Every year, an astonishing 70 billion chickens (known as broilers) are slaughtered for meat, vastly outnumbering the combined total of just two billion pigs, cows, and sheep. As public attitudes evolve towards more sustainable and ethical food production, consumers and animal advocates are demanding better welfare standards for farmed animals. This mounting pressure is directly challenging an industry designed for maximum efficiency rather than welfare.

A major point of debate in poultry farming concerns the use of fast-growing broiler chickens. Selectively bred to reach slaughter weight in just six weeks, these breeds have helped to make chicken one of the most affordable and widely consumed proteins. However, in their short lives, the birds suffer from lameness, heart disease, skeletal deformities, and chronic pain due to their unnaturally accelerated growth.

Advocacy campaigns like the Better Chicken Commitment (BCC) are pushing retailers and producers to adopt slow-growing breeds with higher welfare standards. So far, the campaign has gained traction: 55 to 60% of broilers in the Netherlands and 25% of broilers in Denmark now come from these breeds. While evidence shows that individual slow-growing chickens experience better comparative welfare, not much research exists regarding how this change impacts the industry’s bottom line and overall chicken welfare.

Farm-Scale Economic Model

This study examines how switching from fast-growing to slow-growing broilers impacts farm profitability and chicken welfare in the U.S. and Germany — two major poultry producers.

Researchers used an economic model to estimate how farms might adjust their operations based on key factors such as growth rates, production costs, meat prices, mortality rates, and slaughter weights. The study analyzed four commercial broiler breeds:

• Ross 308 and Cobb 500 (fast-growing)
• Ranger Classic and Ranger Gold (slow-growing)

The model incorporated market conditions in both countries, analyzing breast and leg cuts. In the U.S., an additional whole-chicken analysis was included to compare with previous research.

Since farmers prioritize profits, the model assumed they would adjust slaughter weights to maximize earnings. The study explored two possible industry responses:

1. Producers adjust slaughter weights for slow-growing broilers to optimize profits; or
2. Producers keep slaughter weights the same for both broiler types.

Previous research has not quantified the overall impact on industry-wide suffering. Therefore, the study measured the number of chickens farmed, total time spent in farm conditions, and how long birds experienced discomfort or pain (ranging from annoying to excruciating) for welfare metrics.

A Welfare Paradox

The transition to slow-growing broilers has been hailed as a win for animal welfare, but this study reveals a more complicated reality.

Slow-growing broilers suffer significantly less than their fast-growing counterparts: in the U.S. meat cuts scenario, for example, excruciating pain dropped by 91% and disabling pain fell by 75%. However, because these chickens grow more slowly and live longer, the total number of birds farmed increased by 48%, and time spent in farm conditions rose by 69%. Since demand for chicken meat remained unchanged, more birds were required to meet production goals.

While these birds endure less severe suffering, they also spend more time in mild discomfort, creating an industry-wide welfare paradox where individual suffering is reduced but more animals are affected.

Beyond welfare concerns, the economics of this transition could lessen its appeal to farmers. Slow-growing broilers require more feed, longer housing stays, and use more resources, making them more expensive to produce. These higher costs could be passed on to consumers, but it remains unclear whether increased prices would significantly reduce overall chicken consumption.

The study also found that farmer responses may vary by region. Some producers may adjust slaughter weights to maintain profitability, while others may keep weights the same, as seen in Denmark. These different approaches have major implications for both economic viability and animal welfare.

Limitations

While this study helps policymakers and industry leaders make more informed decisions about the future of poultry farming, the authors acknowledge several limitations.

With data based only on U.S. and German markets, their conclusions may not apply to regions with different consumer habits, farming systems, or regulations. Other limitations include:

• Constant meat demand: The model assumes consumers will continue buying the same amount of chicken, even if prices rise. However, higher costs could lower demand more than expected, altering the study’s conclusions.
• Exclusion of breeder flocks: Parent birds used to produce broilers live much longer and often endure chronic feed restriction, a major welfare issue. Leaving them out grants only a partial picture of overall poultry welfare.
• No consideration for positive welfare: The focus is on reducing suffering, but it doesn’t factor in positive experiences like foraging, dust-bathing, or perching — things slow-growing broilers may actually get to do. Since holistic welfare also includes natural behaviors, this is an important facet to consider.
• Slaughter weight restrictions: The model assumes farmers can adjust slaughter weights freely, but in reality, processing plants and retailers have strict limits. If producers can’t make those adjustments, the study’s economic and welfare predictions may not match real-world outcomes.

Although the authors suggest a net benefit to overall animal welfare in transitioning to slow-growing breeds, they recommend that future studies should explore global market variations, breeder welfare, and long-term demand changes to build a more complete understanding of the trade-offs involved.

Conclusions

At its core, this study highlights a fundamental question: Does reducing suffering on an individual level justify increasing the number of animals farmed?

For animal advocates, it’s a reminder that welfare reforms can’t be viewed in isolation. Both the direct benefits and the unintended industry-wide consequences have to be considered. Stakeholders should explore industry-wide solutions that balance welfare, sustainability, and economic feasibility to ensure that progress in one area doesn’t lead to setbacks in another.