u/faunalytics

Every year, nearly 8 billion male chicks are culled by the global egg industry — killed within hours of hatching because they can't lay eggs and cost too much to raise for meat.

Our new report, Nearly Eight Billion Per Year And Counting, is the first to ground that figure in a transparent, replicable method: laying-flock data from FAOSTAT across 176 countries and six years. The total rose about 11% between 2019 and 2024, and roughly 70% of culling now happens in Asia, where nearly all the growth is concentrated.

The encouraging news is that a solution is already scaling. In-ovo sexing — which identifies a chick's sex inside the egg before it hatches — now covers about 40% of the E.U.'s laying hens and adds under one cent per egg. Public support is strong: once people learn that culling happens, 73% say the industry should find alternatives.

The report offers six concrete recommendations for advocates, funders, and industry, including making an E.U.-wide ban the flagship legislative target and closing the awareness gap.

Read the full analysis: https://faunalytics.org/global-chick-culling-2019-2024/ 

A new study from Faunalytics finds that the term “animal factory” sparks a far more negative reaction from U.S. adults than the widely used term “factory farm,” suggesting animal advocates may have a more powerful way to describe industrial animal agriculture and its impact on farmed animals.

The study surveyed 2,000 U.S. adults to compare reactions to three terms: “factory farm,” “animal factory,” and “industrial animal agriculture.” Each participant saw one term and answered questions about their familiarity with it, their overall impression of it, and what concepts and conditions they associated with it.

The findings point to a clear opportunity for advocates. Nearly 8 in 10 participants (79%) who saw “animal factory” reported a negative impression, compared to notably lower rates for the other two terms tested. Participants who saw “animal factory” also drew strong connections between the term and specific harms, including animal confinement (84%), animal slaughter (83%), animal cruelty (69%), and unsanitary conditions (59%).

“Factory farm” remained the most recognized term overall, with 67% of participants reporting familiarity, compared to 65% for “animal factory” and 51% for “industrial animal agriculture.” But familiarity and impact don’t always move together — while more people recognize “factory farm,” “animal factory” appears to carry a stronger emotional and ethical charge, without losing much recognition.

The study also found that impressions varied somewhat by race and ethnicity. White participants viewed both “animal factory” and “factory farm” more negatively than Black, Indigenous, and other participants of color did, while reactions to “industrial animal agriculture” showed no significant difference across groups. Rural and small-town residents also connected “animal factory” to unsanitary conditions more strongly than urban residents did.

Recommendations for Advocates

Based on the findings, the study’s authors offer several recommendations for advocates working to communicate more effectively about industrial animal agriculture:

Test “animal factory” in real campaigns. With strong negative associations and high familiarity, the term may be worth testing in petitions, ads, emails, and educational materials — though the authors caution it’s a promising option to explore, not a confirmed replacement for “factory farm.”

Keep using “factory farm” where recognition matters, but define it clearly. Pairing the term with a short definition and specific harms can help sharpen its impact.

Tailor language to the audience. Differences by race, ethnicity, and community type suggest that word choice should be tested before use in major campaigns.

Use “industrial animal agriculture” with care. The term works well in research, policy, or technical contexts, but general audiences may need it paired with more familiar language.

The full study, along with detailed methodology and results, is available at https://faunalytics.org/animal-factory-factory-farm-or-something-else/.

Faunalytics, a nonprofit research organization dedicated to helping animal advocates make data-driven decisions, has released a new study examining how Gen Z adults in India, specifically those living with their parents, navigate food choices in multi-generational households. The study, The Multi-Generational Kitchen: How To Market Plant-Based Eating To Indian Gen Z Households, surveyed 801 Gen Z adults between the ages of 18 and 28, and offers timely insights for advocates and alternative protein companies looking to advance plant-based eating in one of the world’s most important and complex food markets.

Half Of Non-Vegan Gen Z Indians Say They’re Likely To Go Vegan

Among the key findings: 58% of respondents identified as some type of meat-reducer — including vegans, vegetarians, pescetarians, and reducetarians — while only 42% identified as omnivores. Most strikingly, 50% of participants who weren’t already vegan said they were “likely,” “very likely,” or “extremely likely” to go vegan within the next year. Another 53% believed their parents were likely to do the same.

“These numbers signal a meaningful shift in how young Indians are thinking about food,” said Andrea Polanco, Research Scientist at Faunalytics. “Gen Z in India is a huge demographic, and our data suggests they’re far more open to plant-based eating than conventional wisdom might assume, but they need better information and practical tools to get there.”

The Biggest Barrier Is A Lack Of Information

The study identified five leading barriers to plant-based eating among respondents:

• Needing more information about plant-based diets (59%)
• Viewing dairy as a core part of their cultural identity (54%)
• Needing to shop for groceries more often (53%)
• Personal health concerns (52%)
• Not having enough dining-out options (52%)

Notably, the least common barrier was worrying that a vegan diet would be seen as abandoning Indian culture for a “Western” lifestyle (37%), a finding that challenges the assumption that cultural resistance is the primary obstacle.

Three Distinct Consumer Segments Emerge

The research identified three groups of Gen Z consumers with distinct attitudes toward plant-based eating:

• Indifferent consumers (46%) — the least motivated group, with the least control over household food decisions and the lowest likelihood of going vegan.
• Constrained consumers (33%) — motivated to change, but facing the most practical barriers to doing so.
• Game-changers (22%) — the most open to veganism, with the fewest barriers and the strongest scores for food choice motivations including taste, health, animal welfare, and environmental protection. This group skewed female, older, more educated, and higher income, with a higher proportion of General Category caste members.

Mothers Play A Central Role; Household Dynamics Are Largely Harmonious

The study also shed light on how food decisions get made in multi-generational Indian households. While 40% of Gen Z respondents said they were primarily responsible for grocery shopping, mothers were the primary decision-makers for cooking (57%) and meal-planning (39%). Importantly, 59% of participants said it was easy to discuss food choices with their family, and only 26% reported frequent disagreements, suggesting that households may be more receptive to change than previously assumed.

Recommendations For Advocates And The Plant-Based Industry

Based on the findings, Faunalytics recommends that animal advocates:

• Frame veganism as an inclusive, intersectional movement centered on health, the environment, and concern for farmed animals while actively avoiding associations with caste-based purity politics.
• Create practical “how-to” materials tailored to Indian cities, including restaurant guides and culturally relevant recipes, to address the information gap.
• Leverage health experts and fitness influencers, who ranked highest among peers for influencing respondents’ diets.
• Target dairy specifically with messaging that reassures Gen Z Indians that plant-based alternatives can fit seamlessly into traditional dishes and cultural rituals.

For alternative protein companies, the study recommends positioning dairy alternatives as a form of “traditional” protein rather than emphasizing what they lack, and using imagery of multi-generational families enjoying plant-based foods together.

About The Study

The Multi-Generational Kitchen: How To Market Plant-Based Eating To Indian Gen Z Households was conducted by Faunalytics and surveyed 801 Gen Z adults (ages 18–28) living with their parents in India. The full study, including methodology and detailed findings, is available at https://faunalytics.org/plant-based-india-gen-z/.

Faunalytics is excited to announce Fauna Connections, our 5th annual remote symposium for animal advocates, scheduled for September 10th, 2026. We invite academics and researchers from the social and behavioral sciences, or related disciplines, to submit a presentation abstract focusing on a synthesis of research. We are particularly interested  in research supporting advocates in the U.S., China, India, and Brazil, and in comprehensive analyses, such as meta-analyses or expert overviews, that provide a deeper understanding of topics relevant to animal advocacy. We will not accept an abstract focused on the results of one study.

You can learn more and apply here: https://faunalytics.org/fauna-connections. Applications for presentations are due by May 29th.

If you are interested, please apply! And please share this opportunity with anyone you believe would be interested in presenting at this symposium.