Breaking News on Food & Beverage Development - North AmericaEU edition | APAC edition

News > Manufacturers

Read more breaking news



Sourcing slower-growing chickens pits animal welfare, environmental concerns against each other

1 comment

By Elizabeth Crawford


Sourcing slower-growing chickens pits animal welfare, environmental concerns against each other

Manufacturers and retailers soon could find themselves between a rock and a hard place as the trend to source slower growing broiler chickens gains momentum with retailers and restaurants.  

On one side are concerns about animal welfare and on the other are those about environmental sustainability – two admirable macro trends heavily influencing consumers’ purchasing decisions and which, when pitted against each other as in this case, complicate manufacturers’ production and value decisions.

Animal welfare concerns were a driving force in the decision by Whole Foods Market and others to commit to sourcing only from suppliers that raise slower-growing breeds of chicken and offer better living conditions.

According to Global Animal Partnership, an organization Whole Foods Created to set animal welfare standards for its suppliers, the retailer’s shift away from conventional chickens, which have been bred for fast, efficient growth of about 65 grams per day and a higher yield of breast meat, will improve the lives of 277 million chickens.

“Conventional chickens are typically raised with ¾ a square foot of space each, are given no enrichment or natural light and suffer from the side effect of extremely fast growth,” including “immune and muscolskeletal problems resulting in limitations to the birds’ ability to express natural behaviors like perching, flying or even walking,” according to the farm animal welfare organization Compassion in World Farming.

Whole Foods committed to give chickens about 25% more space than conventional chickens, buy birds that grow 50 grams per day or less – which is about 23% less than conventional chickens – and provide natural light, straw bales, perches and pecking substrates.  

In late December, Panera followed suit for similar welfare reasons, as did Pret a Manager. Others that also committed to slower growing chickens include Sodexo, Compass and Aramark.

These commitments likely resonate well with many consumers who increasingly worry about animal welfare, not just out of the kindness of their hearts but based on the belief that “happy” animals well create higher quality, better tasting products.

The tradeoffs

But these benefits also come at a cost, according to a new study released today by the National Chicken Council.

The study, conducted in August and September by Elanco Animal Health, in consultation with Express Markets, Inc., used a simulation model to detail the environmental, economic and sustainability implications of raising slower growing chickens.

The results revealed “a sharp increase in chicken prices and the use of environmental resources – including water, air, fuel and land,” according to NCC.

“In assessing a transition to a slower growing breed, the environmental impact is an important component often left out of the equation,” NCC says in a release. It explains, “If only one-third of broiler chicken producers switched to a slower growing breed, nearly 1.5 billion more birds would be needed annually to produce the same amount of meat currently produced – requiring a tremendous increase in water, land and fuel consumption.”

Specifically, the report found an additional 7.6 million acres of land, which is about the size of Maryland, would be needed per year to grow sufficient corn and soybeans to feed the chickens, and an additional 5.1 billion gallons of water would be necessary to keep the chickens hydrated, not counting the extra water to grow the additional feed.

Just as inputs would go up, so would outputs. The study found slower growing chickens that stay on the farm longer would produce 28.5 billion additional pounds of manure annually, which NCC notes is “enough litter to create a pile on a football field that is 27 times higher than a typical NFL stadium.”

Economic drawbacks

The switch also would have negative economic impacts, according to the NCC study.

It found if just 1/3 of the industry switched to slower growing birds the additional cost would be $9 billion. Plus, it could reduce the US chicken supply, potentially leading to 27.5 billion fewer chicken meals per year, which NCC says could increase the risk of food instability for some people.  

More research necessary

These tradeoffs do not necessarily mean NCC opposes switching to slower growing broilers or that it is willing to sacrifice animal welfare for environmental and economic reasons. Rather, NCC says it is open to evolving to meet consumer preferences, but that such shifts should be based on scientific research rather than emotional rhetoric.

“We are the first ones to know that success should not come at the expense of the health and wellbeing of the birds,” Ashley Peterson, NCC senior vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs, said in a statement.

But she added it is unclear if slowing the speed of growth would actually improve the health and welfare of chickens, and as such additional research is necessary to identify any “unforeseen consequences of raising birds for longer.”

As such, NCC says it urges addition research on all elements of the equation: animal welfare, environmental impact and economic implications.

Post a comment

Comment title *
Your comment *
Your name *
Your email *

We will not publish your email on the site

I agree to Terms and Conditions

These comments have not been moderated. You are encouraged to participate with comments that are relevant to our news stories. You should not post comments that are abusive, threatening, defamatory, misleading or invasive of privacy. For the full terms and conditions for commenting see clause 7 of our Terms and Conditions ‘Participating in Online Communities’. These terms may be updated from time to time, so please read them before posting a comment. Any comment that violates these terms may be removed in its entirety as we do not edit comments. If you wish to complain about a comment please use the "REPORT ABUSE" button or contact the editors.

1 comment

Eat less meat with better quality, enjoy it more, help the planet

Spurious comments from the National Chicken Council. We have all got to eat less meat - livestock farming - which of course includes chickens accounts for 14% of all greenhouse gases. Yes, that is more than all the mechanical transport used on the earth. WE HAVE TO DO IT or it will not be long before it is forced upon us.

Report abuse

Posted by Rosemary Marshall
12 January 2017 | 18h222017-01-12T18:22:58Z

Related products

Related suppliers

Key Industry Events


Access all events listing

Our events, Shows & Conferences...

Promotional Features

Content Provided by Fonterra

Way forward with whey protein