We conducted this research on behalf of Fórum Nacional de Proteção e Defesa Animal. We would like to thank Renata Santineli, Haiuly Viana, Elsa Barreto and Taylison Santos particularly for their direct contributions to the approach section covering minor political parties and popular initiatives. More information about this association's work for animals is available here on their website.
Author: Animal Ask
Download PDF version
Executive summary
For animal advocates, Brazil is a country of major opportunity but also major challenges. In a global context the scale of animal production in Brazil is immense. The dispersal of power between a range of different stakeholders in Brazil provides the animal advocacy movement with many avenues for impact. Nevertheless, Brazil also brings unique political and industrial challenges that need to be taken seriously.
The sheer scale of animal exploitation in Brazil means potential reforms, even for minority industries, are of great importance. However, there are challenges with what is politically and economically feasible, and this is a significant consideration for campaign selection. This does change based on the share of the farming industry’s production destined for the domestic or international market. So some routes for advocacy are likely to prove effective in some industries, but struggle in other settings.
With this in mind, we have identified two main priority areas for reform at this time. Both of these tasks are high-priority and could potentially make extremely impactful campaigns.
Cage-free enforcement and large scale retailer campaigns. Cages remain one of the most widespread and cruel practices within the farming industry. There is clear scientific consensus that cage-free systems are “clearly superior to conventional cages and furnished cages even soon after a transition to cage-free environments”(1). Although, to date, there has been admirable progress, a significant amount of work remains to be done to ensure upcoming commitments are kept, and to hold large companies to account.
Screwworm elimination. New World screwworm flies lay eggs in injured tissue, before the screwworm larvae proceed to feed on the infected areas. Screwworms are endemic in South America, affecting all warm blooded animals—including farmed cows, pigs, sheep and chickens. They cause devastating injuries and huge suffering, with mortality rates of 20 - 80% (2,3). By working with the Brazilia(2,3)n and other regional governments, it would be possible to eliminate the species entirely in the area, as has already been achieved in many areas such as North and Central America.
We would like to highlight three other promising areas for reform, exploratory tilapia, shrimp and broiler welfare work. These are areas which warrant additional investment from the movement because the harm caused to the animals within these industries is extensive. However, at present, plans to work on the shrimp and tilapia, are not yet ready for full implementation. Groups beginning work in these areas will largely be laying the groundwork for future improvements. Likewise, progression within the area of broiler reform looks difficult given the power of the industry and potential interactions with ongoing cage-free campaigns.
We also want to spotlight two underutilised approaches: a minor political party for animals and the use of popular initiatives. Both of which could allow the animal advocacy movement to utilise its strengths, gain popular support from the public (and intense support from a small subset of the population), and to place priority issues on the political agenda.
Ultimately, these priorities should be selected and adapted, based on the political landscape at the time, and the position of the advocate or group.
If you are interested in advocating for farmed animal welfare in Brazil and none of these campaign opportunities are suitable for your circumstances, then we please encourage you to reach out to Animal Ask. We have plenty of additional research concerning a wider variety of lower priority options which are still important.
Legal context
Brazil has a federal system of government, divided into 26 states, with a federal district (which means a total of 27 federal units). As with many democracies, these are governed by three branches of government: the executive, the legislative and the judicial. Each is governed by the president and cabinet, national congress, and federal courts respectively. The national congress is bicameral, split into the chamber of Federal Deputies with 513 seats serving 4 years and the 81-seat Federal Senate serving for 8 years (4).
Notably in Brazil there are opportunities for directly representing animals in the chamber of Deputies and state legislatures owing to proportional representation systems (4). If contested and comparable electoral performance is achieved to other animal minor political parties, we would expect 0.27 seats to be won federally and a further 4.3 distributed across the state legislators (5). This in and of itself represents a great opportunity to increase the political representations of non-human animals in Brazil.
Brazil currently has no unifying animal protection act at the federal level. Instead existing protections are dispersed across other legislation. Federal Law 9.605/98 (Environmental Crimes Law) makes animal cruelty a crime. Decree 24.645 probits a number of acts of cruelty, for example, maintaining, “animals in anti-hygienic places or where they can not breath properly, move or rest, or are deprived of air or light” (1)[1].
The most surprising and promising section of Brazil’s animal welfare legislation is the anti-cruelty provision in its constitution, which reads as follows, "Protect the fauna and the flora, with prohibition, by the manner prescribed by law, of all practices which represent a risk to their ecological function, cause the extinction of species or subject animals to cruelty" (6).
This part of the constitution makes it incumbent on the government of Brazil to prohibit any practices that subject animals to cruelty. This provides an interesting and potentially promising route to passing new legislation, setting the bar low, with prohibited practice meaning subject animals to any cruelty. It might also be possible to challenge intensive farming practices with animals as “a risk to their ecological function”, if “ecological function” is understood to include biological needs.
Another surprising feature of Brazilian animal law is the ban on hunting that has been in place since 1967. Nevertheless, the practice remains widespread in Brazil (7).
Many Brazilian states and municipalities have enacted their own animal protection laws, which may include provisions for farm animals, some of which are outlined below:
Table 1. major state animal protection laws in Brazil
State | Notable Legislation | Human Population (Million) |
São Paulo | 44,411,238 | |
Minas Gerais | 21,279,353 | |
Rio de Janeiro | 16,055,174 | |
Bahia | 14,141,626 | |
Paraná | 11,623,091 | |
Rio Grande do Sul | 10,882,965 | |
Pernambuco | 9,645,321 | |
Ceará | 8,794,957 | |
Pará | 8,639,532 | |
Goiás | 7,056,495 | |
Maranhão | 6,776,699 | |
Paraíba | 4,175,326 | |
Amazonas | 3,941,613 | |
Mato Grosso | 3,658,649 | |
Rio Grande do Norte | 3,619,619 | |
Piauí | 3,341,352 | |
Alagoas | 3,127,683 | |
Mato Grosso do Sul | 2,880,308 | |
Distrito Federal | 2,817,381 | |
Sergipe | 2,403,563 | |
Rondônia | 1,837,905 | |
Tocantins | 1,692,452 | |
Acre | 830,018 | |
Amapá | 733,759 | |
Roraima | 708,352 | |
Santa Catarina | 36,964 | |
Espírito Santo | 17,798 |
Recent legislation (as of October 2024)
Two bills are currently making their way through the Brazilian legislative system. Bill 783/2024 which would ban the killing of male chicks by cruel methods such as maceration, instead proposing the use of in-ova sexing technologies. The bill supports evidence of chick sentience. The punishment for neglecting this proposed law will be fines, such as 2% of company revenues, 4% for a repeat offence or the suspension of the company’s licence to practise on a third offence. The second bill, Bill 784/2024, would require labelling of low welfare practices. However, the text of the bill provides no details as to which form this would take (9).
Additionally, five bills are currently being proposed in Sāo Paulo. One banning live export from Sāo Paulo: one protecting male calves from being slaughtered at birth; and two bills mirroring the federal bills which seek to ban male chicks from cruel slaughter methods, and requiring the labelling of animal products according to the welfare level of their production practises (10). As well as bill PL5092/2023 which aims to ‘prohibit the use of cages and extreme confinement systems for animals raised for human consumption and extraction of feathers and skins and contains other provisions’ by 2030.
The animal farming industry in Brazil
With Brazil's climate and landmass, coupled with domestic demand due to its huge population, Brazil is well placed to be an agricultural powerhouse. It is a leading producer of coffee, sugarcane, soybean, beef and poultry (11). As a result of Brazil’s massive production levels as well as its population, animal agricultural industries vary significantly depending on whether the majority are producing for the domestic market or international market.
The chicken-meat and pig-meat industries are highly industrialised and vertically integrated. These industries use highly technical production practices, often including strict quality standards imposed by integrators or retailers, and export a large proportion of production to other countries. Production is concentrated in the south of Brazil.
While in the freshwater finfish and marine shrimp industries semi-intensive production is common, production quantity is decentralised, with most of the production coming from many small farms (rather than a few large farms); in fact, these farmers often have multiple sources of income. Regulations (and enforcement) are loose and vary considerably across different parts of Brazil. Almost all production is consumed domestically. Production is concentrated in the south for finfish and the northeast for marine shrimp.
In the middle of these extremes is the egg industry. Eggs are produced intensively but mostly for the domestic market.
Broiler chickens
The broiler industry in Brazil is truly staggering in scale. The 2017 agriculture census records 1.36 billion chickens (inventory) from 2.8 million farms (12), though this appears to correspond to both meat production and egg production. While around 6.1 billion broiler chickens were slaughtered in 2022, according to FAO data. Chicken production is concentrated in the south, especially Paraná, São Paulo, Santa Catarina, and Rio Grande do Sul (13) (see graph).
As with most industrial broiler production, broilers experience numerous welfare problems in Brazil. The stocking density of farms tends to be between 12 to 14 chickens per square metre (which would equate to the vicinity of 30 kg per square metre before slaughter). However, one survey found that it was more common to have stocking densities between 33 and 39 kg per square metre (14). Mortality rates are typically between 4 to 5 percent although with some variance between farms (13,15–19). Broilers are commonly slaughtered at between 40 and 46 days, when their live weight is between 2.1 and 2.9 kg per chicken (13,15–19). Free-range farms slaughter at around 100 days (17).
A survey of eleven randomly chosen industrial broiler farms in 2011 found that (13): "All farms were conventional open-sided houses, with wire mesh sides covered with curtains, and were equipped with nipple drinkers and automatic (n=9) or manual feeders (n=2). Birds were male Cobb 500®, and were exposed to a total maximum light period of 16h composed of natural daylight and extra artificial lighting (5 lux). All farms used deep, woodshavings litter; one farm had concrete flooring and ten had earth floor”. This survey calculated that the median rates of emaciation, abscesses, ascites, and lameness were 0.13%, 0.03%, 0.17%, and 14.0% respectively (13). An analysis of broiler meat inspection data found that between 4 and 8 percent of broiler chicken carcasses were condemned, depending on the state and the year (20). Leading causes of condemnation were contamination, injury, dermatitis, arthritis, and cellulitis.
In the total Welfare Quality scores, there were large variances across farms—some farms performed very well on welfare, and some very poorly (13). Interestingly, a comparison of welfare on Brazilian farms versus Belgian farms found that most welfare indicators were comparable across the two countries, and Brazil seemed to outperform Belgium on many indicators (19).
Free-range chickens experience better welfare conditions than those in intensive broiler farms but still experience some problems. Sans et al. found those on free-range farms had lower mortality and lower rates of many diseases, but free-range farms also had poorer litter quality, dust, and breast blisters (17). These farms also remain a small minority of holdings in Brazil. A study from about a decade ago found that only 2.1% of broiler chicken farms in Brazil were certified, and that the schemes used are either GLOBALGAP or Certified Humane (21). Worryingly, one study comparing non-certified farms to farms certified by GLOBALGAP (22)) found that key welfare metrics were generally similar across the two types of farm.
About 90% of poultry meat produced in Brazil is produced under vertical integration (a poultry industry structure common in highly industrialised countries) (23,24). The chicken farm obtains day-old chicks from hatcheries, and feed from dedicated feed mills. Chickens are transported live to processing plants. The chickens are then slaughtered and the meat processed into products for domestic distributors or the export market.
About one third of chicken production is destined for export (25). According to FAO data, Brazil exported 4.4 million tonnes of chicken meat in 2022. Imports were minimal (4,800 tonnes). The main export destinations are China (14%), the United Arab Emirates (8.8%), Japan (8.7%), Saudi Arabia (7.5%), South Africa, (6.8%), the Philippines (4.4%), the European Union (4.3%), and South Korea (4.0%) (26). The export destination can greatly affect animal welfare concern shown on farm. A survey of 15 exported broiler chicken companies in Paraná found that six companies mentioned clients in the European Union (who are concerned with animal welfare at the farm level), though the remaining nine companies did not have clients with animal welfare requirements at the farm level (14).
Egg-laying hens
Industry data reports that 131 million layer hens were placed in 2023 (26). Most of these hens are farmed using cage systems (27,28). Around 95% of eggs farmed in Brazil are produced using intensive stacked caged systems (29). Laying hens are produced in pullet barns and then, at a rough age of 17 weeks, transported to laying barns. Feed is commonly produced in highly automated feed-manufacturing mills (29). Eggs are collected, graded, and processed. Like in other countries (e.g. the United States), about two-thirds of eggs are produced for the table egg market (whole eggs sold to consumers), with the remainder used in the production of processed foods (30) (Schmidt et al 2024). "Spent" laying hens are transported to processing plants for slaughter.
Unlike the boiler industry production, 99 percent of eggs are destined for the domestic market—only 1 percent are exported (26). In 2022, according to FAO data, Brazil had fairly small exports (23,600 tonnes) and minimal imports (450 tonnes) of eggs.
Pigs
The 2017 census reports 39 million pigs (inventory) on 1.4 million farms. The industry reports that 46.5 million pigs were slaughtered in 2023 (26). Like chicken production, pig production is concentrated in the south (especially Santa Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul, Paraná, and Minas Gerais).
The majority of domestic consumption of pig meat involves processed products, like sausages. This is likely for historical and cultural reasons (31). About one-quarter of pig meat produced in Brazil is destined for export (26).
According to FAO data, Brazil exported 1.3 million tonnes of pig meat in 2022. Imports were minimal (2,100 tonnes). The main destinations are China (32.0%), Hong Kong (10.4%), the Philippines (10.4%), Chile (7.2%), Singapore (5.3%), and Uruguay (4.04%) (26). There does not appear to be any exports of pig meat to the European Union.
Pig farmers tend to focus on specific stages of the production cycle—some farmers focus on weaning (birth to 7 or 8 kg), some on nursery (to 22 or 25 kg), and some on finishing (slaughter weight, i.e. 100 to 125 kg) (32). That said, some farmers might be responsible for both weaning and nursing or both nursing and finishing (32). The majority of Brazil's pork is produced under large investor-owned firms or central cooperatives, with thousands of farmers operating under formal contracts (32). These organisations tend to operate under strict standards and focus on country-wide retailers and the export market (32). A minority of pork is produced under single cooperatives or smaller integrations, often (but not always) producing for local retailers (32).
It appears ubiquitous for farmers to perform tail docking, tooth clipping, and/or surgical castration of males without pain relief within the first week of life (33). Farmers rarely record mortality data or supervise births (33). According to farmers, fighting and bar biting are very common behaviours (33). Piglets are frequently transported over long distances (up to 12 hours of travel) (33).
In 2010, industrialised production accounted for 90% of pork production, with subsistence farming accounting for the remaining 10% (31). In general, farmers are unmotivated to improve welfare standards. The exception is when there are demands from industry - farmers working for integrators or cooperatives are sometimes required to meet particular standards (33).
A survey of 10 slaughterhouses in Brazil found that all used electrical stunning. While this initially appears promising, one study found that a higher percentage of animals recovered consciousness using electricity than from using CO2, (34) so the use of electrical stunning by no means implies slaughter is painless for pigs. A review study from 2012 found that pre-slaughter handling practices were poor and that this caused carcass bruising (35). That said, the authors identified some practices and training programmes that were demonstrated to reduce carcass bruising (35).
One study compared welfare in pig slaughterhouses in Brazil to those in Portugal, Italy, Finland, and Spain (34). Many behavioural indicators were worse in Brazil including rates of panting, shivering, slipping, falling, turning back, and reluctance to move. Vocalisation rates when moving from lairage to the stunning system were similar to Italy and Spain, though a bit higher than Portugal and Finland. Upon arrival at the slaughterhouses in Brazil, 0.43% of pigs were sick, 0.05% were dead, and 0.62% were panting. The majority of Brazilian slaughterhouses had over 10% of pigs arriving at the slaughterhouse as lame. After stunning, pigs in Brazil had higher rates of signs of recovery (corneal reflex and rhythmic breathing), than the European countries (34). A different survey of pigs at slaughter in Rio Grande do Sul in 2016 found that 8% were condemned, most frequently due to serositis or ascariasis (36).
Finfish Aquaculture
There are many species of finfish farmed in Brazil. There are six species groupings that were reported in the FAO data to have been produced at greater than 5,000 tonnes in 2022, and these are all freshwater fish species:
Nile tilapia: 408,350 tonnes. At ~1 kg live weight (see below), this corresponds to 408 million individuals.
Cachama: 109,799 tonnes. At ~1.25 kg live weight (Fishcount gives a range of 500–2,000 g), this corresponds to 88 million individuals.
Tambacu, hybrid: 34,193 tonnes. At ~1.25 kg live weight (37), this corresponds to 27 million individuals.
Cyprinids: 15,744 tonnes. Carp numbers in particular may be underestimated by the government (38).
Sorubims (a native catfish): 9,000 tonnes.
Pacu: 7,318 tonnes. At ~1.5 kg live weight (37), this corresponds to 5 million individuals.
There are also non-food fish that are farmed in Brazil:
Baitfish: the farming of live fish for bait during recreation fishing occurs to some extent (38,39). One study reports on Gymnotus farming (a native freshwater species) in Mato Grosso do Sul, where fish are farmed in 2000 litre cement tanks and fed with "crushed sardines, termites, dead gymnotid [knifefish] or ground beef" (39). However, most production of live fish for bait involves catching these fish, shrimp, and crabs from the wild (40). Wild-catch anglers often operate without labour rights, including instances of child labour and occasionally in illegal camps (41). Live baitfish are usually purchased by sport anglers and tourists, as subsistence anglers don't have the resources to buy these baits and instead tend to catch their own live bait (42,43). When on display in shops for sale, live bait fish are fed using commercial feed (44).
Restocking: "millions of juveniles" have been released by hydroelectric power plants or water supply companies to restock rivers that have been impacted by these companies' activities (38). These fish also support inland fisheries, especially in the Southeast. Šimčikas estimates the number of fish stocked in Brazil at less than 75 million (45). A systematic search of media reports counted 5.64 million fish stocked annually, though this should be interpreted as an underestimate as it excludes fish restocking events that were not reported by the media (46). Restocking has strong public and political support in Brazil and is often conducted with the atmosphere of a public celebration (46).
Ornamental fish: millions of individuals from over 100 species are farmed in the southeast (especially São Paulo and Minas Gerais) for the domestic ornamental fish market (38,47).
Additionally, while we found no mention of domestic salmon production in Brazil, Brazil does import a substantial amount of salmon, almost entirely from Chile (48,49). We calculated the total number of salmon imported per year to be approximately 41 million (48,50).
Since salmon are carnivorous and typically fed with other fish, their consumption causes more suffering than the consumption of other noncarnivorous fish. However, we are unsure of which typeof campaign to be promoted in this case because it might be difficult to convince consumers not to eat salmon without causing substitution with other fish. Additionally, Brazil and Chile have a free trade agreement, which would make restrictions or tariffs on salmon imports difficult (51).
The aquaculture production map below shows the weight (kg) of all aquaculture produced—the map includes finfish, invertebrates, and plants, though finfish is much more significant than the other categories by weight. Aquaculture happens in all states, but is most concentrated in the south (Paraná, São Paulo, Minas Gerais) and the centre (Rondônia, Mato Grosso).
Brazil has over 200,000 freshwater fish farms, and one source reports that most of the fish production comes from smaller farms (38). The government census from 2017 agrees with this, providing a breakdown of production by farm size:
0 to 5 hectares: 218,966 farms, responsible for 71 percent of sales;
5 to 50 hectares: 1,641 farms, responsible for 23 percent of sales; and
over 50 hectares: 87 farms, responsible for 5.5 percent of sales.
This matches the industry structure of shrimp farms (below), where production is also dominated by smaller farms. Farmers obtain fingerlings from local hatcheries each month, using a continuous production cycle (52). Hatcheries range from simple, backyard units to large technologically sophisticated companies (38). Most farms buy fingerlings and feed from other companies, grow the fish out, and then sell the fish to further companies. However, some tilapia, tambaqui, and trout farms have their own hatcheries and feed manufacturing units. Fingerlings are stocked when they weigh between 1 and 15 g (though some up to 40 g) (38).
The main farmed species, Tilapia, are most commonly farmed either in earthen ponds (0.1 to 0.5 hectares per pond) or in cages on reservoirs (38,53). For those in cages, stocking densities are usually up to 600 fish per cage (with one cage being six cubic metres), though some report up to 800 fish per cage (52). The grow-out period usually lasts around seven months, but can be as short as five months or as long as 10 months (38,52). Tilapia are frequently harvested at between 0.7 and 1.2 kg (probably with a typical value being around 1 kg) of live weight (38,52). Yields may reach 30 to 60 tonnes per hectare per year in ponds or 30 to 60 kg per cubic metre per cycle in cages (38). Farms buy feed commercially (or, in the case of the largest farms, produce it themselves) (52).
Mortality during grow-out is typically 10 percent, though farmers report values between 3 and 33 percent (52). In cages, a common source of mortality is low oxygen levels and high levels of toxic compounds during winter (38). Farmers regularly monitor water temperature, but not other water quality parameters or precise mortality levels (52) often using aerators and automatic feeders to attempt to control water quality (38). Farmers observe fish for visual signs of disease, but do not have formal training in fish disease diagnosis (52), with weak mitigation methods only cleaning cages and tools, and discarding dead or dying fish in ditches (52).
Most farms use live chilling (82% of respondents surveyed), but a minority (18%) report using electrical stunning (54). These were followed by either exsanguination (38.5%), decapitation (2.5%) or no slaughter method was declared, suggesting death by asphyxiation or by further processing (59.0%) (54).
A handful of farms are certified—Dolores-Salines and Miret-Pastor (55) identify 10 certified farms (3 ASC certifications and 9 BAP certifications, with some farms holding multiple certifications). All certifications relate to tilapia and tend to relate to farms producing for export.
Tilapia fingerlings typically cost 15 to 30 USD for 1,000 fingerlings, while farmers receive a farm-gate price of 0.8 to 1.2 USD per kg for the final product (38). Tilapia is usually destined for the tilapia fillet market. There are two main value chains: farm -> processing plant -> supermarkets; and farm -> distributors/wholesalers -> restaurants and fishmongers (53). The "processing plant" probably means a local plant where tilapia are slaughtered (at least in the first value chain) (52). Fish may be slaughtered on-farm in low-infrastructure systems, especially for the latter value chain (52).
Some farms produce multiple species, and most farmers also receive income from other sources (38,52,54). One author reported that fish sales tend to be concentrated around Easter (56). In terms of price, tilapia (which is both exported and imported) follows separate price dynamics to domestic wild-caught fish (53). Only 1.5% of tilapia is exported, with 98.5% consumed domestically (55,57). Almost all farmed exports from Brazil are tilapia, and 81% of these tilapia exports are destined for the United States (55).
Shrimp Aquaculture
Shrimp farmed in Brazil overwhelmingly belong to the species Penaeus vannamei. There are roughly 3,000 farms producing marine shrimp in Brazil with over 99% of production occurring in the northeast region of Brazil (38,55). Production is unusually diffuse -that is, lots of production comes from small farms. This is different to what we typically see in other countries, where production tends to be dominated by a small number of large farms.
For example, the state of Ceará (the biggest shrimp-producing state in the country) had 1,786 farms in 2021, and these farms accounted for 47% of national production (58). The production was broken down by farm size as follows:
Size (hectares) | Number of Farms | Production Percentage | Average Stocking Density (shrimp/m2 ) | Harvest Weight (g) |
<5 | 1351 | 29% | 25 | 12 |
5-10 | 224 | 14% | 17 | 15 |
10-50 | 172 | 22% | 14 | 13 |
50-200 | 32 | 17% | 16 | 12 |
>200 | 7 | 18% | 20 | 10 |
The second biggest shrimp-producing state, Rio Grande do Norte, had 442 farms in 2021. These farms accounted for 13% of national production (58).
Most shrimp is produced for the domestic market. While shrimp was produced for export to the United States and Europe in the early 2000s, these exports fell drastically and most shrimp farmed in Brazil are now consumed domestically (38,55). Reasons given for this decline were disease; the increased value of the Brazilian currency; and a surcharge placed by the United States government on shrimp exported from Brazil to the United States (due to accusations of price dumping) (59). However, in 2016-17, the United States government ended the surcharge (60,61). It's likely that exports will increase over the next few years, and the Brazilian government has been working to increase the number of countries to which it can export shrimp (62,63).
Production has experienced drastic fluctuations over the past few years (see below graph; data from FAO). This excludes the freshwater shrimp farming industry in Brazil, but the numbers are much smaller (150 t in 2022).
Given their immense number, small size, and the total disregard for the value of each individual fish, there are no precise estimates on the number of shrimp farmed. Our best estimate is in the region of 13 billion shrimp where produced in 2022. The true number is unlikely to be lower than 4 billion shrimp, and not higher than 18 billion shrimp. Our reasoning is as follows:
113,300 tonnes of shrimp were produced in 2022 (as reported by FAO.);
this equates to between 4.3 and 10.3 billion (midpoint 6.1 billion) individuals, using the estimated mean weight of 11–26 g per individual (Fishcount). This could be an underestimation for two reasons. Firstly, Brazilian farms frequently produce shrimp at smaller weights than this (e.g. 12.44 g in Ceará (58)). A mean weight of 9 g would equate to 9.1 billion individuals. Secondly, other sources have estimated that true production levels might be 40 percent higher than government estimates (38). If this is true, the 6.1 billion estimate would need to be adjusted to up to 8.5 billion shrimp, and the 9.1 billion estimate would need to be adjusted to up to 12.8 billion shrimp; and
there were over 12 billion post-larvae produced by hatcheries in 2019 (38). If 70 percent of these shrimp survive to harvest, this would indicate that 8.4 billion shrimp reach harvest.
It is also worth noting that there are currently farms and hatcheries that are operating below production due to the relatively poor market condition (38).
Production is usually semi-intensive, though there has been a growing interest in producing shrimp inland in intensive systems (38,58). Farmers obtain post-larvae or juveniles from large hatcheries (38). Hatcheries commonly perform eyestalk ablation on breeding females (64).
Shrimp are usually stocked at between 10 and 50 post-larvae per square metre, with the 10 to 20 range being the most common (38,58). The grow-out period takes between 90 and 150 days, though some farms have grow-out periods as short as 60 days (38,59). There is regular monitoring of oxygen, pH, temperature, and salinity (59). At least one study has reported water quality parameters from specific farms (65). Mortality likely averages very high between 20 and 40 percent (38,58).
In general, certification is very rare in Brazilian aquaculture even for finfish, and is usually limited to farms producing for export (55).
Industry structure varies with some independent farms, buying post-larvae from suppliers and selling the shrimp to processors or exporters. Other farms are integrated, and linked to both hatcheries and processing plants (59). The industry body is the Associação Brasileira de Criadores de Camarão (ABCC) / Brazilian Shrimp Farmers Association.
Productivity ranges between 2 and 6 tonnes of shrimp harvested per hectare throughout a year (counting multiple production cycles in one year) (38). There are usually up to three production cycles each year (59), though some farms can achieve more than this (58).
In the processing plants, shrimp are washed, cleaned, sorted by size, and frozen (59). Shrimp are usually sold directly to wholesalers or restaurants without any further processing (38). A typical farmgate price for shrimp of 8-10 g/shrimp is 3-4 USD/kg (38).
It is common for farms to ignore environmental regulations and operate without a licence (59). This could negatively affect the impact of any shrimp welfare legislation. The government has been relaxing environmental regulations to expand shrimp production since 2016, and this is negatively affecting wild-catch fishing (66,67).
Top campaign opportunities
Priority 1: Cage-free corporate campaigns
The literature concerning caged systems in contrast to cage-free farming of layer hens is clear…cage-free systems are “clearly superior to conventional cages and furnished cages even soon after a transition to cage-free environments” (68). Hens confined to cages experience significantly more suffering over their lifespan than those in cage-free systems. However, in Brazil, of the 131 million layer hens placed in 2023 (26), around 95% or 124 million are produced using intensive caged systems (29).
Prompt transitions have proven feasible in multiple contexts in the global north including Switzerland, Austria, Germany, and many US states such as California, Colorado, Massachusetts and Washington. This is both for individual companies' supply chains, as well as at the national level, even when large percentages of hens are currently in cages. Two of the most efficient examples were demonstrated in Arizona and Nevada, with 71% of hens transitioning from caged systems to cage-free in under three months. This exemplifies that caged systems can, and should quickly become a thing of the past. However, given the current political environment, it is unlikely that cages will be banned outright in Brazil in the near future.
Table 2. Cage-free hen legislation around the world. (69)
Jurisdiction | Percentage of hens in battery cages (before legislation) | Hen cage-free legislation date | Cage-free deadline | Timeline (days) |
Switzerland | N.A | 3 Dec, 1978 | Jan 1, 1992 | 4,777 |
N.A | 6 Jun, 2018 | Dec 31, 2020 | 909 | |
Austria | May 27, 2004 | Jan 1, 2020* | 5,697 | |
Rhode Island (USA) | N.A | Feb 7, 2018 | July 1, 2026 | 3,066 |
Massachusetts (USA) | ~90% | Nov 8, 2016 | Jan 1, 2022 | 1,880 |
California (USA) | ~90% | Nov 6, 2018 | Jan 1, 2022 | 1,150 |
Washington (USA) | ~90% | Apr 22, 2019 | Jan 1, 2024 | 1,715 |
Oregon (USA) | ~90% | Jun 30, 2019 | Jan 1, 2024 | 1,646 |
Michigan (USA) | ~90% | Nov 22, 2019 | Dec 31, 2024 | 1,866 |
Colorado (USA) | July 1, 2020 | Jan 1, 2025** | 1,645 | |
Czechia | Nov 13, 2020 | January 1, 2027 | 2,240 | |
Utah (USA) | Mar 17, 2021 | Jan 1, 2025 | 1,386 | |
Arizona (USA) | Apr 22, 2022 | Jan 1, 2025 | 985 | |
Nevada (USA) | May 21, 2021 | Jan 1, 2024 | 955 | |
Apr 22, 2016 | Jan 1, 2026 | 3,541 | ||
Slovakia*** | 7 Feb, 2020 | Jan 1, 2030 | 3,616 | |
Median | 71% | 1,873 (5 years) |
*(battery cages by 2013 and all by 2020)
**2023 for eggs sold
***memorandum between the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Union of Poultry Professionals of the Slovak Republic
The majority of progress in the cage-free system movement to date has originated from corporation commitments to transition their supply chains above the current legal minimum requirements.
NGOs are currently tracking and holding companies accountable to their commitments to go cage-free. However, given the overlap in potential commitments between retailer, restaurant and food service companies, and those from consumer packaged goods or producers, the combined estimated volume accounted for by these companies is likely to be an overestimate. This is because retailers will resell goods already covered by producers' commitments, creating a double count on cage-free eggs. Nevertheless, these commitments are valuable in showing cooperation and action along the supply chain. Particularly from producers who take initial action, such as Mantiqueria, who have already reached 2.5 million cage-free chickens, out of a total of 17 million birds. This has resulted from expansion of its production rather than transitioning caged system farms (70).
Eggstimation
An important consideration for marginal investment in cage-free campaigns to gain new commitments is the current coverage of corporate commitments and the size of additional commitments available. Whereas for investment in commitment enforcement, the inverse is true where the number and size of existing commitments with unmet deadlines in the near future is of the main concern.
Some large prominent companies have made commitments such as retailers Carrefour, Group Pao de Acucar, and Cencosud will be transitioning by 2028 (71–73), and hotel chains Accor and Choice (74,75) by 2025. However, there are still many large companies that have failed to make commitments to go cage-free.
Some existing estimates are available from groups working on the issue (source). With the overall estimated number of commitments at 19%. However, this includes companies at the point of sale to consumers, and producers and consumer packaged goods companies who sell to retailers. This means there is a possibility of double counting the same eggs. When producers and consumer packaged goods companies are excluded to avoid overlap the figure drops to 12.3%. This serves as a lower bound from these sources.
Unfortunately, given the data available for estimating each company, the possibility for error is likely to be significant. As such we re-estimated these figures for the main industries and main companies within those industries to corroborate these estimates. For retailers, we used revenue and the percentage of national food expenditure spent on eggs to estimate egg expenditure, and therefore number of eggs and chickens. Hotels were estimated from both revenue, proportion of revenue from food, and estimated food expenditure on eggs as well as room occupancy, and mean daily egg consumption per person.
Restaurants and food service providers are by far the most difficult to estimate without direct figures from the company as the proportion of their menu that includes eggs can vary greatly. For example, the Outback Steakhouse has a commitment to go cage-free in Brazil and is a very large company with 159 outlets as of 2024 (76) and total sales of $259 million in 2021(77). However, their menu does not include many egg related products, only brioche buns or mayonnaise. So, assuming their restaurant market share is representative of the proportion of eggs they use in the sector dramatically overestimates the eggs used for some companies like Outback, and underestimates others.
Table 3. Estimated number of chickens by company industry ranking (rounded to one significant figure)
Industry | Retailers | Restaurants | Hotel |
Top 5 | 6,000,000 | 1,000,000 | 30,000 |
Top 5-10 | 1,000,000 | 200,000 | 9,000 |
Top 10-20 | 700,000 | 100,000 | 5,000 |
Top 20-50 | 300,000 | 50,000 | 2,000 |
Top 50-300 | 50,000 | 9,000 | |
Top 500 | 9,000 | 2,000 | 200 |
Although, estimating accurate estimates for particular companies can be difficult, particularly with restaurants and other food services, the broad picture is still informative. Many large restaurant and hotel brands have made commitments to go cage-free with deadlines in 2025, and some extending until 2028. Whilst in the retail sector the major commitments are set for 2028. Enforcement of these commitments will ensure the growth of the cage-free market share. By holding companies accountable to their commitments, this would benefit millions of hens.
For future commitments, there are still many very significant companies who do not have cage-free commitments as of 2024. The most significant of these are in the retail sector such as Assai, Grupo Mateus and Supermercados BH. Each of these companies are responsible for the caging of millions of layer hens. One way to visualise the importance of these potential commitments is based on ‘movement bounties’ on companies proportional to the scale of suffering they cause in the table below. With a target cost-effectiveness of 42 chickens affected per dollar for campaigns as per Simcikass (2019) average estimate for the historic cost-effectiveness of these campaigns (78).
Table 4. Estimated bounty for commitment ($) for companies by industry ranking (rounded to one significant figure given the rough nature of the estimates)
Industry | Retailers | Restaurants | Hotel |
Top 5 | 700,000 | 100,000 | 4,000 |
Top 5-10 | 100,000 | 30,000 | 1,000 |
Top 10-20 | 80,000 | 10,000 | 600 |
Top 20-50 | 40,000 | 7,000 | 200 |
Top 50-300 | 6,000 | 1,000 | |
Top 500 | 1,000 | 200 | 200 |
Priority 2: Lobbying for screwworm elimination
This ask would be to lobby the Brazilian government (and perhaps some other South American governments) to start a screwworm eradication program using either a gene drive or the sterile insect technique. Screwworms are parasites of all warm blooded animals that cause devastating injuries with dramatic suffering and mortality rates of 20 - 80% (2,3). Screwworms lay eggs in injured tissue and infected areas are literally eaten alive by the screwworm larva, so called because they are shaped like screws and screw through flesh. Mortality rates are high as the infection spreads and vital parts of the animal are affected (79).
Screwworm are endemic to South America, with the interesting exception of Chile, who has been able to remain screwworm free since 1956 through the use of strict import controls (80). We considered including Chile as a case study in this report, but we were unable to find much information on this case. We did note that much of Chile is outside of the screwworm’s typical range, so elimination would be significantly easier in this country (81).
The sterile insect technique is a proven solution to ending screwworms, having been used to eliminate screwworms in many areas including North and Central America. This was completed in a series of efforts, mostly falling between 1957 and 1972, with some new shorter programs since then to deal with reinvasions. In contrast, gene drives have only seen field trials for this use, but theoretically offer a more powerful and inexpensive method (80).
The sterile insect technique works by releasing large numbers of insects (typically male) that have been sterilised with ionising radiation. Healthy flies that mate with these flies will not produce offspring. This progressively reduces the population over generations, though extremely large numbers of insects for a very long time must be released in order to cause population collapse and extinction. Additionally, if the territory borders any other territories that have not also eliminated the insect species, a border of sterile flies must continually be released (82).
Use of the sterile insect technique may require continuous upkeep from neighbouring countries that do not join the eradication attempt. Panama releases 14 million sterile screw flies per week on its border with Colombia in order to maintain its screwworm free status, along with that of the rest of Central and North America as the sole country bordering South America (83). This border is comparatively small at 274 kilometres. These sterile flies act as a buffer for flies coming from the south, with flies moving up from the south likely to mate with some of these flies and therefore rendered unable to bear offspring in Panama.
Gene drives are a method of genetic engineering that allows the altered genes to be passed on at a higher than the typical 50% chance of inheritance. In the case of screwworms, this could be used to alter a gene in male screwworms that makes female (but not male) carriers infertile and that would be inherited by almost all offspring. Male offspring on the other hand, continue to reproduce, further spreading the female sterility genes. Like the sterile insect technique, flies are bred in factories, altered and then released; however, unlike the sterile insect technique, its approach is somewhat self-propagating, and a smaller number of altered flies would need to be released. Though it is likely that multiple releases would be required (84).
There are strong arguments for screwworm elimination outside of the animal welfare context that could be leveraged for the campaign. The first of these is economic: screwworm causes significant harm to livestock in the Americas (79). Indeed, it is estimated that Uruguay annually loses 0.14% of its GDP to screwworm infections (85). In terms of economic harms, the sum of these damages has been estimated at $1.88b per year (80).
The second is human health: Humans were found to be the third most affected species by screwworm in El Salvador (80). Uruguay alone reports hundreds of human cases per year (85). A 2006 survey in rural Uruguay found that 0.7% of the population is infected by screwworm per year (83). Additionally, there are indications that human cases are also underreported due to negative social perception of infection, so these numbers could be underestimated. Brazil’s population is 60 times that of Uruguay, so there may well be many more cases in Brazil, though its prevalence is not as well studied.
From the perspective of animal welfare, the effects on wild animals may be most significant. Mathias (85) suggests the number of wild mammals affected per year may be in the order of hundreds of millions to a few billion per year. We would expect around half of these to occur in Brazil given that it is around half of the landmass of South America.
Feasibility of the work
We could not find any mention of a current or planned attempt to eliminate screwworm in Brazil. Nevertheless, Brazil occupies 46% of the total land area of South America making it an especially favourable target for this work. The large size of the country means that even if screwworms entered the border areas from surrounding countries, the interior would have a significant buffer. This is especially pertinent to Brazil since it borders all South American countries except for Ecuador and Chile (80).
The use of gene drives would require significantly more political cooperation (or at least consent) from neighbouring countries (86). Indeed, (80) shares the following thoughts concerning screwworm eradication in South America:
“Unless barriers can be found, for eradication purposes all of South America must be
considered as one region. Once started, the programme would have to be progressive and continue until the whole continent (and thus the Southern Hemisphere) is completely free of the New World screwworm. To consider South America as a target area, considerable preparatory groundwork is needed. The governments and livestock producers in each country involved must be convinced that eradication is technically, practically and economically justified.”
Uruguay is an obvious ally since it has an existing screwworm elimination programme and shares a 985 km border with Brazil. This programme considers both the sterile insect technique and the use of gene drives (87). However, if this ask requires full consent and cooperation among South American countries, this could make the ask much more difficult. For example, Venezuela might be difficult to convince [2].
The main organisation in charge of facilitating gene drives is the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (86). The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety of this organisation governs the use of genetically modified organisms, including gene drives. All South American countries are signed up with UNEP.
The extent to which this gene drives can be meaningfully used only in Brazil without the active involvement of other countries (or at least their approval) is a remaining uncertainty for us.
In contrast, since it has significantly fewer cross border effects, the use of the sterile insect technique would not require the same degree of international cooperation. This work would also still benefit from significant international cooperation, because any additional bordering South American countries that eliminate screwworm reduce the requirements for continuous border shielding releases of sterile flies.
However, it might be significantly more expensive. Still, the cost estimates we have seen suggest that the sterile insect technique is cost effective. For example, R.E. Reichard (88) cites the cost of the joint US and Mexico elimination program using SIT as exceeding US$500 million. In today’s terms this would be around a few billion dollars. The US and Mexico together represent a much larger landmass than Brazil.
Flow through effects
Unfortunately, there were no environmental impact assessments conducted before screwworm eradication in North and Central America. There has also been no evidence found of environmental impacts (82). There have been no assessments of the wild animal welfare impact of screwworm elimination, and the lack of environmental assessments would also make this difficult. Ultimately, we can name a number of factors that could affect the overall direction of flow through effects, though pinning down the exact balance is very difficult.
Painful end of life experiences are all but inevitable for animals in the wild. However, screwworm infection is plausibly more painful than other methods of death due to its horrific and lingering nature (though this is subjective). Animals killed by screwworm would be expected to live for a longer period of time before dying from another cause, which may be good if their lives are net positive (which we lean towards in the case of typical screwworm hosts), but bad if their lives are net negative. Additionally, those animals not killed by screwworm are exposed to additional forms of suffering on top of a painful death from another cause.
Additionally, if screwworm lives are net negative this intervention would reduce their suffering overall (even though some new individuals must be bred and released for the intervention), and if their lives are net positive this would decrease net screwworm well being.
The question is extremely difficult because of the complexity of ecosystems. Hence it is not currently knowable whether this will increase or decrease net suffering and by how much. However, to the extent these complex effects are unknown or knowable in effect and direction, we will assume they cancel out. If further research pins down these effects, we can adjust accordingly.
Overall, we believe the effects of this campaign will have an overall positive effect, noting that many other campaigns would face this kind of cluelessness consideration, it is particularly salient in this case.
Exploratory campaign opportunities
Priority 3: Shrimp
For animal advocacy in Brazil, shrimp welfare is a high priority. The number of shrimp farmed in Brazil each year is likely to be in the tens of billion. While there is some uncertainty around the exact number, shrimp are almost certainly the species with the highest number of individuals farmed in Brazil each year (see industry profile below). In fact, Brazil shows the highest growth of farmed shrimp production in the world, according to FAO data [3]. Given these enormous numbers and the sufficient evidence that shrimp are capable of pain and suffering (89–92), it is clear that shrimp welfare is a high-priority for Brazilian animal advocacy.
The specific welfare improvements which are of the highest priority for shrimp welfare will require on-the-ground research, including on-farm welfare assessments, to discern.
However, before this country-specific data is collected, we can learn from some general guidelines provided by worldwide research.
The seminal paper by Pedrazzani et al (92) gives general welfare guidelines for farming Penaeus vannamei. These guidelines are worldwide, rather than specific to Brazil. However, we note that the paper's authors hail from Brazil, and the author team tested the feasibility of their welfare assessment on shrimp farms in northeastern Brazil. The paper, which we recommend reading in detail, describes how welfare on shrimp farms can be assessed and provides tables of reference values relating to environmental indicators, health indicators, nutritional indicators, and behavioural indicators at different stages of the production process.
The reports from Rethink Priorities (90,93) builds on this paper, and other information, to produce estimates of how much of a burden is caused by various different welfare problems. This work takes into consideration the prevalence of different welfare issues and the intensity of the suffering caused by them to build a rough idea of the highest-priority welfare improvements. Again, this work has a global focus, so the results should be interpreted for the Brazilian context with caution. With that caveat in mind, the highest-priority issues for shrimp welfare were identified as follows:
high stocking densities;
water quality (including high levels of ammonia, low levels of dissolved oxygen, low levels of salinity, and high temperature);
a lack of substrate (especially artificial structures that shrimp can climb onto—sandy bottoms helps too, as they enable shrimp to burrow, though P. vannamei burrows less frequently than other species);and
biosecurity.
Harvest, slaughter, and the eyestalk ablation of broodstock appear to cause some suffering, but these issues did not rank highly in the analysis as these experiences cause suffering for only a short-duration and/or only for some individuals (90,93).
We recommend that Brazilian animal advocates conduct farm visits to gather data on the key welfare parameters, using the framework of Pedrazzani et al (92). The data obtained in these on-farm welfare assessments can then be taken into account, along with the Rethink priorities existing work, to determine the highest-priority welfare improvements for shrimp farms in Brazil. Animal Ask is happy to provide guidance throughout this process. The research from Shrimp Welfare Project offers a precedent for what we think this work might look like, so reading through this research would provide useful insights to any readers interested in conducting these on-farm shrimp welfare assessments in Brazil.
An important consideration for Brazil is that farms tend to be relatively small, and farmers may have other sources of income (see industry profile below). This contrasts with other countries, where the bulk of production often comes from a handful of large farms. This suggests that welfare interventions may be more likely to succeed in Brazil if they have relatively low up-front investments and offer "win-win" benefits for farmers as well as shrimp welfare, and these smaller wins can help build momentum towards larger changes in the future.
Another consideration, flagged by McKay and McAuliffe from Rethink Priorities, is that some of the high-priority welfare improvements (e.g. water quality improvement) can also increase production. While this is useful as it can help convince farmers of the value of these welfare improvements, this also risks enabling farmers to increase stocking density—this would likely be bad for shrimp welfare. As such, welfare improvements that might improve production should also be paired with limits on stocking density.
Many farms monitor oxygen, temperature, and salinity, though this is more common on large farms. For example, in Rio Grande do Norte, 42% of farms between 50 and 200 hectares measure ammonia, while only 12% of farms between 5 and 10 hectares do so (58). This means that it might be relatively straightforward to obtain water quality measurements from farms.
To provide an example, we can use the water quality measurements published by Costa et al (65). These measurements originate from eight small farms in Santa Catarina, all below 5 hectares in area, in 2008 and 2009. As such, these values may not be representative of all farms.
Temperature was usually between 24 and 30 degrees C. This is mostly within the optimal values provided by Pedrazzani et al (92).
Ammonia averaged 0.84 mg/L (standard deviation: 1.22). This is far outside the optimal values provided by Pedrazzani et al (92).
Salinity averaged 12.93 %o (standard deviation: 5.33). This is within the optimal range provided by Pedrazzani et al (92).
pH averaged 7.91 (standard deviation: 0.55). This is within the optimal range provided by Pedrazzani et al (92).
Stocking density is usually between ~15 and 25 shrimp per m² (58). While this is within the recommended range by Pedrazzani et al (92), this exceeds the stocking densities observed in the wild; the authors of the Rethink Priorities work hypothesise that this may represent a departure from the preferences of shrimp (90,93).
To our knowledge, the only organisation conducting shrimp welfare work in Brazil is FAI Farms.
Priority 4: Tilapia
Around 400 million tilapia are slaughtered in Brazil each year (see industry profile below). This places tilapia in third place, after shrimp and broiler chickens, in terms of the number of animals slaughtered in Brazil.
As with shrimp, the specific welfare improvements that are of the highest priority for tilapia in Brazil will require on-the-ground research, including on-farm welfare assessments. Helpfully, Pedrazzani et al (94) have also provided a framework for on-farm welfare assessments, designed for Brazilian conditions. The paper, which we also recommend reading in detail, describes how welfare on tilapia farms can be assessed and provides tables of reference values relating to environmental and health indicators.
Nevertheless, we can make some tentative suggestions for high-priority welfare improvements for tilapia in Brazil.
Firstly, low dissolved oxygen levels are a common source of mortality on tilapia farms in Brazil (30). Low dissolved oxygen was also observed in the example farms visited by Pedrazzani et al (94). It is common for farmers to monitor water temperature, but not other water quality parameters. As such, it may be useful to assist farmers with monitoring these other water quality parameters, including dissolved oxygen, to detect suboptimal water quality before tilapia welfare is affected (and before these cause large financial losses to farmers).
Key reference values relating to water quality are as follows (94):
temperature: 24 to 34 °C;
pH: 6.0 to 8.5;
transparency: 30 to 45 cm;
oxygen saturation: 60 percent or above (i.e., above roughly 4 mg/L of dissolved oxygen);
non-ionized ammonia: 0.05 mg/L or below;
nitrite: 0.3 mg/L or below; and
alkalinity: 30 to 100 mg/L of calcium carbonate.
When parameters are outside of these recommended limits, this can harm tilapia welfare (94–96).
There is an important difference between earthen ponds and reservoir cages. While water quality is very important in both cases, the water quality of reservoir cages is likely to be determined by the water quality of the reservoir as a whole. In this case, reservoir-wide monitoring programmes, perhaps in collaboration with local government or many farmers, might be more effective than asking individual farmers to monitor the water quality of the water in their cages. There are existing water quality programs in reservoirs, conducted by governments and/or academics (97,98), and these might provide a useful starting point for monitoring the water quality parameters relevant for fish welfare.
It might be possible to monitor water quality regularly and automatically by analysing free satellite data—this has been successfully achieved in some countries (99,100). However, the success of this method depends on the specific region and water quality parameters of interest, so this may not succeed for every water quality parameter in Brazil. Animal Ask recently attempted this method for monitoring water quality of carp ponds in India, and we partially succeeded in monitoring chlorophyll but did not succeed in monitoring oxygen. Animal Ask is happy to provide advice and assistance if organisations in Brazil are interested in exploring this option.
Secondly, another opportunity to improve tilapia welfare is by helping farmers to establish a plan for monitoring, preventing, and treating fish disease on tilapia farms. Most tilapia farmers in Brazil do not have formal training in fish disease diagnosis (52). As such, providing this training could be a useful way to improve fish welfare and also reduce the chance that producers will face large-scale losses of fish.
An ideal biosecurity plan would include disease surveillance, disease preparedness, and disease control. The plan would also encourage on-farm biosecurity practices (101). Such plans should include the following on-farm and on-hatchery practices (102–105):
regular cleaning and disinfection of nets, tanks, and other equipment;
allowing several days between harvest and stocking (fallow period);
training all farm staff in early detection of common diseases;
screening and filtration of floating cages to prevent the entry of wild fish, which can carry disease;
vaccination of fingerlings before outbreaks occur; and
quarantine system to keep different batches of fish separate, especially when they arrive from external sources (e.g. fish delivered from a hatchery to a grow-out farm)
The recent fish welfare report by Alianima finds that high stocking densities, a lack of environmental enrichment (stimulation), handling and transportation, and inhumane slaughter methods (ice slurry slaughter) may also be high-priority challenges for tilapia welfare in Brazil (106).
As with shrimp, tilapia farms in Brazil tend to be small. As such, successful welfare improvements will likely need to have low up-front investments and offer "win-win" benefits for farmers. Tilapia welfare campaigns could involve collaboration with Brazilian supermarkets, which have begun to impose quality standards on producers (53), or with certifiers, though certification schemes are more attractive to farmers who produce tilapia for export (55).
Priority 5 : Better Chicken Commitment
Another important area for future exploration in advocacy is the ‘better chicken commitment’ (BCC). Existing conditions for broilers are far from compliant with the BCC. With many important conditions not being met including stocking density, breed selection, environmental enrichment and humane slaughter. This leaves a vast potential for improvement in conditions for the over 6.1 billion broiler chickens slaughtered each year. The net welfare importance of this cannot be understated. Both for the chickens raised for consumption in Brazil and given Brazil’s position as a global broiler exporting powerhouse.
Table 5. BBC requirements in Brazil (107) compared to existing conditions on farms
Requirement | Description | Existing Compliance Notes | Existing Compliance |
Stocking density | 30 kg/m2 and prohibit the use of cages or multi-level systems. Partial catching should be avoided and be limited to once per batch | 80.0% of surveyed companies (who accounted for 76.3% of broiler chicken slaughtered in the state of Paraná) adopted 33.0 to 39.0kg m-2 (14) | Low |
Slower-growing breeds | Adopt Breeds from the RSPCA Broiler Breed Assessment Protocol or Global Animal Partnership (GAP) or equivalent validated by the BCC Brazil commission | All farms were in a sample of 11 farms from the State of Rio Grande do Sul male Cobb 500® (13) | Very Low |
Light intensity | At least 8 hours of continuous light (≥50 lux), including natural light, and 6 hours of continuous darkness daily (<1 lux) | All surveyed companies had below 50 lux unnatural lighting. “more than half of companies mentioned five lux as one of the lighting program in place” (14) alternative survey found all were exposed to a total maximum light period of 16 h composed of natural daylight and extra artificial lighting (5 lux) | Mixed |
Environmental enrichment | 7.5 cm of friable litter, platform and/or perch of at least 2 metres and another type of environmental enrichment (such as pecking substrates) for every 1000 birds | “All farms used deep wood-shavings litter” (13) litter quality general found to be good (13,14) “13.3% (2/15) of companies performed attempts using straw and perches” (14) | Low |
Air quality | The ammonia concentration should not exceed 20 ppm and carbon dioxide 3000 ppm | 46.7% (7/15) of companies had equipment to measure ammonia, maximum values reported were between 10 and 20 ppm (14). Average and maxim Ammonia of 5.63 and 10 ppm and 892 and 1,075 for carbon dioxide for farms using shaving in a sample of 30 facilities in Minas Gerais (108) | High |
Controlled atmosphere stunning | Stunning methods that do not subject the animal to inversion while they are conscious, such as the controlled atmosphere system (CAS) | No precise data available however “water bath stunning is the most widespread procedure used in Brazil” (109) | Low |
However, the animal advocacy movement is likely to face steep opposition in this sector as well as other challenges with interactions with work on the BCC and the ongoing cage-free campaigns.
The broiler farming industry in Brazil is particularly powerful. Its large exports across the world totaling five million tons of chicken, and valued at USD 9.61 billion, make it an important trade commodity. It is often promoted by the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (110), and the previous president Bolsonaro even inaugurated a poultry and swine event (111).
There are usually strong, formal links between different actors in the supply chain—these links may be contracts or even simply the ownership of multiple parts of the supply chain by a single, large company (23,24). A situation which is driven in part by the “national champions” policy promoted by President Dilma Rousseff’s government.This aimed to strengthen Brazilian multinationals who could take global leadership positions in their respective segments (112).
This means even in the corporate sector broiler producers and wholesalers have a lot of power. An analysis of the São Paulo market-the largest chicken consumer market in Brazil-found that prices are mostly determined by the producer and wholesaler, with the retailer having little impact on prices (113). While price setting is not directly important for welfare, price setting power demonstrates who has the most influence over the supply chain. Engagement with retailers, who are most accountable to consumers, will likely be more difficult than usual given this imbalance. Instead direct engagement with producers is a relatively more promising approach compared to usual. Although, in this case negative public campaigning will be less effective as producers are more insulated within the supply chain from consumer pressure and the product being targeted is more important to them economically than to retailers (114).
Advocacy to improve broiler welfare in Brazil is likely to be a long and difficult process. Yet, these hurdles are not insurmountable as groups in many countries around the world have begun work in similar difficult positions and found some initial success. However, as any engagement outside of producers will focus on companies who are already either transitioning to cage-free, potentially falling behind on commitments, or who have not committed to this relatively more straightforward ask, this would likely be untenable at this time. Any use of the movement’s limited corporate engagement and campaigning talent, as well as the bandwidth of corporate targets, on the BCC risks coming at the cost of ongoing cage-free work. Only those organisations particularly well positioned to begin initial small investments into exploratory co-operative work with producers would make sense.
Promising approaches
With thanks for contributions from Renata Santineli and Haiuly Viana of Fórum Animal.
Minor animal political party
In our report on minor animal political parties, we identified Brazil as one of the most promising countries to run a minor animal political party. A minor animal political party would be a party with a single issue for animal advocacy. This party would never receive a very large vote share, but some proportion of the public could be expected to vote for them based on pro-animal sentiments, typically a few percent (5). In Brazil, given the thresholds for success and past track record of minor animal parties, we expect this might translate into around two to five seats across regional and national legislature (5).
Minor political parties can have the most impact if they are able to side with another party on a vote or form a coalition with them in exchange for animal welfare policies. Typically we expect moderate benefits from minor animal parties, but in some cases (such as when they are able to form a coalition), they may have much greater influence. We think that $30,000 USD is an upper limit for ongoing funding that such a party might require (5).
To found a political party in Brazil, it is necessary to follow the legislation on political parties (Law No. 9096/95). This law determines that in order to run in an election, the political party must guarantee registration six months before the election.
The founders must draw up the program and statutes to be followed. The party program must contain the ideological line and political objectives that will define the party's actions. The statutes are the document that includes the internal rules, such as the party's operation, administration and assets. It is worth noting that these documents cannot contradict the democratic regime, which is based on respect for national sovereignty, multi-partyism and fundamental human rights.
Next, as a legal entity under private law, the party must obtain registration at the Civil Registry Office in Brasília and a registration number in the National Registry of Legal Entities (CNPJ) in order to exist in fact and in law. After obtaining registration at the registry office, the party in the formation phase has a period of up to 100 days to inform the TSE (Superior Electoral Court) about its creation. This procedure is called “notice of creation”.
After acquiring legal status at the registry office, the creators of the new party must obtain the minimum support from the electorate, which will attest to the national character of the party, one of the essential legal requirements for registering the statute with the TSE.
The party must obtain this support within two years of obtaining legal status. This support consists of collecting signatures from voters, not affiliated with another party, that correspond to at least 0.5% of the valid votes cast in the last general election for the Chamber of Deputies, not counting blank and invalid votes. These votes must be distributed across at least nine states, with a minimum of 0.1% of the electorate having voted in each of them.
Currently, about 500,000 signatures would be needed in 9 states of the federation (123). According to data from the TSE, founding a political party in Brazil costs around R$400,000 to R$1,000,000.00 ($72,000 to $180,000) approximately.
We found a mention of Animal Party of Brazil (Partido Animalista), but we were unable to find other significant mentions of the party, and they may very well not be active. Interviews we conducted with advocacy groups in the region suggest this might be the case. The first step to work on this issue would be to contact the members or former members of this party.
Popular initiatives
Popular initiatives (also known as citizen’s initiatives) are a direct democracy mechanism that allows citizens to make political proposals that, if they meet certain criteria and vote thresholds, must be considered politically. In Brazil, popular initiatives, provided for in Art. 61 of the 1988 Brazilian Constitution (115), must be considered and voted on by congress if they receive signatures from at least 1% of registered voters including signatures from at least 0.3% of registered voters from at least 5 of the 27 federal states (116).
Popular initiative bills in cities and states operate in a similar way to the national level, but are adapted to local and regional realities. It is common to require signatures from 5% to 10% of the municipality's electorate or 1% to 3% of the state electorate . This mechanism is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and by state and municipal laws, and is an important tool for direct citizen participation in the development of regulations that meet their immediate needs.
Surprisingly, this has rarely been employed. Valente et al (2017) notes it has only been used seven times between 1988 and 2013 (115). Nevertheless, if we look at these bills, all seven have been successful in some form. Many without extensive checks on the signatures collected (117).
Topic (117) | Code | Year | Signatures (117) | Outcome (2024) |
Creation of the National Popular Housing Fund | 1992 | ~800,000 | Law in 2005 | |
Characterise massacres carried out as heinous crimes by death squads | 1993 | ~1,300,000 | Law in 1994 | |
Movement Against Electoral Corruption | 1999 | Failed to get enough | Law in 1999 | |
Related to the punishment of heinous crimes | 2006 | ~1,200,000 | Ongoing | |
Consumers to be informed about the taxes levied on goods | 2007 | ~1,500,000 | Law in 2012 | |
Movement to Combat Electoral Corruption | 2009 | ~1,300,00 | Shelved as a complimentary bill passed 168/93 | |
Establish the so-called "Clean Record | 2009 | ~1,300,000 | Approval of another law attached instead PLP 168/93 |
If we compare the success of these (albeit very small sample) of bills of popular initiative, to the base rate of success of all bills, we see they have been almost 10 times more successful. Also worthy to note is the yearly trend seems to indicate that normal bills tend to either pass quickly or fail slowly.
Table 6. The approval rate of PL bills between 1934 and 2024
Data from The Chamber of Deputies Bill Portal (here)
Augusto identifies several reasons why bills from Popular Initiatives have been difficult in Brazil owing to the formal requirements for the presentation of such bills (117). The first being the signature threshold. Secondly, the restricted scope to only ordinary and supplementary bills. Lastly, a proposal must be presented in the form of a bill which requires technical legal knowledge (115,117).
These previous barriers to bills can be overcome by a coordinated animal movement. If we compare to recent similar initiatives, a popular bill would require 1% of Brazil's 156 million registered voters (118), which is a total of 1.56 million signatures. The total is on par with the ‘End the Cage Age’ which had 1.4 mil in support (119), but from a population of 203 million in comparison to the EU’s 449.2 million. If we benchmark the cost of gathering these signatures from well documented US ballot signature gathering, costs fall between $0.79 and $16.28 per required signature (120). Prop 12 in California had a cost per required signature (CPRS) of $6.01 (121). So, if it were as costly as a US ballot, a total of $1,236,350 to $25,478,200 would be required to gather these signatures. However, we expect it would be less expensive, purely based on purchasing power parity which suggests it would be as much as 58% cheaper in Brazil than the US (122).
A successful example of a popular initiative bill that benefits animals is Bill 3093/21, which aims to prohibit the export of live animals. This practice is widely known for its cruelty and risk to animals. Still in progress. This legislative idea received more than 20,000 support and was transformed into a Suggestion, and the Human Rights and Participatory Legislation Commission recommended that it be turned into a bill in the Federal Senate.
Overall, we think popular initiatives might be a promising way to introduce new legislation in Brazil. However, the factors that lend to the success of the small number of previous bills are entangled with them being successful enough to be proposed in the first place. We don’t expect a 100% success rate. Regardless, this could be used to propose strong popular animal protection legislation, such as an end to the use of all cages in Brazil. As such, it should be viewed as a more expensive direct option action with a historically high success rate, instead of attempting to have a bill sponsored through congress.
References
To see the references of this report, please download the pdf version at the beginning of the report.
Comments