Vasco, I have read your analysis on advocating for furnished cages with great interest—thanks for posting it. While I appreciate the rigorous attempt to quantify welfare impact using a cost-effectiveness framework, I believe the resulting conclusion—that we should pivot to advocating for furnished cages—relies on a clinical interpretation of data that conflicts with the biological and operational realities of egg production & hen welfare.
As a welfare specialist with experience measuring these systems on-farm, I would like to offer a counter-perspective on why furnished cages are not a “stepping stone,” but a strategic dead end.
1. Improvement vs Acceptability
Your model suggests that furnished cages capture ~70% of the welfare benefits for a fraction of the cost. This relies on the premise that welfare is a linear scale where “less suffering” equals “adequate welfare.”
This is a false comparison. A furnished cage might be cheaper to install & run than a cage-free aviary, but it fails to solve the fundamental problem. To use an analogy: A bicycle is significantly cheaper to buy and run than a car, but if your requirement is a 100km daily commute, the bicycle is not a “70% solution”—it is functionally insufficient.
Similarly, while a furnished cage is empirically better than a barren battery cage, it still abjectly fails to meet a hen’s most basic ethological needs. It provides a slightly less bad life, but it does not provide a life worth living. It offers almost no opportunity for positive experiences or pleasure (let alone basic needs), which are critical components of any welfare assessment. I’m interested to understand how you accounted for positive experiences?
2. The Reality of “Furnishings”—and a correction re cage standards
You mention that furnished cages in the EU require specific resources, such as “at least 250 cm² of littered area per hen”. This is incorrect.That specific requirement is for non-cage systems.
The requirement for furnished cages is “litter such that pecking and scratching are possible.” In practice, this usually manifests as a small area of Astroturf. On farm, we see these resources failing consistently:
Nesting: The “nest” (not 1 per 7 hens as suggested in your post) is often just a curtained corner. It lacks the seclusion hens are highly motivated to seek, and because space is so limited, these areas are frequently dominated by higher-ranking hens, blocking access for subordinates, resulting in stress and frustration
Perching: The perches in furnished cages often have limited head height and hinder movement around the cage. Birds resting on them are frequently disturbed or displaced by active hens because there is nowhere else to go.
Dustbathing: This is a high-priority behavior for hens. It is simply not possible in a furnished cage.
Claw shortening devices: these are required because the hens can’t engage in appropriate floor scratching behaviour , which would lead to natural claw shortening
Advocating for furnished cages would amount to welfare washing. It allows the industry to claim they have “reformed” the system by adding token resources that do not meaningfully improve the bird’s subjective experience.
3. Infrastructure lock-in
You argue that advocating for furnished cages could “create momentum” for global efforts. I strongly disagree. I think it would present a strategic risk.
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.
We have seen in Europe that welfare in cage-free systems improves over time as producers gain experience. The cage-free system has a high ceiling for welfare potential; the furnished cage has a very low one. By advocating for the latter, we are complicit in locking millions of birds into a system that the rest of the scientific & advocacy community recognises as negative for welfare. I am in total agreement with you that advocating for furnished cages would decrease the cohesiveness of the existing community working to improve the lives of laying hens globally
Conclusion
Your calculation determines that furnished cages are “cost-effective”, but it prioritises economic efficiency over the subjective experience of the animal. A system that denies a bird the ability to dustbathe, escape aggression, or experience pleasure should not be considered a welfare reform (rather a system reform), regardless of what the data says.
We should not dilute the global standard. Cage-free is currently the only commercially feasible option that meets what the scientific welfare and advocacy community almost unanimously recognises as the minimum threshold for acceptable welfare.
I am really glad for your engagement on this question, Mia! I found this part of your comment interesting, especially the bolded part:
We have seen in Europe that welfare in cage-free systems improves over time as producers gain experience. The cage-free system has a high ceiling for welfare potential; the furnished cage has a very low one.
Do you have a quick explanation for why this is the case? I guess it makes sense intuitively to me (e.g. cages impose a fixed physical restriction on how much space a hen can have).
It is also really interesting and encouraging to hear that you think welfare in some cage-free systems is continuing to improve over time. I didn’t realize that! If you have a quick sense for how much you think welfare is empirically improving in the European context, I would find this very interesting.
No worries if you don’t have capacity to respond :)
It is also really interesting and encouraging to hear that you think welfare in some cage-free systems is continuing to improve over time.
Relatedly, Schuck-Paim et al. (2021) “conducted a large meta-analysis of laying hen mortality in conventional cages, furnished cages and cage-free aviaries using data from 6040 commercial flocks and 176 million hens from 16 countries”. Here is how they describe their findings in the abstract.
We show that except for conventional cages, mortality gradually drops as experience with each system builds up: since 2000, each year of experience with cage-free aviaries was associated with a 0.35–0.65% average drop in cumulative mortality, with no differences in mortality between caged and cage-free systems in more recent years. As management knowledge evolves and genetics are optimized, new producers transitioning to cage-free housing may experience even faster rates of decline. Our results speak against the notion that mortality is inherently higher in cage-free production and illustrate the importance of considering the degree of maturity of production systems in any investigations of farm animal health, behaviour and welfare.
This relies on the premise that welfare is a linear scale where “less suffering” equals “adequate welfare.”
I do not rely on the concept of “adequate welfare” in my analysis. I estimate welfare from “time with positive experiences”*”intensity of positive experiences” - (“time in annoying pain”*”intensity of annoying pain” + “time in hurtful pain”*”intensity of hurtful pain” + “time in disabling pain”*”intensity of disabling pain” + “time in excruciating pain”*”intensity of excruciating pain”. 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.
“I estimatethat hens in conventional (battery) and furnished (enriched) cages, and cage-free aviaries (barns) have a welfare of −1.79, −1.09, and −0.798 chicken-QALY/chicken-year”. 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))/1.79) 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. I’m 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 “at least 250 cm² of littered area per hen”. 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 “a nest”, “litter such that pecking and scratching are possible”, and “appropriate perches of at least 15 cm”.
Furnished cages must have “litter such that pecking and scratching are possible”, but no minimum area is specified.
Advocating for furnished cages would amount to welfare washing. It allows the industry to claim they have “reformed” the system by adding token resources that do not meaningfully improve the bird’s subjective experience.
Very interesting. Does that mean you very much disagree with WFI’s 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 − 155)/431) less disabling pain per hen in furnished cages than in conventional cages. Maybe you think WFI’s 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?
Vasco, I have read your analysis on advocating for furnished cages with great interest—thanks for posting it. While I appreciate the rigorous attempt to quantify welfare impact using a cost-effectiveness framework, I believe the resulting conclusion—that we should pivot to advocating for furnished cages—relies on a clinical interpretation of data that conflicts with the biological and operational realities of egg production & hen welfare.
As a welfare specialist with experience measuring these systems on-farm, I would like to offer a counter-perspective on why furnished cages are not a “stepping stone,” but a strategic dead end.
1. Improvement vs Acceptability
Your model suggests that furnished cages capture ~70% of the welfare benefits for a fraction of the cost. This relies on the premise that welfare is a linear scale where “less suffering” equals “adequate welfare.”
This is a false comparison. A furnished cage might be cheaper to install & run than a cage-free aviary, but it fails to solve the fundamental problem. To use an analogy: A bicycle is significantly cheaper to buy and run than a car, but if your requirement is a 100km daily commute, the bicycle is not a “70% solution”—it is functionally insufficient.
Similarly, while a furnished cage is empirically better than a barren battery cage, it still abjectly fails to meet a hen’s most basic ethological needs. It provides a slightly less bad life, but it does not provide a life worth living. It offers almost no opportunity for positive experiences or pleasure (let alone basic needs), which are critical components of any welfare assessment. I’m interested to understand how you accounted for positive experiences?
2. The Reality of “Furnishings”—and a correction re cage standards
You mention that furnished cages in the EU require specific resources, such as “at least 250 cm² of littered area per hen”. This is incorrect. That specific requirement is for non-cage systems.
The requirement for furnished cages is “litter such that pecking and scratching are possible.” In practice, this usually manifests as a small area of Astroturf. On farm, we see these resources failing consistently:
Nesting: The “nest” (not 1 per 7 hens as suggested in your post) is often just a curtained corner. It lacks the seclusion hens are highly motivated to seek, and because space is so limited, these areas are frequently dominated by higher-ranking hens, blocking access for subordinates, resulting in stress and frustration
Perching: The perches in furnished cages often have limited head height and hinder movement around the cage. Birds resting on them are frequently disturbed or displaced by active hens because there is nowhere else to go.
Dustbathing: This is a high-priority behavior for hens. It is simply not possible in a furnished cage.
Claw shortening devices: these are required because the hens can’t engage in appropriate floor scratching behaviour , which would lead to natural claw shortening
Advocating for furnished cages would amount to welfare washing. It allows the industry to claim they have “reformed” the system by adding token resources that do not meaningfully improve the bird’s subjective experience.
3. Infrastructure lock-in
You argue that advocating for furnished cages could “create momentum” for global efforts. I strongly disagree. I think it would present a strategic risk.
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.
We have seen in Europe that welfare in cage-free systems improves over time as producers gain experience. The cage-free system has a high ceiling for welfare potential; the furnished cage has a very low one. By advocating for the latter, we are complicit in locking millions of birds into a system that the rest of the scientific & advocacy community recognises as negative for welfare. I am in total agreement with you that advocating for furnished cages would decrease the cohesiveness of the existing community working to improve the lives of laying hens globally
Conclusion
Your calculation determines that furnished cages are “cost-effective”, but it prioritises economic efficiency over the subjective experience of the animal. A system that denies a bird the ability to dustbathe, escape aggression, or experience pleasure should not be considered a welfare reform (rather a system reform), regardless of what the data says.
We should not dilute the global standard. Cage-free is currently the only commercially feasible option that meets what the scientific welfare and advocacy community almost unanimously recognises as the minimum threshold for acceptable welfare.
I am really glad for your engagement on this question, Mia! I found this part of your comment interesting, especially the bolded part:
Do you have a quick explanation for why this is the case? I guess it makes sense intuitively to me (e.g. cages impose a fixed physical restriction on how much space a hen can have).
It is also really interesting and encouraging to hear that you think welfare in some cage-free systems is continuing to improve over time. I didn’t realize that! If you have a quick sense for how much you think welfare is empirically improving in the European context, I would find this very interesting.
No worries if you don’t have capacity to respond :)
Hi Angelina.
Relatedly, Schuck-Paim et al. (2021) “conducted a large meta-analysis of laying hen mortality in conventional cages, furnished cages and cage-free aviaries using data from 6040 commercial flocks and 176 million hens from 16 countries”. Here is how they describe their findings in the abstract.
So interesting, thanks! :)
Thanks for looking into this, Mia.
I do not rely on the concept of “adequate welfare” in my analysis. I estimate welfare from “time with positive experiences”*”intensity of positive experiences” - (“time in annoying pain”*”intensity of annoying pain” + “time in hurtful pain”*”intensity of hurtful pain” + “time in disabling pain”*”intensity of disabling pain” + “time in excruciating pain”*”intensity of excruciating pain”. 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.
“I estimate that hens in conventional (battery) and furnished (enriched) cages, and cage-free aviaries (barns) have a welfare of −1.79, −1.09, and −0.798 chicken-QALY/chicken-year”. 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))/1.79) 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 “litter such that pecking and scratching are possible”, but no minimum area is specified.
Very interesting. Does that mean you very much disagree with WFI’s 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 − 155)/431) less disabling pain per hen in furnished cages than in conventional cages. Maybe you think WFI’s 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?