6 ms·

Totally agree, they're great fun. :-) It's also why I don't agree with the moral argument for veganism - happy hens lay eggs too and eggs gotta be eaten!

by udp 8y ago

Vinnl 8y ago
...but what happens to the roosters when everyone gets hens? :)
- gadders 8y ago
  That is the saddest thing. You only really need one rooster per flock. If anyone invents a machine to sex hens whilst still in the egg they will have a lot of grateful chicken owners.
  - udp 8y ago
    You need exactly zero roosters per flock if you're only after eggs.
    - gadders 8y ago
      That is true. Having a rooster makes it easier to introduce new hens into a flock though and raising your own hens from eggs is fun.
  - Moto7451 8y ago
    This is actively in the works. https://www.manitobacooperator.ca/livestock/new-technology-determines-the-sex-of-a-chicken-while-in-the-egg/ https://www.manitobacooperator.ca/livestock/new-technology-d...
- chrisweekly 8y ago
  Same thing as male baby goats in a goat cheese operation. :/
  - udp 8y ago
    Not even remotely similar. Goats (and cows) need to be pregnant to produce milk, which is why you inevitably end up with offspring as a by-product of milk production. Hens lay eggs regardless of whether a rooster is present, so if you get some rescue hens you can enjoy your eggs guilt-free.
    - chrisweekly 8y ago
      Sure, but that's not the point I was making. Male goats are useless to a goat cheese farmer. Roosters are similarly ~useless to egg farmers. When chicks destined to become egg-laying hens are born, what happens to their brothers?
- amelius 8y ago
  Solution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWvbHVBw3tw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWvbHVBw3tw
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- udp 8y ago
  We'll worry about that once ALL of the rescue hens are living in our backyards. Plenty to go around for now...
deepvibrations 8y ago
I also wondered this: Us humans bred them over thousands of years so that they keep laying eggs throughout the year rather than just during the breeding season, to the point that they lay them every single day. The original ancestor - Red Jungle fowl may have laid 6-12 eggs per year in the wild. Hence the 'happy hens' may not be as happy as their ancestors due to an uncomfortable period on a daily basis when they lay. Of course they may well be happy outside of this, but it may not be as glamorous life as it seems from the outside! Worth adding that their lifespan is also greatly reduced due to the stresses of laying everyday.
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  Yeah, but they get to be alive. That would not be the case if they weren’t useful to humans.
  - JamesLefrere 8y ago
    In a vegan world, wouldn't there be more wild animals? Think about how different this could look: https://xkcd.com/1338/ https://xkcd.com/1338/
    - toasterlovin 8y ago
      A couple of things: 1. Those particular animals would not be alive. I was replying to a comment about the quality of life of those particular animals. 2. Regarding the point that other animals would take their place: isn’t this an argument against veganism? Life in a state of nature is brutal and not at all what I would classify as clearly better than life under domestication.
      - deepvibrations 8y ago
        Yes, you could say that providing those animals have a good life, there is an argument there. However, whilst the eggs from your own hens might be ethical, in reality, probably 95%+ of chickens are factory farmed and have pretty awful lives, in which cases their life is not so much of a gift.
JamesLefrere 8y ago
I also used to have back garden hens, but in my opinion the moral argument stands up to examination. Consider: * The modern chicken is quite different to its wild ancestors, and lays eggs about 20 times more frequently (the eggs are also larger). I'd call it genetic exploitation. * The male chickens are (most likely) killed after hatching in preference of the females you'll keep. * They may be safe from predators, but is the loss of freedom, a natural environment and normal biological functions a price worth paying?
- newswriter99 8y ago
  Your moral argument assumes we can undo thousands upon thousands of years of selective breeding. We can't. I've raised chickens since I was a kid. We kept males and females. When the chickens stopped laying, we ate them too. This idea that something "isn't natural" so it's wrong is ridiculous. Human technology has drastically altered the planet and we need to focus on how to work in it as opposed to fantasizing about how nice it would be if we could go back to the stone age. So by all means, be vegan. Refuse to consume farm animals. 99.9% of the world will not. Your efforts are drowned out. Hopefully the moral superiority you gain will be an acceptable consolation prize.
  - deepvibrations 8y ago
    I think if you are going to eat meat and dairy, then do it the right way, as you have. But, I would not underestimate the move towards more conscious eating such as veganism. Personally if I can reduce any unnecessary suffering through what I eat and still live healthily then I will do so and I am seeing a lot of others move in a similar direction.
    - newswriter99 8y ago
      >unnecessary suffering through what I eat I guess plant life, bacteria and fungi don't count?
- naasking 8y ago
  > I'd call it genetic exploitation. Not really relevant. It's already done, and the alternative is chicken extinction. We can live symbiotically with chickens, or we can let them go extinct for vegan ideals. > They may be safe from predators, but is the loss of freedom, a natural environment and normal biological functions a price worth paying? Humans did this in forming societies, so clearly we by and large think the answer is yes.

Totally agree, they're great fun. :-) It's also why I don't agree with the moral argument for veganism - happy hens lay eggs too and eggs gotta be eaten!

by udp 8y ago

Totally agree, they're great fun. :-) It's also why I don't agree with the moral argument for veganism - happy hens lay eggs too and eggs gotta be eaten!

Vinnl 8y ago

...but what happens to the roosters when everyone gets hens? :)

gadders 8y ago
That is the saddest thing. You only really need one rooster per flock. If anyone invents a machine to sex hens whilst still in the egg they will have a lot of grateful chicken owners.
- udp 8y ago
  You need exactly zero roosters per flock if you're only after eggs.
  - gadders 8y ago
    That is true. Having a rooster makes it easier to introduce new hens into a flock though and raising your own hens from eggs is fun.
- Moto7451 8y ago
  This is actively in the works. https://www.manitobacooperator.ca/livestock/new-technology-determines-the-sex-of-a-chicken-while-in-the-egg/ https://www.manitobacooperator.ca/livestock/new-technology-d...
chrisweekly 8y ago
Same thing as male baby goats in a goat cheese operation. :/
- udp 8y ago
  Not even remotely similar. Goats (and cows) need to be pregnant to produce milk, which is why you inevitably end up with offspring as a by-product of milk production. Hens lay eggs regardless of whether a rooster is present, so if you get some rescue hens you can enjoy your eggs guilt-free.
  - chrisweekly 8y ago
    Sure, but that's not the point I was making. Male goats are useless to a goat cheese farmer. Roosters are similarly ~useless to egg farmers. When chicks destined to become egg-laying hens are born, what happens to their brothers?
amelius 8y ago
Solution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWvbHVBw3tw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWvbHVBw3tw
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
udp 8y ago
We'll worry about that once ALL of the rescue hens are living in our backyards. Plenty to go around for now...

deepvibrations 8y ago

I also wondered this: Us humans bred them over thousands of years so that they keep laying eggs throughout the year rather than just during the breeding season, to the point that they lay them every single day. The original ancestor - Red Jungle fowl may have laid 6-12 eggs per year in the wild. Hence the 'happy hens' may not be as happy as their ancestors due to an uncomfortable period on a daily basis when they lay. Of course they may well be happy outside of this, but it may not be as glamorous life as it seems from the outside! Worth adding that their lifespan is also greatly reduced due to the stresses of laying everyday.

toasterlovin 8y ago
Yeah, but they get to be alive. That would not be the case if they weren’t useful to humans.
- JamesLefrere 8y ago
  In a vegan world, wouldn't there be more wild animals? Think about how different this could look: https://xkcd.com/1338/ https://xkcd.com/1338/
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    A couple of things: 1. Those particular animals would not be alive. I was replying to a comment about the quality of life of those particular animals. 2. Regarding the point that other animals would take their place: isn’t this an argument against veganism? Life in a state of nature is brutal and not at all what I would classify as clearly better than life under domestication.
    - deepvibrations 8y ago
      Yes, you could say that providing those animals have a good life, there is an argument there. However, whilst the eggs from your own hens might be ethical, in reality, probably 95%+ of chickens are factory farmed and have pretty awful lives, in which cases their life is not so much of a gift.

JamesLefrere 8y ago

I also used to have back garden hens, but in my opinion the moral argument stands up to examination. Consider: * The modern chicken is quite different to its wild ancestors, and lays eggs about 20 times more frequently (the eggs are also larger). I'd call it genetic exploitation. * The male chickens are (most likely) killed after hatching in preference of the females you'll keep. * They may be safe from predators, but is the loss of freedom, a natural environment and normal biological functions a price worth paying?

newswriter99 8y ago
Your moral argument assumes we can undo thousands upon thousands of years of selective breeding. We can't. I've raised chickens since I was a kid. We kept males and females. When the chickens stopped laying, we ate them too. This idea that something "isn't natural" so it's wrong is ridiculous. Human technology has drastically altered the planet and we need to focus on how to work in it as opposed to fantasizing about how nice it would be if we could go back to the stone age. So by all means, be vegan. Refuse to consume farm animals. 99.9% of the world will not. Your efforts are drowned out. Hopefully the moral superiority you gain will be an acceptable consolation prize.
- deepvibrations 8y ago
  I think if you are going to eat meat and dairy, then do it the right way, as you have. But, I would not underestimate the move towards more conscious eating such as veganism. Personally if I can reduce any unnecessary suffering through what I eat and still live healthily then I will do so and I am seeing a lot of others move in a similar direction.
  - newswriter99 8y ago
    >unnecessary suffering through what I eat I guess plant life, bacteria and fungi don't count?
naasking 8y ago
> I'd call it genetic exploitation. Not really relevant. It's already done, and the alternative is chicken extinction. We can live symbiotically with chickens, or we can let them go extinct for vegan ideals. > They may be safe from predators, but is the loss of freedom, a natural environment and normal biological functions a price worth paying? Humans did this in forming societies, so clearly we by and large think the answer is yes.