10 ms·

> And that life keeps getting shorter and shorter – four to seven weeks, to be exact. In the 1950s, a broiler chicken lived a full 16 weeks. The faster and heav

> And that life keeps getting shorter and shorter – four to seven weeks, to be exact. In the 1950s, a broiler chicken lived a full 16 weeks. The faster and heavier method that won the contest was amplified by confinement, and while the chickens come out of those cages fatter, they tend to get sicker, too. They have insatiable appetites, which leaves them stressed, as evidenced in their poor reproduction capabilities, cardiovascular failure and skeletal problems. They’ve been pumped with so many antibiotics, they’ve developed resistances. The chickens’ weak legs and overworked hearts strain every week their lives are extended. Chickens are meant to be able to live to around 10 years old as well which makes this even worse to me. There's nothing humane or natural about it. I think consumers need to take more personal responsibility in what kind of practices their wallets are supporting.

codeulike 5y ago
Its so fast now, we're killing 50 billion chickens per year to eat. 136 million per day. 1585 per second. More than 1 chicken per millisecond. Start the stopwatch on your phone and watch those milliseconds fly by. Living breathing creatures raised in tiny cages and never seeing the sky or scratching dirt with their feet.
- oftenwrong 5y ago
  I don't doubt it, but what is the source of this figure?
  - MattGaiser 5y ago
    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/chart-of-the-day-this-is-how-many-animals-we-eat-each-year/#:~:text=An%20estimated%2050%20billion%20chickens,hens%20killed%20in%20egg%20production https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/chart-of-the-day-this....
- kapp_in_life 5y ago
  We can barely get people to care about their fellow man, I'm pessimistic about getting people to care about the genocide we commit towards animals on an hourly basis. Edit: And for the record I'm vegan.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
    > the genocide we commit towards animals on an hourly basis It's not genocide, by definition, if we have no desire to extinct the species.
    - sweetheart 5y ago
      Holocaust then?
      - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
        Still not quite right; still centers on destruction being the intention. The problem, I think, is that you're reaching for the most emotionally-charged words when they don't actually fit. We don't hate animals; they just taste good. So it's just slaughter on an industrial scale.
        sweetheart 5y ago
        No, holocaust can be used for slaughter on a large scale too, so it’s a completely accurate use of the term.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    The population of beef cattle isn't going to go up if everyone stops eating steaks and hamburgers.
- qq4 5y ago
  Sometimes I wonder how many microorganisms I kill when I wash my hands.
  - codeulike 5y ago
    Well at least those microorganisms had a chance of a normal life, and you did the killing yourself. What gets me about factory farming is the complete hopelessness of an animal born into a factory, reduced by us to being an inconvenient ingredient and nothing more, and how all of that is hidden from the consumer as much as possible, outsourced to a faceless machine. Here you go; the chicken scene from Baraka https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFQhn8RW0Nk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFQhn8RW0Nk
    - qq4 5y ago
      What's a normal life? I've seen the chicken scene, and I've killed a chicken with my bare hands. I've clubbed a fish and cleaned it. I'm not afraid of where my food comes from. Chickens don't have hope, and I don't project that feeling onto them, just like I don't with microorganisms. Why do you think what you're saying is negative? If this trend tends to infinity we raise chickens instantly and vaporize them into cooked chicken in a blink of an eye.
      - codeulike 5y ago
        Chickens want things. They want to walk around the scratch the ground. If you make a noise they'll run away from you - they dont want to get eaten by a fox. Your comment about microorganisms is about 'where to draw the line' and your comment about 'tend to infinity' implies you like the 'appeal to extremes' form of argument. I'm interested in what we're doing in the world now and I'm happy to suggest where a line should be drawn. I'm not worried about absolutes.
        qq4 5y ago
        > Your comment about microorganisms is about 'where to draw the line' and your comment about 'tend to infinity' implies you like the 'appeal to extremes' form of argument. I would say that's accurate. I think extremes can bring out honest positions in an argument. Where would you suggest we draw a line? How long should a chicken live before we decide to kill it?
tlarkworthy 5y ago
Chicken is relatively friendly to climate. I would consider it a good thing if people ate more chicken and less red meat. They are our top animal protein source at scale for least greenhouse gas emissions [1]. [1] https://extension.uga.edu/publications/detail.html?number=B1382 https://extension.uga.edu/publications/detail.html?number=B1...
- codeulike 5y ago
  Even the most sustainable meat is worse for the environment than plant-based protein https://www.fastcompany.com/90461008/this-graph-will-show-you-the-carbon-footprint-of-your-protein https://www.fastcompany.com/90461008/this-graph-will-show-yo...
  - moistbar 5y ago
    Do plant-based proteins have the B vitamins that most of the world is deficient in?
    - kapp_in_life 5y ago
      This is silly. The solution to a vitamin deficiency is vitamins. Clearly they're deficient while eating meat too, so that doesn't seem like a strong argument against plant based proteins.
      - moistbar 5y ago
        > In all, 52% of vegans, 7% of vegetarians and one omnivore were classified as vitamin B12 deficient (defined as serum vitamin B12 < 118 pmol/l). [0] [0] http://www.epic-oxford.org/publications/1554/serum-concentrations-of-folate-and-votamin-b12-by-diet-group http://www.epic-oxford.org/publications/1554/serum-concentra... No, they are not "clearly deficient while eating meat" as you claim. There's a documented B12 deficiency in vegans and vegetarians that isn't present in meat eaters.
        5y ago
gwbas1c 5y ago
It's just one step on the way to growing muscle tissue in a controlled environment without the actual animal. But, not be pedantic, but chicken evolved as a domesticated, food-producing animal. They're "meant" to make food, either via eggs or meat, not to have a specific lifespan.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  > But, not be pedantic, but chicken evolved as a domesticated, food-producing animal. They're "meant" to make food, either via eggs or meat, not to have a specific lifespan. I think it's slightly more complicated than that. The history of domestication is one of long-term relationships: we have historically bred animals not only to produce food, but also to serve roles (foodwaste removal, fertilizing, haulage) that aren't necessarily best served by rapid growth. Industrial agriculture has removed the need for most of those roles, but they're still very visible in the selected features of popular breeds.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >I think it's slightly more complicated than that. The history of domestication is one of long-term relationships: we have historically bred animals not only to produce food, but also to serve roles (foodwaste removal, fertilizing, haulage) that aren't necessarily best served by rapid growth. What can you do with a pig other than eating it? As for chickens/cows, I'm fairly certain that the males are basically only useful for meat.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      Pigs have historically served foodwaste and sanitation roles. But you bring up a great point, and it’s one that anthropologists have remarked on as a potential source for religious taboos around pork (pigs just aren’t that useful compared to other animals). Male cows are best known in their neutered form (a surprising number of people think that oxen are their own species). They’re instrumental beasts of burden. But again, industrialized agriculture doesn’t have much use for them.
brutal_chaos_ 5y ago
> I think consumers need to take more personal responsibility in what kind of practices their wallets are supporting. Consumers aren't making the choice to treat the animals that way, the business are. And (most likely) without regulation, that will not change. Not enough people/consumers have enough discretionary spending to make a change (I believe). I for one don't even know where I can buy meat from well-treated chickens. Sure I can look it up, but most consumers will need to as well, which will probably not happen. It's about high time we stop putting things on the consumer (see recycling) and make the businesses do better for our ecosystem. I hope not to add too many more regulations, the fewer the better IMHO, but damn, there still needs to be some.
- jfim 5y ago
  That's the price we pay for making everything an interchangeable commodity. If you go to the grocery store, there might be some organic chicken and non organic chicken, but not that much of a choice otherwise. There's no real way to know whether the place treats their chickens and workers well, what kind of feed or environment the chickens live in, if it's a local farm or a mega factory, and so on. On the upside, the prices are lower and we get any kind of produce year round. On the downside, that produce might come from across the world, be specific breeds that survive shipping well and look good at the expense of taste, and generally not come from local farms but rather large factory farms.
  - sweetheart 5y ago
    They killed the chicken, so you know it wasn't treated well.
- mosseater 5y ago
  Consumers are totally making the choice. You could make the same argument that the consumer's demand for lots of meat is causing the businesses to have to do this. In reality it's a chain of choices made by multiple groups of people. The consumers, the industry, and whatever governmental regulatory bodies are involved. One group can't just give up responsibility of the choices they are making. In the end, consumers drive the market. If there's no consumers of unethical meat, no one will unethically raise meat. Out of the groups of people involved, it's only the consumers participation that keeps the cycle alive. Eating meat isn't a required activity for humans. If the treatment the chickens are going through doesn't seem ethical to you, continuing to eat it is hypocritical. You can totally reduce your meat consumption in order to afford eating ethically raised meat, or just not eat meat at all.
hourislate 5y ago
Just changing that around a little kind of reflects what's happening in the office the past few decades. >amplified by confinement, and while the developers come out of those cubes fatter, they tend to get sicker, too. They have insatiable appetites, which leaves them stressed, as evidenced in their poor reproduction capabilities, cardiovascular failure and skeletal problems. They’ve been pumped with so many antibiotics, they’ve developed resistances. The Developers weak legs and overworked hearts strain every week their lives are extended.
Broken_Hippo 5y ago
" I think consumers need to take more personal responsibility in what kind of practices their wallets are supporting" Ok. So, has the market gotten to the point that even in small towns, people can choose more humane meat? They have "free range eggs", and I pay for, basically, "free range plus", but these aren't really humane, only better: Are there other commonly available options? (Im personally pescetarian leaning heavily into vegetarian: I don't know about meat options available) I don't think everyone is going to go vegan (it is hard to balance the nutrition) and even vegetarian isn't going to be everywhere if there is a culture of meat-eating, so the best thing we can do is less* meat, and the meat we have is humane. But we are back at the beginning: There is realistically no way to speak with your wallet since a lot of places simply have no choice - and no way to verify claims (they might be as misleading as free range eggs). This pretty much put us at the point where if you are moneyed enough, you can source it: Everyone else has to hope that government changes rules enough so that everyone can choose humanely produced meat.
- jghn 5y ago
  I get my meat/eggs as a monthly farm share. The animals are treated humanely. One can visit the farm if they so desire, to see the conditions. The downside? It's expensive. Most people, even those who care in principal, don't care enough to pay 2x, 3x, or more than the grocery store prices.
- codeulike 5y ago
  So, has the market gotten to the point that even in small towns, people can choose more humane meat? Yes, at least in Europe. Organic meat comes with certain rules about the treatment of the animals. edit: see Article 12 of EU Regulation 889/2008 for organic poultry standards - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:250:0001:0084:en:PDF https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:...
mc32 5y ago
Chickens can achieve the age of ten under special circumstances (pet chicken protected from predators) Chickens in their wild habitat will live a year, two maybe three before succumbing to predators or disease. So if you have a hen and it’s over 3 years old, it’s older than most chickens in the wild. You should feel as guilty as a fox feels if you have it for dinner.
- robocat 5y ago
  “Upon examining poultry carcasses from Britain’s Iron Age and Roman and Saxon period, the archaeologists discovered these chickens of yore lived between two and four years”[1] Edit 2: another article that seems legitimate suggests 10 years as the lifespan for the Junglefowl.[4] I had difficulty finding the lifetime of wild Junglefowl, but they live longer than domesticated chickens e.g. “In captivity, the lifespan of the Red Jungle Fowl averages 15-20 years”[2] which suggests that the wild ancestors lived longer than you might suspect. Edit: Following the link shows that number is made up, sorry “Maximum longevity: 30 years (captivity) Observations: Chickens are considered a relatively short-lived and fast ageing species (Holmes et al. 2003). The maximum longevity in captivity of these birds, however, has been reported to be 30 years (http://www.demogr.mpg.de/longevityrecords http://www.demogr.mpg.de/longevityrecords). This is not impossible considering the large number of animals kept in captivity, yet remains unproven. For comparative analyses the use of a more conservative value for maximum longevity, such as 15 or 20 years, is recommended. Domestic chicken reach sexual maturity before six months of age.”[3]. This looks like a reasonable article about lifetimes of modern chickens: https://delaneychicken.com/how-long-do-chickens-live/ https://delaneychicken.com/how-long-do-chickens-live/ [1] https://thetakeout.com/chickens-live-longer-bone-dating-archaeology-iron-age-r-1847061967 https://thetakeout.com/chickens-live-longer-bone-dating-arch... [2] https://wiki.nus.edu.sg/display/TAX/Gallus+gallus+-+Red+Jungle+Fowl https://wiki.nus.edu.sg/display/TAX/Gallus+gallus+-+Red+Jung... [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20120206062215/http://eol.org/pages/1049263/overview https://web.archive.org/web/20120206062215/http://eol.org/pa... [4] https://animalalmanacblog.wordpress.com/2017/01/29/animal-spotlight-red-junglefowl/ https://animalalmanacblog.wordpress.com/2017/01/29/animal-sp...

codeulike 5y ago

Its so fast now, we're killing 50 billion chickens per year to eat. 136 million per day. 1585 per second. More than 1 chicken per millisecond. Start the stopwatch on your phone and watch those milliseconds fly by. Living breathing creatures raised in tiny cages and never seeing the sky or scratching dirt with their feet.

oftenwrong 5y ago
I don't doubt it, but what is the source of this figure?
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/chart-of-the-day-this-is-how-many-animals-we-eat-each-year/#:~:text=An%20estimated%2050%20billion%20chickens,hens%20killed%20in%20egg%20production https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/chart-of-the-day-this....
kapp_in_life 5y ago
We can barely get people to care about their fellow man, I'm pessimistic about getting people to care about the genocide we commit towards animals on an hourly basis. Edit: And for the record I'm vegan.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
  > the genocide we commit towards animals on an hourly basis It's not genocide, by definition, if we have no desire to extinct the species.
  - sweetheart 5y ago
    Holocaust then?
    - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
      Still not quite right; still centers on destruction being the intention. The problem, I think, is that you're reaching for the most emotionally-charged words when they don't actually fit. We don't hate animals; they just taste good. So it's just slaughter on an industrial scale.
      - sweetheart 5y ago
        No, holocaust can be used for slaughter on a large scale too, so it’s a completely accurate use of the term.
- beerandt 5y ago
  The population of beef cattle isn't going to go up if everyone stops eating steaks and hamburgers.
qq4 5y ago
Sometimes I wonder how many microorganisms I kill when I wash my hands.
- codeulike 5y ago
  Well at least those microorganisms had a chance of a normal life, and you did the killing yourself. What gets me about factory farming is the complete hopelessness of an animal born into a factory, reduced by us to being an inconvenient ingredient and nothing more, and how all of that is hidden from the consumer as much as possible, outsourced to a faceless machine. Here you go; the chicken scene from Baraka https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFQhn8RW0Nk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFQhn8RW0Nk
  - qq4 5y ago
    What's a normal life? I've seen the chicken scene, and I've killed a chicken with my bare hands. I've clubbed a fish and cleaned it. I'm not afraid of where my food comes from. Chickens don't have hope, and I don't project that feeling onto them, just like I don't with microorganisms. Why do you think what you're saying is negative? If this trend tends to infinity we raise chickens instantly and vaporize them into cooked chicken in a blink of an eye.
    - codeulike 5y ago
      Chickens want things. They want to walk around the scratch the ground. If you make a noise they'll run away from you - they dont want to get eaten by a fox. Your comment about microorganisms is about 'where to draw the line' and your comment about 'tend to infinity' implies you like the 'appeal to extremes' form of argument. I'm interested in what we're doing in the world now and I'm happy to suggest where a line should be drawn. I'm not worried about absolutes.
      - qq4 5y ago
        > Your comment about microorganisms is about 'where to draw the line' and your comment about 'tend to infinity' implies you like the 'appeal to extremes' form of argument. I would say that's accurate. I think extremes can bring out honest positions in an argument. Where would you suggest we draw a line? How long should a chicken live before we decide to kill it?

tlarkworthy 5y ago

Chicken is relatively friendly to climate. I would consider it a good thing if people ate more chicken and less red meat. They are our top animal protein source at scale for least greenhouse gas emissions [1]. [1] https://extension.uga.edu/publications/detail.html?number=B1382 https://extension.uga.edu/publications/detail.html?number=B1...

codeulike 5y ago
Even the most sustainable meat is worse for the environment than plant-based protein https://www.fastcompany.com/90461008/this-graph-will-show-you-the-carbon-footprint-of-your-protein https://www.fastcompany.com/90461008/this-graph-will-show-yo...
- moistbar 5y ago
  Do plant-based proteins have the B vitamins that most of the world is deficient in?
  - kapp_in_life 5y ago
    This is silly. The solution to a vitamin deficiency is vitamins. Clearly they're deficient while eating meat too, so that doesn't seem like a strong argument against plant based proteins.
    - moistbar 5y ago
      > In all, 52% of vegans, 7% of vegetarians and one omnivore were classified as vitamin B12 deficient (defined as serum vitamin B12 < 118 pmol/l). [0] [0] http://www.epic-oxford.org/publications/1554/serum-concentrations-of-folate-and-votamin-b12-by-diet-group http://www.epic-oxford.org/publications/1554/serum-concentra... No, they are not "clearly deficient while eating meat" as you claim. There's a documented B12 deficiency in vegans and vegetarians that isn't present in meat eaters.
      - 5y ago

gwbas1c 5y ago

It's just one step on the way to growing muscle tissue in a controlled environment without the actual animal. But, not be pedantic, but chicken evolved as a domesticated, food-producing animal. They're "meant" to make food, either via eggs or meat, not to have a specific lifespan.

woodruffw 5y ago
> But, not be pedantic, but chicken evolved as a domesticated, food-producing animal. They're "meant" to make food, either via eggs or meat, not to have a specific lifespan. I think it's slightly more complicated than that. The history of domestication is one of long-term relationships: we have historically bred animals not only to produce food, but also to serve roles (foodwaste removal, fertilizing, haulage) that aren't necessarily best served by rapid growth. Industrial agriculture has removed the need for most of those roles, but they're still very visible in the selected features of popular breeds.
- gruez 5y ago
  >I think it's slightly more complicated than that. The history of domestication is one of long-term relationships: we have historically bred animals not only to produce food, but also to serve roles (foodwaste removal, fertilizing, haulage) that aren't necessarily best served by rapid growth. What can you do with a pig other than eating it? As for chickens/cows, I'm fairly certain that the males are basically only useful for meat.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    Pigs have historically served foodwaste and sanitation roles. But you bring up a great point, and it’s one that anthropologists have remarked on as a potential source for religious taboos around pork (pigs just aren’t that useful compared to other animals). Male cows are best known in their neutered form (a surprising number of people think that oxen are their own species). They’re instrumental beasts of burden. But again, industrialized agriculture doesn’t have much use for them.

brutal_chaos_ 5y ago

> I think consumers need to take more personal responsibility in what kind of practices their wallets are supporting. Consumers aren't making the choice to treat the animals that way, the business are. And (most likely) without regulation, that will not change. Not enough people/consumers have enough discretionary spending to make a change (I believe). I for one don't even know where I can buy meat from well-treated chickens. Sure I can look it up, but most consumers will need to as well, which will probably not happen. It's about high time we stop putting things on the consumer (see recycling) and make the businesses do better for our ecosystem. I hope not to add too many more regulations, the fewer the better IMHO, but damn, there still needs to be some.

jfim 5y ago
That's the price we pay for making everything an interchangeable commodity. If you go to the grocery store, there might be some organic chicken and non organic chicken, but not that much of a choice otherwise. There's no real way to know whether the place treats their chickens and workers well, what kind of feed or environment the chickens live in, if it's a local farm or a mega factory, and so on. On the upside, the prices are lower and we get any kind of produce year round. On the downside, that produce might come from across the world, be specific breeds that survive shipping well and look good at the expense of taste, and generally not come from local farms but rather large factory farms.
- sweetheart 5y ago
  They killed the chicken, so you know it wasn't treated well.
mosseater 5y ago
Consumers are totally making the choice. You could make the same argument that the consumer's demand for lots of meat is causing the businesses to have to do this. In reality it's a chain of choices made by multiple groups of people. The consumers, the industry, and whatever governmental regulatory bodies are involved. One group can't just give up responsibility of the choices they are making. In the end, consumers drive the market. If there's no consumers of unethical meat, no one will unethically raise meat. Out of the groups of people involved, it's only the consumers participation that keeps the cycle alive. Eating meat isn't a required activity for humans. If the treatment the chickens are going through doesn't seem ethical to you, continuing to eat it is hypocritical. You can totally reduce your meat consumption in order to afford eating ethically raised meat, or just not eat meat at all.

hourislate 5y ago

Just changing that around a little kind of reflects what's happening in the office the past few decades. >amplified by confinement, and while the developers come out of those cubes fatter, they tend to get sicker, too. They have insatiable appetites, which leaves them stressed, as evidenced in their poor reproduction capabilities, cardiovascular failure and skeletal problems. They’ve been pumped with so many antibiotics, they’ve developed resistances. The Developers weak legs and overworked hearts strain every week their lives are extended.

Broken_Hippo 5y ago

" I think consumers need to take more personal responsibility in what kind of practices their wallets are supporting" Ok. So, has the market gotten to the point that even in small towns, people can choose more humane meat? They have "free range eggs", and I pay for, basically, "free range plus", but these aren't really humane, only better: Are there other commonly available options? (Im personally pescetarian leaning heavily into vegetarian: I don't know about meat options available) I don't think everyone is going to go vegan (it is hard to balance the nutrition) and even vegetarian isn't going to be everywhere if there is a culture of meat-eating, so the best thing we can do is less* meat, and the meat we have is humane. But we are back at the beginning: There is realistically no way to speak with your wallet since a lot of places simply have no choice - and no way to verify claims (they might be as misleading as free range eggs). This pretty much put us at the point where if you are moneyed enough, you can source it: Everyone else has to hope that government changes rules enough so that everyone can choose humanely produced meat.

jghn 5y ago
I get my meat/eggs as a monthly farm share. The animals are treated humanely. One can visit the farm if they so desire, to see the conditions. The downside? It's expensive. Most people, even those who care in principal, don't care enough to pay 2x, 3x, or more than the grocery store prices.
codeulike 5y ago
So, has the market gotten to the point that even in small towns, people can choose more humane meat? Yes, at least in Europe. Organic meat comes with certain rules about the treatment of the animals. edit: see Article 12 of EU Regulation 889/2008 for organic poultry standards - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:250:0001:0084:en:PDF https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:...

mc32 5y ago

Chickens can achieve the age of ten under special circumstances (pet chicken protected from predators) Chickens in their wild habitat will live a year, two maybe three before succumbing to predators or disease. So if you have a hen and it’s over 3 years old, it’s older than most chickens in the wild. You should feel as guilty as a fox feels if you have it for dinner.

robocat 5y ago
“Upon examining poultry carcasses from Britain’s Iron Age and Roman and Saxon period, the archaeologists discovered these chickens of yore lived between two and four years”[1] Edit 2: another article that seems legitimate suggests 10 years as the lifespan for the Junglefowl.[4] I had difficulty finding the lifetime of wild Junglefowl, but they live longer than domesticated chickens e.g. “In captivity, the lifespan of the Red Jungle Fowl averages 15-20 years”[2] which suggests that the wild ancestors lived longer than you might suspect. Edit: Following the link shows that number is made up, sorry “Maximum longevity: 30 years (captivity) Observations: Chickens are considered a relatively short-lived and fast ageing species (Holmes et al. 2003). The maximum longevity in captivity of these birds, however, has been reported to be 30 years (http://www.demogr.mpg.de/longevityrecords http://www.demogr.mpg.de/longevityrecords). This is not impossible considering the large number of animals kept in captivity, yet remains unproven. For comparative analyses the use of a more conservative value for maximum longevity, such as 15 or 20 years, is recommended. Domestic chicken reach sexual maturity before six months of age.”[3]. This looks like a reasonable article about lifetimes of modern chickens: https://delaneychicken.com/how-long-do-chickens-live/ https://delaneychicken.com/how-long-do-chickens-live/ [1] https://thetakeout.com/chickens-live-longer-bone-dating-archaeology-iron-age-r-1847061967 https://thetakeout.com/chickens-live-longer-bone-dating-arch... [2] https://wiki.nus.edu.sg/display/TAX/Gallus+gallus+-+Red+Jungle+Fowl https://wiki.nus.edu.sg/display/TAX/Gallus+gallus+-+Red+Jung... [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20120206062215/http://eol.org/pages/1049263/overview https://web.archive.org/web/20120206062215/http://eol.org/pa... [4] https://animalalmanacblog.wordpress.com/2017/01/29/animal-spotlight-red-junglefowl/ https://animalalmanacblog.wordpress.com/2017/01/29/animal-sp...