Short Summary
As the egg industry transitions to cage-free systems, many hens continue to suffer from keel bone fractures—a painful, widespread condition. We recommend launching a charity that advocates for evidence-informed changes in husbandry and aviary design. Despite uncertainty around the most effective intervention levers, initial modeling suggests this could be a cost-effective way to reduce animal suffering, particularly if traction is gained with large producers and welfare-certification schemes.
The Problem
Keel bone fractures are among the most prevalent and painful conditions affecting laying hens in cage-free systems, impacting roughly 60% to 97% of birds by the end of lay. These injuries—caused by collisions with perches, genetic predisposition, or high egg production—can result in chronic pain, impaired mobility, and reduced quality of life. With cage-free housing expanding globally, the absolute number of affected hens is likely increasing. Yet most stakeholders remain unaware of the issue, and relatively little attention has been given to prevention. Unlike some other welfare issues, fractures may be harder for producers to detect, and consumers are unlikely to be aware. Without external pressure or support, producers may have limited incentive or knowledge to adopt improvements. Given the scale and severity of the problem, even modest reductions in fracture incidence could represent a meaningful welfare gain—especially if implemented across large, commercial systems.
The Solution
We propose launching a new organization that works with egg producers and standard-setting bodies to encourage uptake of measures that may reduce the incidence or severity of keel bone fractures. These measures could include modifications to aviary design, improved perch materials, better lighting, nutritional changes, or selective breeding. The charity would likely focus on a few high-impact strategies, informed by current evidence and expert consultation. By engaging with welfare certification schemes and industry associations, the organization could support sector-wide improvements without requiring mass consumer mobilization. While no single intervention currently guarantees substantial reductions in fractures, there is promising, though mixed, evidence for several low-cost changes. The organization would take an adaptive approach—starting with the best-supported strategies while piloting, evaluating, and iterating based on new evidence. Although the evidence base is not yet definitive, this area remains highly neglected, and strategic engagement may enable tractable and cost-effective harm reduction at scale.
The Impact
Our modelling suggests that under plausible assumptions, this intervention could avert an estimated 10 to 60 suffering-adjusted days (SADs) per dollar spent—potentially exceeding our cost-effectiveness bar for animal welfare interventions. However, these estimates are subject to significant uncertainty, particularly around the effectiveness and uptake of different strategies. If successful, a new charity could influence practices affecting tens of millions of hens annually, either through direct engagement or by shifting sector norms via certification standards. Even if only partially successful, incremental improvements to current cage-free systems could reduce substantial cumulative suffering over time.
Ideal Founder Profile
Who is best suited to do this? *
This charity would benefit from founders who are both strategic and evidence-driven, able to navigate an evolving and technical field with a high degree of nuance. Ideal candidates would have strong communication skills and the ability to collaborate with producers, industry stakeholders, and animal welfare certifiers. A background in animal welfare science, animal behavior, or poultry systems could be useful but is not essential. What matters most is a commitment to improving animal welfare in pragmatic ways, openness to uncertainty, and a willingness to test and iterate. Founders should be comfortable working in a space where the evidence base is still developing and success is likely to depend on relationship-building and sector-wide trust.
*We think candidates with the following skills will have a comparative advantage/be especially promising for founding this idea, but we would like to still encourage applicants from people who do not match this criteria who are enthusiastic about this idea and believe they may be well-suited for reasons not captured here
