3 ms·

Only produce female chicks in the first place. The tech is already available, only introduces a small increase in cost, and I believe Germany is mandating its

Only produce female chicks in the first place. The tech is already available, only introduces a small increase in cost, and I believe Germany is mandating its use in a few years already.

ars 10y ago
> The tech is already available There is no such tech. If you think there is post a link to it. At best there is current research (not actually a product yet) to identify the chicks while still in the egg, and I see absolutely no difference between killing them in the egg or out of it. Just kill them painlessly (i.e. extremely quickly) and move on.
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  I believe the GP comment wasn't too far off. This article from last year says the Germans have done promising research and intend to have a working prototype this year, which sexes (technical term) chicks at just three days after inoculation. http://m.thepoultrysite.com/news/34741 http://m.thepoultrysite.com/news/34741 I also understand there is no tech used to identify the sex of chicks at a young enough age. It's a highly specialized skill (chicken sexing) that takes lots of training. I think it's even specialized between different types of poultry.
  - ars 10y ago
    > I believe the GP comment wasn't too far off. "The tech is already available, only introduces a small increase in cost" vs: "have done promising research and intend to have a working prototype this year" I consider that quite far off. They don't even have a prototype to show that it even works, let alone cost information for "a small increase in cost".
- infectoid 10y ago
  CSIRO in Australia is all over this. Article http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-12/marking-male-embroys-a-solution-to-egg-industry-dilemma/7236322 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-12/marking-male-embroys-a... Short Doco / News Report http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2016/s4427149.htm http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2016/s4427149.htm
  - ars 10y ago
    So, again, some research, that doesn't work yet, and is very far from being in production, let alone testing. Hardly "The tech is already available, only introduces a small increase in cost".
- MustardTiger 10y ago
  You are clearly not interested, as you were presented with the information and still dismiss it because being wrong upsets you. I did not say it was in production use yet, I said it was available. It is. And as I said, it only introduces a minor cost increase, and is already set to be required by law within 2 years.
  - ars 10y ago
    > I did not say it was in production use yet, I said it was available. It is not available. Two people posted links about research, neither research has even reached the prototype stage yet, never mind "available". > as you were presented with the information and still dismiss it because being wrong upsets you I dismissed it because it is not available. I don't understand how even in the face of evidence you still think it's available. Do you want it so badly that you will misread things on purpose? > and is already set to be required by law within 2 years. Uh hu. They can require whatever they like, but if the technology doesn't exist a whole lot of good it'll do them. What they should do (and probably are in fact doing) is fund research. When it's available we can come back and talk, right now it's not.
    - MustardTiger 10y ago
      Simply repeating a lie won't make it true. You've been shown repeatedly that it is available. The fact that you do not like this is irrelevant. It is already being used in hatcheries in Germany. It is on track to be fully implemented on all farms in the entire country by the end of the year. There's no way to pretend that is not available.
      - ars 10y ago
        You are too funny. Post a link to it being used then, and how it works, if you are so sure of yourself.

Only produce female chicks in the first place. The tech is already available, only introduces a small increase in cost, and I believe Germany is mandating its use in a few years already.

ars 10y ago

> The tech is already available There is no such tech. If you think there is post a link to it. At best there is current research (not actually a product yet) to identify the chicks while still in the egg, and I see absolutely no difference between killing them in the egg or out of it. Just kill them painlessly (i.e. extremely quickly) and move on.

semi-extrinsic 10y ago
I believe the GP comment wasn't too far off. This article from last year says the Germans have done promising research and intend to have a working prototype this year, which sexes (technical term) chicks at just three days after inoculation. http://m.thepoultrysite.com/news/34741 http://m.thepoultrysite.com/news/34741 I also understand there is no tech used to identify the sex of chicks at a young enough age. It's a highly specialized skill (chicken sexing) that takes lots of training. I think it's even specialized between different types of poultry.
- ars 10y ago
  > I believe the GP comment wasn't too far off. "The tech is already available, only introduces a small increase in cost" vs: "have done promising research and intend to have a working prototype this year" I consider that quite far off. They don't even have a prototype to show that it even works, let alone cost information for "a small increase in cost".
infectoid 10y ago
CSIRO in Australia is all over this. Article http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-12/marking-male-embroys-a-solution-to-egg-industry-dilemma/7236322 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-12/marking-male-embroys-a... Short Doco / News Report http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2016/s4427149.htm http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2016/s4427149.htm
- ars 10y ago
  So, again, some research, that doesn't work yet, and is very far from being in production, let alone testing. Hardly "The tech is already available, only introduces a small increase in cost".
MustardTiger 10y ago
You are clearly not interested, as you were presented with the information and still dismiss it because being wrong upsets you. I did not say it was in production use yet, I said it was available. It is. And as I said, it only introduces a minor cost increase, and is already set to be required by law within 2 years.
- ars 10y ago
  > I did not say it was in production use yet, I said it was available. It is not available. Two people posted links about research, neither research has even reached the prototype stage yet, never mind "available". > as you were presented with the information and still dismiss it because being wrong upsets you I dismissed it because it is not available. I don't understand how even in the face of evidence you still think it's available. Do you want it so badly that you will misread things on purpose? > and is already set to be required by law within 2 years. Uh hu. They can require whatever they like, but if the technology doesn't exist a whole lot of good it'll do them. What they should do (and probably are in fact doing) is fund research. When it's available we can come back and talk, right now it's not.
  - MustardTiger 10y ago
    Simply repeating a lie won't make it true. You've been shown repeatedly that it is available. The fact that you do not like this is irrelevant. It is already being used in hatcheries in Germany. It is on track to be fully implemented on all farms in the entire country by the end of the year. There's no way to pretend that is not available.
    - ars 10y ago
      You are too funny. Post a link to it being used then, and how it works, if you are so sure of yourself.