Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Lucrative Art of Chicken Sexing (2017)

psmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 87 posts

Re: The Lucrative Art of Chicken Sexing (2017)

#31

Post by rkagerer »

daveguy wrote: post #19

If it is such a gestalt, not explainable function. I am almost certain it isn't just visual. It would be interesting to see the level of accuracy with just video of the vent exposure. Even more so, just an image. The article states the sexers accidentally kill some chicks at first when learning because of the force required to expose the vents. The force required could provide some clue. The way the vent moves under…

Indeed. If they were able to maintain accuracy using images, that sounds like it would be a perfect candidate for experimenting with machine learning (using the tagged images).

Re: The Lucrative Art of Chicken Sexing (2017)

#32

Post by Falling3 »

Daishiman wrote: post #28
groby_b wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how you tie levels of pain to prices for eggs. (And I'd strongly dispute that being ground up isn't painful. Call it a hunch) On the upside, there's research on in-egg sexing.

Without trying to sound cruel, the industrial grinders used for chickens are extremely fast and might act faster than the temporary threshold needed for the pain to be consciously perceived.

I'm not sure what the breakdown of different methods is, but gassing is common as well as simply dumping them into a bin and letting them suffocate each other.

Re: The Lucrative Art of Chicken Sexing (2017)

#33

Post by Falling3 »

toast0 wrote: post #13
Falling3 wrote: post #2

I've worked with chickens for years. Among lay people, being able to correctly sex a chicken after 2-3 weeks is a difficult skill. It's incredibly interesting that these people are able to do it so easily at such an early age. It's also put to very disturbing uses. The females go on to be used as layer hens and the males are kill within hours of hatching - generally in gruesome/painful ways.

Is it more disturbing to kill the males on the day they hatch or weeks later?

Taking away their life before they've had any opportunity to experience it is fairly disturbing. But it really depends on what their life looks like for those few weeks.

Re: The Lucrative Art of Chicken Sexing (2017)

#34

Post by Moto7451 »

kgc wrote: post #27
Falling3 wrote: post #2

I've worked with chickens for years. Among lay people, being able to correctly sex a chicken after 2-3 weeks is a difficult skill. It's incredibly interesting that these people are able to do it so easily at such an early age. It's also put to very disturbing uses. The females go on to be used as layer hens and the males are kill within hours of hatching - generally in gruesome/painful ways.

Why not grow the males to be for eating?

Broilers and Layers have very different life cycles due to selective breeding. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-layers-...

Re: The Lucrative Art of Chicken Sexing (2017)

#35

Post by DonaldFisk »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #26
DonaldFisk wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you tell? It sounds pretty painful. There is a painless way of killing, through asphyxiation by inert gas (e.g. nitrogen, but not carbon dioxide).

Googling suggests that animal welfare organisations currently suggest maceration is the best alternative, being better than carbon dioxide which gets second place. Do you happen to know why they don't promote your suggestion of suffucation with nitrogen?

I can't speak for animal welfare organizations.

Maceration is quicker than CO2 asphyxiation. Animals (including humans) can detect high levels of CO2 but most (rodents are an exception) can't detect low levels of oxygen.

I found these articles:

https://www.upc-online.org/slaughter/report.html (scroll down to Gas Stunning).

https://www.hsa.org.uk/downloads/technical-notes/TN12-gas-ki...

Both recommend inert gas asphyxiation but in the context of adult birds.

Scientists are looking into in ovo sexing: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00216-016-0116-6

Re: The Lucrative Art of Chicken Sexing (2017)

#36

Post by burnte »

michaelbuckbee wrote: post #8

The quality is bad, but Mike Rowe and his Dirty Jobs show highlighted Chicken Sexers if you want to see more of what it entails. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gTddabBi5A

I was about to post the same link because of this passage in the article:

"When I asked Pam Freeman, editor of a poultry magazine, to introduce me to a chicken sexer, she said, "I honestly don't know anyone who has met a chicken sexer."

Re: The Lucrative Art of Chicken Sexing (2017)

#38

Post by Falling3 »

fenwick67 wrote: post #29
kgc wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not grow the males to be for eating?

Roosters don't lay eggs, and somebody did the math and figured out the return on hens vs roosters is so much better it's not even worth raising the roosters.

Roosters are raised for meat - just a different breed from those raised to lay eggs.

Re: The Lucrative Art of Chicken Sexing (2017)

#39

Post by mordrax »

ballenf wrote: post #22
presidentender wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gruesome, but I would dispute painful. The present state of things is the least bad it could be while still allowing us to enjoy the prices we do.

> The present state of things is the least bad it could be while still allowing us to enjoy the prices we do. That statement belongs in a dystopian sci-fi novel.

Welcome... to the real world.

Re: The Lucrative Art of Chicken Sexing (2017)

#40

Post by bg4 »

fenwick67 wrote: post #29
kgc wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not grow the males to be for eating?

Roosters don't lay eggs, and somebody did the math and figured out the return on hens vs roosters is so much better it's not even worth raising the roosters.

Has anyone done the math recently or is it industry dogma?
Post reply on HN