PurposeThis study seeks to provide a framework for integrating animal welfare as a fourth pillar into a life cycle sustainability assessment and presents three alternative animal welfare indicators.MethodsAnimal welfare is assessed during farm life and during slaughter. The indicators differ in how they value premature death. All three consider (1) the life quality of an animal such as space allowance, (2) the slaughter age either as life duration or life fraction, and (3) the number of animals affected for providing a product unit, e.g. 1 Mcal. One of the indicators additionally takes into account a moral value denoting their intelligence and self-awareness. The framework allows for comparisons across studies and products and for applications at large spatial scales. To illustrate the framework, eight products were analysed and compared: beef, pork, poultry, milk, eggs, salmon, shrimps, and, as a novel protein source, insects.Results and discussionInsects are granted to live longer fractions of their normal life spans, and their life quality is less compromised due to a lower assumed sentience. Still, they perform worst according to all three indicators, as their small body sizes only yield low product quantities. Therefore, we discourage from eating insects. In contrast, milk is the product that reduces animal welfare the least according to two of the three indicators and it performs relatively better than other animal products in most categories. The difference in animal welfare is mostly larger for different animal products than for different production systems of the same product. This implies that, besides less consumption of animal-based products, a shift to other animal products can significantly improve animal welfare.ConclusionsWhile the animal welfare assessment is simplified, it allows for a direct integration into life cycle sustainability assessment. There is a trade-off between applicability and indicator complexity, but even a simple estimate of animal welfare is much better than ignoring the issue, as is the common practice in life cycle sustainability assessments. Future research should be directed towards elaborating the life quality criterion and extending the product coverage.

中文翻译：

---

将动物福利纳入生命周期可持续性评估的框架

目的本研究旨在提供一个框架，将动物福利作为第四个支柱纳入生命周期可持续性评估，并提出三个可供选择的动物福利指标。方法在农场生活和屠宰期间评估动物福利。这些指标在评估过早死亡的方式上有所不同。三者都考虑（1）动物的生命质量，例如空间余量，（2）屠宰年龄作为生命持续时间或生命分数，以及（3）提供产品单位（例如1Mcal）受影响的动物数量。其中一项指标还考虑了表示他们的智力和自我意识的道德价值。该框架允许跨研究和产品进行比较，以及在大空间尺度上的应用。为了说明该框架，对八种产品进行了分析和比较：牛肉、猪肉、家禽、牛奶、鸡蛋、鲑鱼、虾，以及作为一种新型蛋白质来源的昆虫。结果和讨论昆虫的正常寿命被授予更长的部分，并且由于假定的感知能力较低，它们的生活质量受到的影响较小. 尽管如此，根据所有三个指标，它们的表现最差，因为它们的小尺寸只能产生低产品数量。因此，我们不鼓励吃昆虫。相比之下，根据三项指标中的两项，牛奶是减少动物福利最少的产品，并且在大多数类别中，它的表现都相对优于其他动物产品。不同动物产品的动物福利差异大多大于同一产品的不同生产系统。这意味着，除了减少动物性产品的消费外，转向其他动物产品可以显着改善动物福利。结论虽然简化了动物福利评估，但它可以直接整合到生命周期可持续性评估中。在适用性和指标复杂性之间需要权衡取舍，但即使是对动物福利的简单估计也比忽视这个问题要好得多，生命周期可持续性评估中的常见做法也是如此。未来的研究应针对制定生活质量标准和扩大产品覆盖范围。但即使是对动物福利的简单估计也比忽视这个问题要好得多，因为这是生命周期可持续性评估的常见做法。未来的研究应针对制定生活质量标准和扩大产品覆盖范围。但即使是对动物福利的简单估计也比忽视这个问题要好得多，因为这是生命周期可持续性评估的常见做法。未来的研究应针对制定生活质量标准和扩大产品覆盖范围。