A leading UK government advisory body has warned that a narrow focus on productivity and efficiency – often aligned with climate goals – risks driving livestock systems that compromise animal welfare.
In its latest report on breeding technologies, the Animal Welfare Committee (AWC) – a panel of 13 vets, animal ethicists and agricultural experts – cautions that the current push to reduce emissions and improve output per animal may be inadvertently encouraging breeding strategies that prioritise performance over wellbeing.
The findings underline a growing tension in modern agriculture: how to reconcile climate targets with animal welfare outcomes.
Efficiency gains come with hidden costs
The AWC highlights that many breeding programmes remain heavily focused on traits such as growth rate, feed efficiency and yield.
These traits are central to reducing emissions per unit of food produced. However, the report warns that selecting for extreme productivity can have unintended consequences.
“Selecting for extreme growth and production rates may compromise the health and welfare of animals if not managed carefully,” the committee notes.
Examples identified include metabolic stress and lameness in high-yielding dairy cattle; increased dystocia (difficult births) in heavily muscled beef and sheep breeds; and reduced resilience and adaptability in animals bred for intensive systems.
The report concludes that, unless carefully managed, efficiency-led breeding can undermine long-term animal health and welfare.
Climate focus risks “skewing” breeding strategies
The warning is most explicit in the report’s conclusions on sustainability.
The AWC states: “The current spotlight on climate change… risks causing negative consequences for animal welfare.”
Efforts to reduce livestock emissions – particularly methane – are increasingly shaping breeding strategies, with a focus on faster-growing animals, higher-yielding genetics and improved feed conversion.
While these approaches can lower emissions intensity, the committee warns they may also alter rumen function in ruminants, affect feeding behaviour and digestion, and lead to unknown long-term welfare impacts.
The committee is “particularly concerned” that methane-focused breeding strategies could have unintended effects on animal health and behaviour.
The climate vs welfare trade-off case study
The report comes after food chains including KFC, Nando’s, Wagamama and Burger King all pulled out of the Better Chicken Commitment to not use so-called ‘Frankenchickens’ and switch to slower-growing breeds.
Nando’s said: “Switching would almost double the carbon footprint, because they need more feed, more space and more time to grow” – a stark illustration of exactly the tension the AWC is warning about.
A call for “balanced breeding”
At the core of the AWC’s recommendations is a push for a “balanced breeding” approach that integrates production traits, health metrics. behavioural characteristics, and resilience and longevity.
The goal is to develop animals that perform well not only in controlled environments but also across diverse and changing conditions.
Implementing this approach presents challenges: welfare traits are difficult to quantify, some traits are negatively correlated, and data collection is more complex and costly. But despite this, the committee argues that relying on narrow, single metrics – such as emissions or productivity – is no longer viable.
Sustainability definitions under scrutiny
The AWC also raises concerns about how sustainability is currently defined.
It notes that many frameworks – including those used internationally – do not explicitly include animal welfare, focusing instead on environmental impact, economic viability and social outcomes.
The committee calls for the explicit inclusion of welfare in sustainability metrics, greater research into the welfare impacts of climate-focused policies, and improved data collection and transparency across the sector.
Implications for innovation
The findings have significant implications for agtech developers and investors, particularly in areas such as precision breeding, methane reduction technologies and AI-driven livestock optimisation.
While these innovations are often designed to improve efficiency and sustainability, the AWC warns that technological progress must be matched by robust welfare assessment frameworks.
Without this, there is a risk that innovation could accelerate genetic change without fully understanding impacts, embed welfare risks across global supply chains and prioritise short-term gains over long-term system resilience.
A growing consensus
The AWC report taps into a growing consensus among animal welfare and sustainability groups that the drive to cut climate emissions in agriculture risks creating new welfare problems.
UK-based animal welfare charity Four Paws has said that “some strategies promoted by the industry to reduce emissions pose a significant threat to animal welfare.”
The RSPCA’s wider policy stance also reflects similar concerns about the direction of travel in agriculture.
“Animals don’t just survive – they thrive,” the charity has argued in its long-term vision for farming systems. The organisation has also warned that technology-led intensification risks ‘commodifying’ animals, particularly where welfare is not built into system design from the outset.
In a joint intervention earlier this year, the National Farmers’ Union (NFU), RSPCA and WWF called for “core standards” that link environmental sustainability with animal welfare.
This coalition of groups, often historically at odds with each other, warned that climate-driven policies and global trade dynamics risk undermining both welfare and sustainability, with farmers potentially being pushed toward more intensive, lower-cost systems.
Across the board, a common criticism is emerging that agriculture is being optimised against a narrow set of metrics – primarily emissions per unit of output.
This points to a likely tension going forward, as productivity-focused innovation comes under greater scrutiny from both policymakers and NGOs.
A balancing act for the future of livestock
The AWC’s report ultimately highlights a critical challenge for modern agriculture: how to deliver climate-smart farming without compromising animal welfare.
Its message to policymakers and industry is clear: reducing emissions alone is not enough; productivity gains must not come at the expense of animal wellbeing; and sustainability must be redefined to include welfare as a core pillar.
