By Hannah Cargill, contract production manager, Avara Foods
Across the UK, many integrators have reduced stocking density on standard broilers to 30 kg/m² – similar to slower-growing systems. On the farms I oversee, when we look at the data – pododermatitis, hock burn, mortality, culls and behaviour – something interesting appears. The gap many people expected between standard and slower-growing birds often isn’t there anymore.
That doesn’t mean slower-growing systems are wrong. They have their place, and growers are doing excellent work with them. But it does raise a fair question: is changing breed the only path to better welfare, or is good management just as important?
We need to consider the bigger picture. Slower-growing birds take longer to reach target weight and eat more feed per kilo of meat produced. That means more grain, more land, more housing time and higher costs. At a time when families are feeling the pressure of the cost-of-living crisis, chicken remains one of the most affordable ways to put nutritious food on the table. Welfare matters – but so do sustainability, food security and affordability.
What concerns me is that conversations with NGOs are emotional rather than evidence based. Labels and slogans designed to shock the public don’t reflect the reality on British farms today. Our industry has worked hard to improve welfare while keeping food accessible, and that deserves recognition. As Birthe Steenberg of AVEC asked recently at the National Farmers’ Union conference: are consumer demands really the same as NGO demands?
I’d argue they’re not.
NGOs have set the narrative based on outdated science. Some campaigns trying to push companies toward sourcing slow-growing chicken from outside the UK, where oversight can be weaker and welfare standards lower. That doesn’t help birds – or farmers – or consumers.
Most families want food that is affordable, nutritious, responsibly produced and humane. NGOs, in many cases, want us to consume less meat altogether. That’s a different conversation entirely – and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise.
This isn’t about resisting progress. We absolutely should change where change genuinely benefits birds. But mandating breed swaps without considering stocking density, management quality, environmental impact and affordability risks missing the bigger picture.
Some British chicken businesses have been criticised for stepping away from the Better Chicken Commitment and forming the Sustainable Chicken Forum instead. Personally, I’m encouraged by their pragmatic focus on improving welfare while also recognising sustainability and affordability. That feels like grown-up thinking.
Good welfare isn’t just about genetics. It’s about people, skill, consistency and care.
As an industry, we should be proud of how far we’ve come and what we have shown truly delivers the best outcomes for birds, farmers and the public we feed.