7 ms·

What is a resilient chicken?

16 points by blast 6y ago

yboris 6y ago
Could we all stop eating animals please? The amount of torture we subject these sentient creatures to is absurd. Selective breeding causes chickens to grow faster than their limbs can handle. Confining pigs to pens where they can't turn around for the duration of their lives. If anyone did this to a dog, they would be in jail.
- outsidejoke 6y ago
  Gotta love how people will talk about how going to large gatherings is not just a personal choice during a pandemic but then if you tell them their demand for people to shove a bunch of birds in a damp warehouse with poor circulation and horrible conditions is going to cause the next flu pandemic it's somehow a personal choice. Not that being hypocritical is always bad but in this case there's zero introspection.
  - rdtwo 6y ago
    Umm you got it backwards. Shoving birds into a sealed warehouse keeps diseases from spreading quite effectively. Letting birds free range and cross pollinate diseases with wild birds is how you get massive new outbreaks
    - yboris 6y ago
      Are you aware that ~80% of antibiotics are used for animals? This and similar practices are making "super bugs" (bacteria that is resistant to treatment by most antibiotics). We may be on the cusp of a massive crisis.
    - mikepurvis 6y ago
      This seemed counter-intuitive to me, and in particular I recalled a scene in the documentary Food Inc where an organic poultry farmer extolled how much cleaner it was to be processing meat in the open air rather than in an environment mediated by chemical sterilization. However, it does seem like this is a thing, in particular there was a Swedish study in 2009 that was referenced several times in media coverage and I can find no follow-up or rebuttal to: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090114200003.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090114200003.h... And then in 2014, an industry-focused article on how to mitigate some of these effects, in particular rodents: https://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/range-management-for-disease-control-guidelines-to-protect-your-freerange-flock-from-exotic-disease https://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/range-management-for...
    - riverdroid 6y ago
      Seems like it could go both ways, couldn't it? Free ranging birds are in less proximity and healthier conditions. There is less contact between them, more sanitary conditions, and healthier birds. But yes, they could have more contact with outside pathogens. Whereas many poultry barns have thousands of chickens standing in their own excrement, shoulder to shoulder. There are even decaying corpses strewn about and being pecked. Whatever pathogens in there with them could spread and mutate readily, and the birds are likely less healthy and more vulnerable to it. I'm not sure if there is solid evidence to claim one is more risky than the other, but I think it would be the former.
- ysavir 6y ago
  You ask people to stop eating animals, but your complaints aren't about eating animals. They are about how we keep and handle those animals. Would you be more okay with eating animals if they were kept in better habitats, designed for stress-free animal living? And if we didn't meddle in their breeding and/or didn't meddle in their genetics or hormones?
  - yboris 6y ago
    Given that 99% of animals come from factory farms, the safest choice is to abstain from consuming meat. Given that the incentives are massively aligned with cutting corners to save money, even farms that aim to offer better treatment of animals, will be pushed to cut corners to compete. They will have more incentive to appear to treat animals well, not to actually treat animals well. Given that there are sensible alternatives to meat, the question for a meat eater isn't between meat and not eating food, but instead eating a slighly-differently-tasting dish.
    - pvaldes 6y ago
      > Given that 99% of animals come from factory farms In what planet? You could be surprised to know that the real number is much lower. After FAO for example, percentage of pigs being breed in intensive in 2010 ranged from 6% to 60%. In Europe it was a 30% for example. The current 2020 values can differ a little of course, but definitely would not support such bold claim as "99% of animals come from a factory farm... so we should we all turn crazy, or start eating pills, or whatever". This is a myth. As the IF(statement) part is False, the THEN{we should...!} part does not apply.
      - yboris 6y ago
        I am speaking about the US. I'd love to see your sources. Here's a reference: https://faunalytics.org/fundamentals-farmed-animals/ https://faunalytics.org/fundamentals-farmed-animals/ Intensive productions makes up the majority percentage of production: 97% Chicken 96% Pig 66% Cow Here's another source just in case: https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estimates https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estima... 70.4% of cows 98.3% of pigs 99.8% of turkeys 98.2% of egg-laying hens, and over 99.9% of chickens raised for meat
- stronglikedan 6y ago
  > Could we all stop eating animals please? Since you asked, no, but if animals stop being so darn delicious, I may consider it.
  - yboris 6y ago
    That's a rather callous attitude. Are you explicitly claiming that regardless of how much an animal is tortured, you will give over your money to the institution that performs the torture?
    - stronglikedan 6y ago
      > That's a rather callous attitude. No, it's not. > Are you explicitly claiming that regardless of how much an animal is tortured, you will give over your money to the institution that performs the torture? I merely gave a concise, honest answer to your question, "Could we all stop eating animals please?" Anything else you infer from that is on you.
      - yboris 6y ago
        I'm asking you to elaborate your position. Consider how worrying it would be to see an analogous interaction: "Could we all stop having slaves?" "Since you asked, no, but if slaves stop being so profitable to force to work, I may consider it."
        a1369209993 6y ago
        The problem in that case is that slaves are generally people (nonsapient 'slaves' aren't typically called that) and therefore have rights[0], which are violated by enslaving them. So, while your example is superficially similar, it's not analogous in the ways that actually matter. 0: Confusingly called "human" rights, both as if there were any other kind of rights and as if the fact that all known currently existing people are humans were in any way ontologically fundamental, rather than a contingent result of Earth's natural history.
- hinkley 6y ago
  A few of the brighter bulbs in sustainable agriculture treat their animals more like you might an intern. Except for the whole bad day at the end. Either Salatin or Shepard, I forget which, feeds his animals treats inside of his animal trailer so they don't even get stressed out getting on the truck, the way you'd put treats in a cat carrier or dog crate. If we want intact ecosystems in farm country, you're going to be using farm animals for their similarity to wildlife. That's a lot fewer animals, with a lot longer lives, but in the end you still have maybe a 10th of the volume of animal products. Not many grade A, thick-cut T-bone steaks in that supply chain, but plenty of soups and stews. And really, selling that animal may be most of your profit margin. They've eaten marginal and surplus foods all year. Most of these fad diet folks have this stuff all wrong. We didn't eat all fruits and nuts. We didn't eat all meat. We ate a steady diet of opportunistic foods, and meat was a supplement to our nutrition, one that was critical in us developing the mental faculties and ecological range to have this argument in the first place. To be a vegan requires you to use a global supply system for your food, which has its own carbon footprint problems. Meat is a seasonal food that got us through winter and early spring. It has been asserted, sometimes as a throwaway line, in a number of historical documentaries I've seen, that part of structural classism in the middle ages was denying meat to the working class, leading to developmental delays. Malnutrition made them dumber. Easier to control. 'Course, they gave themselves gout in the process...
  - soyftware 6y ago
    > A few of the brighter bulbs in sustainable agriculture treat their animals more like you might an intern. > Except for the whole bad day at the end. It's about animal exploitation as a whole. Any commoditization of sentient beings is a bad thing. We don't need to, when it comes to a choice (especially in this forum), we can choose to not be a part of that system. > Most of these fad diet folks have this stuff all wrong. We didn't eat all fruits and nuts. We didn't eat all meat. We ate a steady diet of opportunistic foods, and meat was a supplement to our nutrition. Stopping exploitation isn't a diet fad. Some people might confuse it though. We don't need to be opportunistic now. > To be a vegan requires you to use a global supply system for your food, which has its own carbon footprint problems. Sure, and we can do better on many fronts. But animal exploitation is one of the main contributors to climate change. We're already using a global supply chain for animals, which includes all the growth of food in other countries to ship to them. > It has been asserted, sometimes as a throwaway line, in a number of historical documentaries I've seen, that part of structural classism in the middle ages was denying meat to the working class, leading to developmental delays. Malnutrition made them dumber. Easier to control. 'Course, they gave themselves gout in the process... Historically what we have done should not impact our current ability of choices. We can live on a healthy vegan diet. Structural classism also includes the current worker in the meat industry. https://www.livekindly.co/slaughterhouse-workers-victims-meat-industry/ https://www.livekindly.co/slaughterhouse-workers-victims-mea... In terms of malnutrition people can live on a healthy diet while vegan. https://www.bda.uk.com/resource/british-dietetic-association-confirms-well-planned-vegan-diets-can-support-healthy-living-in-people-of-all-ages.html https://www.bda.uk.com/resource/british-dietetic-association... There's a lot of information here https://www.cowspiracy.com/facts https://www.cowspiracy.com/facts There are plenty of videos explaining stuff about exploitation. Dominion is free on youtube. In terms of youtubers Earthling Ed is a good watch. Most importantly, it's easy and one of the single most impactful decisions we can individually make on a daily basis
- pvaldes 6y ago
  The idea than a bird will "grow faster than their limbs can handle" is scientifically inaccurate. Excess of drama always decreases the strength of the message (in my opinion). I understand that some people has invested so much in building their own identity around a bias bubble that can be really hard to break it and go out, but not all animals are raised as you claim (and living in a bubble is not healthy).
  - jmhobbs 6y ago
    I ran cornish cross meat birds twice, 20 birds each time, and by butchering at ~8 weeks the roos didn't get around real well anymore, given the weight to leg ratio. Those were pasture raised, with restricted supplemental feed, and just the ordinary breeds you can get at Tractor Supply. I wouldn't be shocked if you let a "real" production hybrid go past butchering age and feed them grains the whole time, you'd probably get some birds unable to move under their own weight. After two rounds, I gave up on them and now run less aggressive weight gainers that forage better, like freedom rangers. Obviously just anecdotal, but don't dismiss it outright.
  - yboris 6y ago
    What is "scientifically inaccurate"? > conventional breeds of chicken raised for meat, termed “rapid growth” breeds due to selective breeding that causes the animals to reach market weight unnaturally fast, suffer muscle myopathies, deformities, poor foot health, and have trouble standing or walking. https://thehumaneleague.org/article/study-reveals-the-chicken-we-eat-live-in-agony https://thehumaneleague.org/article/study-reveals-the-chicke...
  - yboris 6y ago
    "not all animals are raised as you claim" ... but 99% of chicken do. The view I propose is rather sensible: causing pain and suffering to sentient beings is morally problematic. If we are in a position to not do that with no significant loss on our side, we ought to do it. I am unsure what "bias bubble" I am in. For perspective, consider the millions of dollars corporations funding factory farms spend on hiding what happens ("Ag-Gag laws"). Consider the immense lobbying power they have exercised over the decades (advocating for milk and meat consumption in schools). If anything, the status quo may very well be in a "bias bubble".
ppod 6y ago
I wonder is the author old enough to remember the Ethiopian famine in 1984. I would enjoy reading an article that made an argument about what was at stake and what might be lost with high intensity farming and capitalized distribution, but I can't take seriously something that long about food in Ethiopia that doesn't even mention the fact that 1.2 million people died only of hunger only a generation ago. Was that Melinda Gates' fault too?
- twic 6y ago
  No, that was the Derg's fault: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983%E2%80%931985_famine_in_Ethiopia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983%E2%80%931985_famine_in_Et... There's a lot of it about: https://progressive.org/dispatches/amartya-sen-barsamian-110929/ https://progressive.org/dispatches/amartya-sen-barsamian-110...
darkerside 6y ago
Amazing that calling it resilient chicken farming instead of sustainable chicken farming can suddenly make it sound smart and cool while not actually changing anything about the process. People, myself included, are truly idiots, and I mean that in the most loving way.
- ajay-b 6y ago
  Resilient sounds more medical than sustainable.
  - darkerside 6y ago
    Yes. Yes, it does.
strulovich 6y ago
Am I the only person worried about resilient chickens escaping into the wild? A resilient animal that does not depend on humans can disturb the ecology in all kinds of new and exciting ways.
known 6y ago
Without eating meat human race would have perished longtime back;

16 points by blast 6y ago

Could we all stop eating animals please? The amount of torture we subject these sentient creatures to is absurd. Selective breeding causes chickens to grow faster than their limbs can handle. Confining pigs to pens where they can't turn around for the duration of their lives. If anyone did this to a dog, they would be in jail.

outsidejoke 6y ago
Gotta love how people will talk about how going to large gatherings is not just a personal choice during a pandemic but then if you tell them their demand for people to shove a bunch of birds in a damp warehouse with poor circulation and horrible conditions is going to cause the next flu pandemic it's somehow a personal choice. Not that being hypocritical is always bad but in this case there's zero introspection.
- rdtwo 6y ago
  Umm you got it backwards. Shoving birds into a sealed warehouse keeps diseases from spreading quite effectively. Letting birds free range and cross pollinate diseases with wild birds is how you get massive new outbreaks
  - yboris 6y ago
    Are you aware that ~80% of antibiotics are used for animals? This and similar practices are making "super bugs" (bacteria that is resistant to treatment by most antibiotics). We may be on the cusp of a massive crisis.
  - mikepurvis 6y ago
    This seemed counter-intuitive to me, and in particular I recalled a scene in the documentary Food Inc where an organic poultry farmer extolled how much cleaner it was to be processing meat in the open air rather than in an environment mediated by chemical sterilization. However, it does seem like this is a thing, in particular there was a Swedish study in 2009 that was referenced several times in media coverage and I can find no follow-up or rebuttal to: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090114200003.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090114200003.h... And then in 2014, an industry-focused article on how to mitigate some of these effects, in particular rodents: https://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/range-management-for-disease-control-guidelines-to-protect-your-freerange-flock-from-exotic-disease https://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/range-management-for...
  - riverdroid 6y ago
    Seems like it could go both ways, couldn't it? Free ranging birds are in less proximity and healthier conditions. There is less contact between them, more sanitary conditions, and healthier birds. But yes, they could have more contact with outside pathogens. Whereas many poultry barns have thousands of chickens standing in their own excrement, shoulder to shoulder. There are even decaying corpses strewn about and being pecked. Whatever pathogens in there with them could spread and mutate readily, and the birds are likely less healthy and more vulnerable to it. I'm not sure if there is solid evidence to claim one is more risky than the other, but I think it would be the former.
ysavir 6y ago
You ask people to stop eating animals, but your complaints aren't about eating animals. They are about how we keep and handle those animals. Would you be more okay with eating animals if they were kept in better habitats, designed for stress-free animal living? And if we didn't meddle in their breeding and/or didn't meddle in their genetics or hormones?
- yboris 6y ago
  Given that 99% of animals come from factory farms, the safest choice is to abstain from consuming meat. Given that the incentives are massively aligned with cutting corners to save money, even farms that aim to offer better treatment of animals, will be pushed to cut corners to compete. They will have more incentive to appear to treat animals well, not to actually treat animals well. Given that there are sensible alternatives to meat, the question for a meat eater isn't between meat and not eating food, but instead eating a slighly-differently-tasting dish.
  - pvaldes 6y ago
    > Given that 99% of animals come from factory farms In what planet? You could be surprised to know that the real number is much lower. After FAO for example, percentage of pigs being breed in intensive in 2010 ranged from 6% to 60%. In Europe it was a 30% for example. The current 2020 values can differ a little of course, but definitely would not support such bold claim as "99% of animals come from a factory farm... so we should we all turn crazy, or start eating pills, or whatever". This is a myth. As the IF(statement) part is False, the THEN{we should...!} part does not apply.
    - yboris 6y ago
      I am speaking about the US. I'd love to see your sources. Here's a reference: https://faunalytics.org/fundamentals-farmed-animals/ https://faunalytics.org/fundamentals-farmed-animals/ Intensive productions makes up the majority percentage of production: 97% Chicken 96% Pig 66% Cow Here's another source just in case: https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estimates https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estima... 70.4% of cows 98.3% of pigs 99.8% of turkeys 98.2% of egg-laying hens, and over 99.9% of chickens raised for meat
stronglikedan 6y ago
> Could we all stop eating animals please? Since you asked, no, but if animals stop being so darn delicious, I may consider it.
- yboris 6y ago
  That's a rather callous attitude. Are you explicitly claiming that regardless of how much an animal is tortured, you will give over your money to the institution that performs the torture?
  - stronglikedan 6y ago
    > That's a rather callous attitude. No, it's not. > Are you explicitly claiming that regardless of how much an animal is tortured, you will give over your money to the institution that performs the torture? I merely gave a concise, honest answer to your question, "Could we all stop eating animals please?" Anything else you infer from that is on you.
    - yboris 6y ago
      I'm asking you to elaborate your position. Consider how worrying it would be to see an analogous interaction: "Could we all stop having slaves?" "Since you asked, no, but if slaves stop being so profitable to force to work, I may consider it."
      - a1369209993 6y ago
        The problem in that case is that slaves are generally people (nonsapient 'slaves' aren't typically called that) and therefore have rights[0], which are violated by enslaving them. So, while your example is superficially similar, it's not analogous in the ways that actually matter. 0: Confusingly called "human" rights, both as if there were any other kind of rights and as if the fact that all known currently existing people are humans were in any way ontologically fundamental, rather than a contingent result of Earth's natural history.
hinkley 6y ago
A few of the brighter bulbs in sustainable agriculture treat their animals more like you might an intern. Except for the whole bad day at the end. Either Salatin or Shepard, I forget which, feeds his animals treats inside of his animal trailer so they don't even get stressed out getting on the truck, the way you'd put treats in a cat carrier or dog crate. If we want intact ecosystems in farm country, you're going to be using farm animals for their similarity to wildlife. That's a lot fewer animals, with a lot longer lives, but in the end you still have maybe a 10th of the volume of animal products. Not many grade A, thick-cut T-bone steaks in that supply chain, but plenty of soups and stews. And really, selling that animal may be most of your profit margin. They've eaten marginal and surplus foods all year. Most of these fad diet folks have this stuff all wrong. We didn't eat all fruits and nuts. We didn't eat all meat. We ate a steady diet of opportunistic foods, and meat was a supplement to our nutrition, one that was critical in us developing the mental faculties and ecological range to have this argument in the first place. To be a vegan requires you to use a global supply system for your food, which has its own carbon footprint problems. Meat is a seasonal food that got us through winter and early spring. It has been asserted, sometimes as a throwaway line, in a number of historical documentaries I've seen, that part of structural classism in the middle ages was denying meat to the working class, leading to developmental delays. Malnutrition made them dumber. Easier to control. 'Course, they gave themselves gout in the process...
- soyftware 6y ago
  > A few of the brighter bulbs in sustainable agriculture treat their animals more like you might an intern. > Except for the whole bad day at the end. It's about animal exploitation as a whole. Any commoditization of sentient beings is a bad thing. We don't need to, when it comes to a choice (especially in this forum), we can choose to not be a part of that system. > Most of these fad diet folks have this stuff all wrong. We didn't eat all fruits and nuts. We didn't eat all meat. We ate a steady diet of opportunistic foods, and meat was a supplement to our nutrition. Stopping exploitation isn't a diet fad. Some people might confuse it though. We don't need to be opportunistic now. > To be a vegan requires you to use a global supply system for your food, which has its own carbon footprint problems. Sure, and we can do better on many fronts. But animal exploitation is one of the main contributors to climate change. We're already using a global supply chain for animals, which includes all the growth of food in other countries to ship to them. > It has been asserted, sometimes as a throwaway line, in a number of historical documentaries I've seen, that part of structural classism in the middle ages was denying meat to the working class, leading to developmental delays. Malnutrition made them dumber. Easier to control. 'Course, they gave themselves gout in the process... Historically what we have done should not impact our current ability of choices. We can live on a healthy vegan diet. Structural classism also includes the current worker in the meat industry. https://www.livekindly.co/slaughterhouse-workers-victims-meat-industry/ https://www.livekindly.co/slaughterhouse-workers-victims-mea... In terms of malnutrition people can live on a healthy diet while vegan. https://www.bda.uk.com/resource/british-dietetic-association-confirms-well-planned-vegan-diets-can-support-healthy-living-in-people-of-all-ages.html https://www.bda.uk.com/resource/british-dietetic-association... There's a lot of information here https://www.cowspiracy.com/facts https://www.cowspiracy.com/facts There are plenty of videos explaining stuff about exploitation. Dominion is free on youtube. In terms of youtubers Earthling Ed is a good watch. Most importantly, it's easy and one of the single most impactful decisions we can individually make on a daily basis
pvaldes 6y ago
The idea than a bird will "grow faster than their limbs can handle" is scientifically inaccurate. Excess of drama always decreases the strength of the message (in my opinion). I understand that some people has invested so much in building their own identity around a bias bubble that can be really hard to break it and go out, but not all animals are raised as you claim (and living in a bubble is not healthy).
- jmhobbs 6y ago
  I ran cornish cross meat birds twice, 20 birds each time, and by butchering at ~8 weeks the roos didn't get around real well anymore, given the weight to leg ratio. Those were pasture raised, with restricted supplemental feed, and just the ordinary breeds you can get at Tractor Supply. I wouldn't be shocked if you let a "real" production hybrid go past butchering age and feed them grains the whole time, you'd probably get some birds unable to move under their own weight. After two rounds, I gave up on them and now run less aggressive weight gainers that forage better, like freedom rangers. Obviously just anecdotal, but don't dismiss it outright.
- yboris 6y ago
  What is "scientifically inaccurate"? > conventional breeds of chicken raised for meat, termed “rapid growth” breeds due to selective breeding that causes the animals to reach market weight unnaturally fast, suffer muscle myopathies, deformities, poor foot health, and have trouble standing or walking. https://thehumaneleague.org/article/study-reveals-the-chicken-we-eat-live-in-agony https://thehumaneleague.org/article/study-reveals-the-chicke...
- yboris 6y ago
  "not all animals are raised as you claim" ... but 99% of chicken do. The view I propose is rather sensible: causing pain and suffering to sentient beings is morally problematic. If we are in a position to not do that with no significant loss on our side, we ought to do it. I am unsure what "bias bubble" I am in. For perspective, consider the millions of dollars corporations funding factory farms spend on hiding what happens ("Ag-Gag laws"). Consider the immense lobbying power they have exercised over the decades (advocating for milk and meat consumption in schools). If anything, the status quo may very well be in a "bias bubble".

ppod 6y ago

I wonder is the author old enough to remember the Ethiopian famine in 1984. I would enjoy reading an article that made an argument about what was at stake and what might be lost with high intensity farming and capitalized distribution, but I can't take seriously something that long about food in Ethiopia that doesn't even mention the fact that 1.2 million people died only of hunger only a generation ago. Was that Melinda Gates' fault too?

twic 6y ago
No, that was the Derg's fault: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983%E2%80%931985_famine_in_Ethiopia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983%E2%80%931985_famine_in_Et... There's a lot of it about: https://progressive.org/dispatches/amartya-sen-barsamian-110929/ https://progressive.org/dispatches/amartya-sen-barsamian-110...

darkerside 6y ago

Amazing that calling it resilient chicken farming instead of sustainable chicken farming can suddenly make it sound smart and cool while not actually changing anything about the process. People, myself included, are truly idiots, and I mean that in the most loving way.

ajay-b 6y ago
Resilient sounds more medical than sustainable.
- darkerside 6y ago
  Yes. Yes, it does.

strulovich 6y ago

Am I the only person worried about resilient chickens escaping into the wild? A resilient animal that does not depend on humans can disturb the ecology in all kinds of new and exciting ways.

known 6y ago

Without eating meat human race would have perished longtime back;