Do you know how the relative reduction in the suffering per living time compares with the relative reduction in the growth rate? The total suffering is proportional to former, but inversely proportional to the latter. For example, if the suffering per time is halved, but so is the growth rate, there would be no change in the overall suffering (because there would need to be 2 times as many chickens). So it is important that the reduction in the suffering per living time exceeds the reduction in the growth rate.
Based on data from the Welfare Footprint Project, and some guesses from me, I estimate going from a conventional to a reformed scenario results in a reduction in the suffering per living time of 69.5 % (= (-1.52 - (-4.99))/​(-(-4.99))), an increase in the number of broilers of 25.2 % (= 1.34*10^3/​(1.07*10^3) − 1), and therefore in a reduction in the overall suffering of 59.2 % (= 1 - (1 − 0.695)/​(1 − 0.252)). So I assume your ask will also reduce overall suffering, but it is worth having these dynamics in mind for breed selection.
Changing to a slower growing breed may be good even if it results in an increase in the overall suffering nearterm. Subsequent changes to higher welfare breeds could render the lives of broilers net positive, in which case having a slower growing breed would increase welfare via leading to a larger population.
Thanks for the post, Zoe!
Do you know how the relative reduction in the suffering per living time compares with the relative reduction in the growth rate? The total suffering is proportional to former, but inversely proportional to the latter. For example, if the suffering per time is halved, but so is the growth rate, there would be no change in the overall suffering (because there would need to be 2 times as many chickens). So it is important that the reduction in the suffering per living time exceeds the reduction in the growth rate.
Based on data from the Welfare Footprint Project, and some guesses from me, I estimate going from a conventional to a reformed scenario results in a reduction in the suffering per living time of 69.5 % (= (-1.52 - (-4.99))/​(-(-4.99))), an increase in the number of broilers of 25.2 % (= 1.34*10^3/​(1.07*10^3) − 1), and therefore in a reduction in the overall suffering of 59.2 % (= 1 - (1 − 0.695)/​(1 − 0.252)). So I assume your ask will also reduce overall suffering, but it is worth having these dynamics in mind for breed selection.
Changing to a slower growing breed may be good even if it results in an increase in the overall suffering nearterm. Subsequent changes to higher welfare breeds could render the lives of broilers net positive, in which case having a slower growing breed would increase welfare via leading to a larger population.