This relies on the premise that welfare is a linear scale where âless sufferingâ equals âadequate welfare.â
I do not rely on the concept of âadequate welfareâ in my analysis. I estimate welfare from âtime with positive experiencesâ*âintensity of positive experiencesâ - (âtime in annoying painâ*âintensity of annoying painâ + âtime in hurtful painâ*âintensity of hurtful painâ + âtime in disabling painâ*âintensity of disabling painâ + âtime in excruciating painâ*âintensity of excruciating painâ. My assumptions for the pain intensities imply each of the following individually neutralise 1 fully-healthy-chicken-day:
10 days of annoying pain, which I assume is 10 % as intense as hurtful pain.
1 day of hurtful pain, which I assume is as intense as fully healthy life.
2.40 h of disabling pain, which I assume is 10 times as intense as hurtful pain.
0.864 s of excruciating pain, which I assume is 100 k times as intense as hurtful pain.
It [a furnished cage] provides a slightly less bad life, but it does not provide a life worth living.
âI estimatethat hens in conventional (battery) and furnished (enriched) cages, and cage-free aviaries (barns) have a welfare of â1.79, â1.09, and â0.798 chicken-QALY/âchicken-yearâ. Values below 0 imply more suffering than happiness, and, in this sense, lives not worth living. At the same time, I estimate the welfare per chicken-year increases by 39.1 % (= (-1.09 - (-1.79))/â1.79) when chickens go from conventional to furnished cages.
It [a furnished cage] offers almost no opportunity for positive experiences or pleasure (let alone basic needs), which are critical components of any welfare assessment. Iâm interested to understand how you accounted for positive experiences?
I speculated chickens have positive experiences when they are awake, and not experiencing hurtful, disabling, or excruciating pain. In addition, I guessed the positive experiences to be as intense as hurtful pain. WFI will publish a book this year with estimates for the duration of positive experiences for 4 levels of intensity. I am looking forward to these, and may use them to produce updated estimates for the welfare of layers.
You mention that furnished cages in the EU require specific resources, such as âat least 250 cm² of littered area per henâ. This is incorrect.That specific requirement is for non-cage systems.
Great catch. I copy-pasted from the wrong place. I have corrected that sentence of the post to the following.
Each laying hen in a furnished cage in the EU must have âa nestâ, âlitter such that pecking and scratching are possibleâ, and âappropriate perches of at least 15 cmâ.
Furnished cages must have âlitter such that pecking and scratching are possibleâ, but no minimum area is specified.
Advocating for furnished cages would amount to welfare washing. It allows the industry to claim they have âreformedâ the system by adding token resources that do not meaningfully improve the birdâs subjective experience.
Very interesting. Does that mean you very much disagree with WFIâs estimates implying that chickens experience significantly less pain in furnished than conventional cages (illustrated in the 2nd graph of my post)? They calculate there is 64.0 % (= (431 â 155)/â431) less disabling pain per hen in furnished cages than in conventional cages. Maybe you think WFIâs estimates only hold water under idealised conditions which are rarely present in practice? @cynthiaschuck, do you have any thoughts on how having more realistic generalisable studies would change the comparison between conventional and furnished cages?
Producers operate on long investment cycles. If we convince a producer in a developing market to invest millions in furnished cages today, we are not creating a stepping stone; we are cementing a ceiling for the next 20 years. Once that capital is sunk, the economic incentive to upgrade again to cage-free vanishes.
I agree. However, advocating for furnished cages could still make sense in regions which are only expected to become cage-free in more than 20 years, like some countries in Africa and Asia?
Thanks for looking into this, Mia.
I do not rely on the concept of âadequate welfareâ in my analysis. I estimate welfare from âtime with positive experiencesâ*âintensity of positive experiencesâ - (âtime in annoying painâ*âintensity of annoying painâ + âtime in hurtful painâ*âintensity of hurtful painâ + âtime in disabling painâ*âintensity of disabling painâ + âtime in excruciating painâ*âintensity of excruciating painâ. My assumptions for the pain intensities imply each of the following individually neutralise 1 fully-healthy-chicken-day:
10 days of annoying pain, which I assume is 10 % as intense as hurtful pain.
1 day of hurtful pain, which I assume is as intense as fully healthy life.
2.40 h of disabling pain, which I assume is 10 times as intense as hurtful pain.
0.864 s of excruciating pain, which I assume is 100 k times as intense as hurtful pain.
âI estimate that hens in conventional (battery) and furnished (enriched) cages, and cage-free aviaries (barns) have a welfare of â1.79, â1.09, and â0.798 chicken-QALY/âchicken-yearâ. Values below 0 imply more suffering than happiness, and, in this sense, lives not worth living. At the same time, I estimate the welfare per chicken-year increases by 39.1 % (= (-1.09 - (-1.79))/â1.79) when chickens go from conventional to furnished cages.
I speculated chickens have positive experiences when they are awake, and not experiencing hurtful, disabling, or excruciating pain. In addition, I guessed the positive experiences to be as intense as hurtful pain. WFI will publish a book this year with estimates for the duration of positive experiences for 4 levels of intensity. I am looking forward to these, and may use them to produce updated estimates for the welfare of layers.
Great catch. I copy-pasted from the wrong place. I have corrected that sentence of the post to the following.
Furnished cages must have âlitter such that pecking and scratching are possibleâ, but no minimum area is specified.
Very interesting. Does that mean you very much disagree with WFIâs estimates implying that chickens experience significantly less pain in furnished than conventional cages (illustrated in the 2nd graph of my post)? They calculate there is 64.0 % (= (431 â 155)/â431) less disabling pain per hen in furnished cages than in conventional cages. Maybe you think WFIâs estimates only hold water under idealised conditions which are rarely present in practice? @cynthiaschuck, do you have any thoughts on how having more realistic generalisable studies would change the comparison between conventional and furnished cages?
I agree. However, advocating for furnished cages could still make sense in regions which are only expected to become cage-free in more than 20 years, like some countries in Africa and Asia?