Poultry welfare comes at a cost
Over 300 leading companies across Europe have signed up to the European Chicken Commitment (ECC), a framework of standards developed by animal welfare NGOs that they say will enhance broiler welfare. Studies reveal drawbacks of the EEC in terms of cost and impact on the environment.
The societal push towards higher welfare production systems is a given fact. Although the exact definition of animal welfare and its level can be discussed, when keeping birds at a lower stocking density and with a little more time during grow-out, some production issues can arise. That is exactly what can be seen at the farms of the early adopters of ECC production.
It’s a more relaxed way of growing birds, less balancing on a knife edge to get it right and there are higher returns per kg of live weight delivered at the processors, so it seems as if the economics work, too. But down-to-earth farmers’ logic already saw drawbacks in the early stages.
ECC comes at the cost of efficiency. Slower-growing birds at a lower stocking density lead to higher inputs and costs and therefore result in a higher price. A deeper dive in recent studies shows the exact trade-offs and the negative effects on cost, and especially the environment that welfare advocates seldom take into account.
ECC gaining traction
Welfare is gaining traction as a unique selling point among consumers. This has already led to more than 300 companies embracing the ECC. The list of signees includes retailers and catering businesses, and major fast-food restaurants such as KFC. The ECC commits signatories to meet a list of welfare requirements (see box further on) that includes guidelines on maximum stocking density, the adoption of slower-growing breeds and proof of 100% compliance through third-party audits.
The signatories agreed to meet these requirements by 2026. The companies involved foresee an interesting market opportunity. This was recently underwritten by Emma Calvert, senior food policy officer at the European Consumer Organisation. “Consumers want more welfare-friendly options,” she said.
What’s more, she said 7 out of 10 are willing to pay more for animal welfare products, but to varying degrees. “We really want to see the European Commission come forward, finally, with the legislation – which they have promised to do – that will make higher animal welfare standards the case across the board,” Calvert said.
Serious drawbacks
The European poultry sector has raised concerns, as a shift towards ECC standards had not been fully assessed for its impact on the environment and on European broiler producers. To answer some of these questions, AVEC, the voice of Europe’s chicken producers, commissioned an in-depth study from a consultancy firm specialising in agriculture, ADAS. The study compared standard poultry production in Europe to that of the ECC to determine flock performance by comparing input costs and meat output. It found that fully transitioning to ECC standards would result in an additional production cost of 37.5% per kg of meat when considering the cost of building the space required to maintain current output, as well as additional requirements for feed and water.
One of the key differences between standard and ECC chicken production is the length of time the birds are in the system. In standards systems, it takes broilers an average of 31 days to reach the thinning stage, so 1.8 kg live weight. It takes ECC birds 37 days to reach that same weight. In the standard system, birds take 40 days to reach slaughter weight, while the ECC system requires 51 days to get to the same weight. ADAS calculated that, taken together, that means that the ECC has just under 6 production cycles per year, whereas the standard system can achieve 7.3.
Another key differences between the systems is feed and water use. The standard system has a feed conversion ratio of 1.55, whereas the ECC system has a feed conversion ratio of 1.85. ADAS found that because of that, we’re looking at a higher amount of feed required per bird, so 3.84 kg per bird for a standard system and 4.58 kg for the ECC system. This is also associated with higher water use of 6.5 litres per bird in the standard system and 7.8 for the ECC system.
The ECC system also uses more space per bird and amounts to 44% less production per square metre. Moving towards the ECC system would also require 48% more space and, because meat output is lower, in order to meet current production levels, 66% more space would be needed. Switching to ECC production and keeping up total production volume would require 25.55 million square metres of growing space, equivalent to 9,692 new buildings. At the current new build price of €420/m2, this is a move that would cost the EU poultry sector over €8.24 billion.
Environmental pressure
Beyond economics, ADAS assessed the environmental impact of the two systems by adding up the energy, feed and water use, as well as total production of manure and emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions are 24.4% higher per kg of produced meat in the ECC system. On a European level, overall feed intake would increase by 7.3 million tonnes, and water use would increase by 12.44 million m2.
Besides CO2 footprint, the issue of NH3 emissions plays an important role in the EU. That is why the Poultry Farming Experimental facility in Geel, Belgium, has ongoing research on this topic. According to interim results of a research project extending to 2025, slow-growing broilers kept according to the ECC standard, cause more than twice as much ammonia emission per sqm of house surface than standard broilers. The first 4 flocks of broilers in the study were placed between September 2023 and March 2024. On average over these 4 flocks, the NH3 emission for the fast-growing birds is 417g/m2/year, while for the ECC bird it is 961g, or 2.3 times more.
As these are interim results, there is some variation, but overall the results seem sound. Ammonia emissions differed considerably between the flocks. The first flock, partly due to a Reo infection, came out worst for both test groups. The slower-growing chicks came up with 1.64 times more NH3/m2/year in that flock, while in the following flocks that factor was 2.54, 2.68 and 3.38, respectively. The research was conducted under semi-commercial conditions in 8 departments with 112.5 sqm of pen surface area each. Researcher Ton van Hertem expects that the difference in ammonia emissions, now determined at a factor of 2.30, will increase even further in the summer flocks. This research is ongoing.
Join 31,000+ subscribers
Subscribe to our newsletter to stay updated about all the need-to-know content in the poultry sector, three times a week.
