The Cost of a Happier Chicken: Who Pays?

(Photo: SMcGarnigle)

Animal rights activists often oppose animal welfare reforms on the grounds that they make animal production more efficient. Rutgers professor Gary Francione argues this case convincingly, insisting that some “[w]elfare reforms make animal exploitation more profitable by eliminating practices that are economically vulnerable.” He adds, “For the most part, those changes would happen anyway and in the absence of animal welfare campaigns precisely because they do rectify inefficiencies in the production process.”  The point is compelling and controversial: welfare reforms–which so many consumers support–can make it easier for industrial agriculture to turn animals into food.

Improbably enough, industrial producers of animal products agree. As a justification for what concerned consumers perceive to be inhumane practices, factory farmers routinely insist that if they treated their animals poorly, production would decline. Thus, they conclude that consumers need not worry: the animals are doing just fine. Scott Dewald, Vice-President of the Oklahoma Cattlemen’s Association, explains, “Our producers take care of their animals, and we know that an animal that isn’t treated well doesn’t produce.”  Sherrie Niekamp, head of animal welfare for the National Pork Board, echoes this sentiment when she acknowledges that “Animal welfare is . . . a market driven issue.”

Putting aside the irony that there’s common ground between some animal rights advocates and factory farmers, it’s worth investigating what the available evidence has to say about this claim. Do improved animal welfare and increased productivity correlate? Is it in the economic interest of factory farmers to improve animal welfare? The answer appears to be “yes,” but only to point. Then, without doubt, it becomes “no.”  Definitively no.

Consider the case of laying hens and cages. In 2000, the United Egg Producers established voluntary welfare standards recommending that producers increase cage size from 48 to 76 square inches. Given that a typical bird needs 75 square inches to even stand up, this expansion can hardly be deemed a substantial welfare reform. Nonetheless, let’s assume that more space equals less stress, however nominal the reduction. Today, 80 percent of all eggs produced in the United States are under the UEP welfare label. The upshot, it turns out, is that egg productivity per hen increased. Thus it would seem, at first glance, that welfare improvements–at least with respect to eggs–indeed lead to a boost in production.

But the matter gets more complicated the more you bore into it. Most notably, while productivity per hen increased, overall productivity dropped. The decline was due to the fact that, with bigger cages, farmers with fixed barn space couldn’t cram as many hens into a single shed as they once could. Density of production, as one would suspect, pays. Commenting on this industry-initiated cage expansion, the agricultural economists F. Bailey Norwood and Jayson L. Lusk (whose superb book Compassion, by the Pound summarizes much of the literature on this topic) note how increased space has come at the “expense of farm productivity” and is more a reflection of “a real effort to improve animal welfare, and/or to protect the image of the egg industry” than a quest to boost profits.

Industrial operations don’t strike me as caring all that much about animal welfare, so the latter scenario seems more likely. Producers, aware that welfare reforms are costly, are only going to go far enough to convince welfare-concerned consumers that animals are being treated well. After all, when big producers embrace more serious welfare improvements–such as eliminating cages altogether and raising “cage free” birds–productivity doesn’t just dip, it plummets. 

Birds that are uncaged are often densely packed into barns, but they can move more freely and, in some cases, make it outside to really strut around. Movement means that a higher percentage of their feed supports their itinerancy rather than their egg production. Cage free hens, according to Lusk and Norwood, produce fewer eggs than their caged counterparts, die earlier, and have a mortality rate almost three times as high. Say what you will about the welfare benefits of birds not being in a cage, it’s anything but more efficient. For proof, just check out the price of your cage free or pastured eggs.

For now, then, I’ll tentatively conclude that animal welfare reforms don’t grease the wheels of efficiency so much as increase costs and make life more difficult for factory farms. But here’s an idea that has the potential to shift the nature of this whole debate: what if more space doesn’t, in fact, mean that animals are happier? What if this basic assumption is all wrong? I’ll explore this idea in my next post.

TAGS: ,

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

 

COMMENTS: 32

View All Comments »
  1. George says:

    Why are we only comparing eggs from caged chickens to eggs from free ranged chickens? There’s a third option, which is to take the calories going into feeding the chickens (mostly grains, some soy protein) and feed them to the humans instead. How cost efficient is that?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
    • Bea Elliott says:

      I’m with you 100% on that thought! We could feed many more of us on less output – if we directly ate the foods they were using to fatten animals with. Economically speaking – It always feels like I’m competing with “livestock” for thriftier and more abundant food sources. What a bizarre way to feed the world. :/

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
  2. tmeier says:

    I have raised chickens for ten years. My chickens roam freely over two acres, have a lovely hen house and a varied diet of wholesome food the supplement what they find for themselves in the yard.

    Based on this experience I can not understand how anyone can think they have any sort of moral relationship with a chicken, that chickens somehow deserve to be treated a particular way. The idea is weird, a fetish. You can not have a moral relationship without reciprocity, we apply this standard even to humans. If a person by criminal behavior demonstrates a lack of moral reciprocity we drop our moral respect for him and use force to restrain him despite any pain or suffering this may cause.

    These last are two things frequently confused. Pain is the body’s response to stimulus, it has no moral value. People voluntarily submit to pain regularly in pursuit of various goals. The moral value confused with pain is suffering or anguish. Suffering is pain but with the additional sense of self and contingency. We suffer not from pain alone but from the idea that it is unjust, imposed and unnecessary. If we lack the mental capacity to feel this then pain is just adverse stimulus. If a car hit a dog and it loses the use of it’s legs it will not be depressed as a human likely would because it can not conceive the notion the accident needn’t have happened. As far as it is concerned life is-you have four legs for a while – wham, a lot of pain and then you have two, that’s just how it is, like the sun coming up in the morning, you don’t feel cheated or abused by the universe. It’s the feeling of ‘I don’t deserve this’ which transforms a normal everyday nerve impulse into a moral factor. Chickens don’t have that as evinced by their behavior towards one another under the most benign conditions.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
  3. Jordan Kasteler says:

    “cage free” chickens still go through hell. It’s not that much more “ethical” by any means. They still have the same procedures of cutting off their beaks with a hot metal blade so they don’t peck each other to death from going crazy, grind up or suffocate male chicks since they can’t lay eggs, and they all go to the same slaughterhouse. Many times, even with outdoor access, they’re too afraid to go outside. It’s all BS to charge more and make you feel better. If you want to eat ethically go vegan!

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
  4. David Kaauwai says:

    There are hundreds of factors that need to be qualified and quatified in any circumstance before any concrete decision is made on the animal welfare reform.
    Animal welfare is not necessarily the primary issue in food production either. The nutritional content of that food product is the most important factor in the efficiency of a food production system or in other words: how well an animal converts feed into food, and how nutritionally sound that food is for the dollars spent to produce it.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  5. Cameron says:

    Why should food be “cheap”? I struggle to see the point in buying cheaper, less nutrient dense food v. more expensive food that actually nourishes the human well-being. Pay less for food, pay more for medical bills; simple as that. Invest in your health and well being.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0