Thanks for the interesting post, Vasco. It certainly gave me some food for thought on Monday morning! It raises several important issues for me; primarily, the issue with pitching one ethical issue against another.
Within chicken advocacy, we frequently encounter the argument that welfare improvements are not viable due to environmental sustainability concerns. I dispute this claim on the same grounds that I would challenge the idea that advocating for higher welfare chicken production could negatively impact arthropod welfare and thus be net harmful overall. The issue is not the higher welfare production itself, but rather the agricultural methods (or other potentially harmful practices) employed. For instance, slower-growing chicken breeds can thrive on diets with less soybean than conventional strains, which has been shown to reduce emissions from land-use change per kilogram of feed in certain higher welfare systems (as demonstrated by Mostert et al., 2022). This indicates that we can modify feed production methods, rather than abandoning welfare improvements, to achieve more comprehensive positive change. We can simultaneously advocate for better welfare standards and expect the implementation of environmental (or other, such as wildlife welfare) mitigation strategies. Higher welfare farming is not inherently incompatible with other social goals; rather, businesses must adapt and implement supplementary or alternative strategies alongside welfare enhancements to ensure this compatibility.
Your findings “suggest it is unclear whether chicken welfare reforms are beneficial or harmful” from a holistic perspective. However, regarding chicken welfare specifically, the benefits of these reforms are unequivocally clear—even when these animals live longer lives, as in the case of meat chickens (see Welfare Footprint’s findings). If these reforms inadvertently cause harm elsewhere, those harms should also be addressed as our understanding evolves, for example, through the use of alternative feeds, reductions in consumption, and decreases in land-use change. While we don’t yet (or may never) have perfect solutions, the significant suffering prevalent on factory farms and the measurable impact we can have in alleviating that suffering necessitate our continued advocacy for higher welfare farming practices. At the same time, issues related to environmental compatibility, wildlife impacts, and insect welfare should remain areas of ongoing research and mitigation.
Welfare interventions such as cage-free systems and the Better Chicken Commitment (BCC) aim to improve chicken welfare by directly enhancing the well-being of individual birds during production. A potential secondary benefit to welfare is a reduction in overall meat and egg consumption, for example if conventional chicken is seen as a reputational risk for corporations & they seek alternatives. The progress observed in the Dutch retail sector illustrates the potential for broader benefits, where meat reduction pledges have followed successful campaigns for cage-free eggs and improved broiler welfare.
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.