What are your current views on egg-laying hen welfare in caged vs cage-free systems? It looks like mortality rates are higher in cage-free to start, but decrease over time and then match after around 10 years based on this meta-analysis.
Are there worthwhile ways to try to speed up the decrease in mortality? Maybe there’s enough industry incentive already?
How likely do you think it is that the increased mortality rates (and any other issues) still outweigh the welfare benefits to egg-laying hens? Or, how long do you think it takes for the welfare benefits to outweigh the harms?
Do you think it would have been better to go for a more demanding ask that avoids the increase in mortality in the short term? Is it too late to switch to one now, because we’re aiming for similar standards everywhere?
My current view is that cage-free systems on average relieve ~40% of the suffering of caged systems. As with the above estimate on broiler welfare, there’s substantial uncertainty on that—my 80% confidence interval is probably more like 20-80%. I really liked the new mortality meta-analysis, but I’d emphasize that mortality is just one proxy for welfare, and I think usually not a particularly good one (depending on the cause of mortality, total level, etc)
We’ve funded work to address keel bone fractures, which are a leading mortality cause in cage-free hens. Some of our grantees, like CIWF, also work with food companies to advise them on higher welfare cage-free systems that can limit mortality. But I think there is already a big strong industry incentive, given mortality affects productivity, and do expect you’ll see morality decline over time as the industry gains more experience running cage-free systems.
I think it’s very unlikely (<5%) that potentially increased mortality rates accompanying the adoption of cage-free systems outweigh the benefits. The mortality differences we’re talking about are small (a few percentage points over the course of a year vs. e.g. 5% mortality for broiler chickens over 48 days), and the welfare benefits are big (in particular preference tests show hens have a strong desire to nest, perch, and dust bath—all behaviors they can only perform in cage-free systems).
No, I don’t think it would have been better to go for a more demanding ask. Per the point above re broilers, I think we’ve learned that a more demanding ask risks jeopardizing all momentum on the issue. FWIW I’m also not sure a more demanding ask would have reduced mortality. E.g. the most common more demanding ask is for hens to be free-range, which results in higher mortality than indoor cage-free (though I think most free-range hens have better overall welfare due to more behavioral opportunities).
It seems like there’s a value judgement to be made on more instances of possibly very intense suffering and drawn out slowly suffering to death, and the chronic frustration and other suffering that comes from living in a cage. As someone who gives substantially more weight to more intense suffering than the average, I’m not convinced that this is a good tradeoff, and I don’t know if preference tests could tell us much while getting ethics approval. I remember you mentioning that hens would hurt themselves to get out of cages in an EA Global talk, but I wonder if the pain is anywhere near that of suffering to death.
That being said, I don’t have a good feel for how exactly they are dying, but I assume dying conscious and without painkillers is usually very bad.
With respect to 4 and a more demanding ask, I had in mind additional marginal improvements (possibly costly for the industry) that would guarantee mortality rates would not increase. Actually, it’s total on-farm deaths that matter more to me than the rates, so just increasing the prices enough could reduce demand enough to reduce those deaths. I don’t know what specifically, though.
Yeah I find that even equally aligned and informed EAs have a very wide range of priors on how to compare acute vs. chronic suffering in animals. I agree that slowly dying probably almost always causes a lot of suffering, and dying of something like cannibalism seems particularly horrific. That’s the main reason why I don’t want advocates to ban debeaking, at least until producers have worked out how to achieve much lower mortality rates. And I totally agree on the need for continued work to ensure producers install the highest welfare cage-free systems.
it’s total on-farm deaths that matter more to me than the rates, so just increasing the prices enough could reduce demand enough to reduce those deaths.
If cage-free hens are less productive, then there might still be more total deaths in cage-free despite higher prices?
I don’t have a copy of the book to check, but I thinkCompassion, by the Pound says that cage-free hens lay fewer eggs.
A 2006 study gives some specific numbers, although this is for free-range rather than cage-free:
Layers from the free range system, compared to those kept in cages, laid fewer eggs, (266:295), [...] they had higher mortality rate (6.80 % : 5.50 %)
These sources are 1-2 decades old, so maybe things have changed since then, though probably the trend of cage-free hens being somewhat less productive remains true.
What are your current views on egg-laying hen welfare in caged vs cage-free systems? It looks like mortality rates are higher in cage-free to start, but decrease over time and then match after around 10 years based on this meta-analysis.
Are there worthwhile ways to try to speed up the decrease in mortality? Maybe there’s enough industry incentive already?
How likely do you think it is that the increased mortality rates (and any other issues) still outweigh the welfare benefits to egg-laying hens? Or, how long do you think it takes for the welfare benefits to outweigh the harms?
Do you think it would have been better to go for a more demanding ask that avoids the increase in mortality in the short term? Is it too late to switch to one now, because we’re aiming for similar standards everywhere?
My current view is that cage-free systems on average relieve ~40% of the suffering of caged systems. As with the above estimate on broiler welfare, there’s substantial uncertainty on that—my 80% confidence interval is probably more like 20-80%. I really liked the new mortality meta-analysis, but I’d emphasize that mortality is just one proxy for welfare, and I think usually not a particularly good one (depending on the cause of mortality, total level, etc)
We’ve funded work to address keel bone fractures, which are a leading mortality cause in cage-free hens. Some of our grantees, like CIWF, also work with food companies to advise them on higher welfare cage-free systems that can limit mortality. But I think there is already a big strong industry incentive, given mortality affects productivity, and do expect you’ll see morality decline over time as the industry gains more experience running cage-free systems.
I think it’s very unlikely (<5%) that potentially increased mortality rates accompanying the adoption of cage-free systems outweigh the benefits. The mortality differences we’re talking about are small (a few percentage points over the course of a year vs. e.g. 5% mortality for broiler chickens over 48 days), and the welfare benefits are big (in particular preference tests show hens have a strong desire to nest, perch, and dust bath—all behaviors they can only perform in cage-free systems).
No, I don’t think it would have been better to go for a more demanding ask. Per the point above re broilers, I think we’ve learned that a more demanding ask risks jeopardizing all momentum on the issue. FWIW I’m also not sure a more demanding ask would have reduced mortality. E.g. the most common more demanding ask is for hens to be free-range, which results in higher mortality than indoor cage-free (though I think most free-range hens have better overall welfare due to more behavioral opportunities).
Thanks!
It seems like there’s a value judgement to be made on more instances of possibly very intense suffering and drawn out slowly suffering to death, and the chronic frustration and other suffering that comes from living in a cage. As someone who gives substantially more weight to more intense suffering than the average, I’m not convinced that this is a good tradeoff, and I don’t know if preference tests could tell us much while getting ethics approval. I remember you mentioning that hens would hurt themselves to get out of cages in an EA Global talk, but I wonder if the pain is anywhere near that of suffering to death.
That being said, I don’t have a good feel for how exactly they are dying, but I assume dying conscious and without painkillers is usually very bad.
With respect to 4 and a more demanding ask, I had in mind additional marginal improvements (possibly costly for the industry) that would guarantee mortality rates would not increase. Actually, it’s total on-farm deaths that matter more to me than the rates, so just increasing the prices enough could reduce demand enough to reduce those deaths. I don’t know what specifically, though.
Yeah I find that even equally aligned and informed EAs have a very wide range of priors on how to compare acute vs. chronic suffering in animals. I agree that slowly dying probably almost always causes a lot of suffering, and dying of something like cannibalism seems particularly horrific. That’s the main reason why I don’t want advocates to ban debeaking, at least until producers have worked out how to achieve much lower mortality rates. And I totally agree on the need for continued work to ensure producers install the highest welfare cage-free systems.
If cage-free hens are less productive, then there might still be more total deaths in cage-free despite higher prices?
I don’t have a copy of the book to check, but I think Compassion, by the Pound says that cage-free hens lay fewer eggs.
A 2006 study gives some specific numbers, although this is for free-range rather than cage-free:
These sources are 1-2 decades old, so maybe things have changed since then, though probably the trend of cage-free hens being somewhat less productive remains true.