytics research director Allison Troy and Chris Bryant, an honorary research associate at the University of Bath in the UK, introduces the concept of a “suffering footprint” for everyday dietary choices.
According to Allison Troy, speaking on the motivations behind the research, consumers are accustomed to tracking carbon footprints via climate data tools, yet a corresponding metric for animal product consumption previously remained absent. To calculate this footprint, researchers analyzed data sourced from the United Nations and the United States Department of Agriculture. Their methodology evaluated how much edible meat, eggs, or milk individual farm animals produce across a typical lifespan, while also accounting for indirect factors such as feeder fish consumed by farmed aquatic species.
Quantifying Days of Suffering and Slaughter Rates
The resulting metrics calculated two distinct variables: the number of days of animal suffering embedded in a pound of various animal products, and the total animal lives slaughtered per pound. The data revealed that the highest volume of dietary animal suffering originates from a tiny marine animal: shrimp. Consequently, a single portion of shrimp scampi carries a larger suffering footprint than consuming an entire beef burger.
However, because seafood does not constitute a major component of most American diets, researchers isolated land-based categories to evaluate broader dietary adjustments. When seafood is excluded, poultry products—comprising chicken meat, turkey meat, and eggs—account for the vast majority of dietary suffering.
“This enormous disparity in poultry versus other categories is driven by the fact that those are smaller-bodied animals—it just takes a larger number of animals to produce consumable products for people,” Allison Troy stated, noting that consumers rarely factor body size into purchasing decisions.
Contrasting Animal Treatment Across Livestock Categories
Beyond sheer numerical volume, the conditions experienced by different livestock species vary significantly. Chickens raised for meat are frequently bred to grow at accelerated rates that induce mobility issues, while approximately half of all US egg-laying hens spend their lives confined inside small cages. By contrast, while cattle and pigs endure severe industry practices—such as piglets undergoing castration and teeth-clipping without pain relief, and beef cattle facing branding and dehorning—their larger body sizes distribute that suffering across a much higher yield of consumable meat per animal.
Evaluating the methodological framework, Trevor Woolley, an assistant professor of agricultural and applied economics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, noted via email that the figures function as valuable estimates rather than exact counts. Woolley observed that measuring days of life serves as a useful metric given the drastically divergent lifespans of farm animal species, though he emphasized that calculations are in the right ballpark rather than absolute.
The research also addresses the egg industry, noting that egg-laying hens experience poor welfare conditions before being slaughtered for meat at approximately 1.5 years of age when productivity declines. While purchasing pasture-raised eggs or reducing overall consumption offers a mitigation strategy, researchers acknowledge limitations in the study. Specifically, the metric defines suffering primarily through days of life on a farm rather than attempting to quantify subjective qualitative differences in daily distress across distinct species, a nuance currently being explored by other welfare researchers.
As industry standards evolve and consumer awareness regarding factory farming expands, the path forward for sustainable eating involves manageable shifts in purchasing habits rather than all-or-nothing dietary overhauls. Whether scaling back on poultry or rethinking egg consumption, focusing on smaller-bodied animals provides a tangible pathway for reducing industrial animal harm.