71–80 of 131 posts
is the consumer vote necessary? it seems like producers might appreciate saving 50% on feeding chicks
They don't feed male chicks - from the first paragraph: > in the United States alone, approximately 350 million male chicks are routinely culled each year, typically by methods such as maceration (being ground up alive).
To those arguing that this is irrelevant, I urge you to search for a video of this "culling" yourself. All the logic in the world can't ease my stomach after watching a conveyer belt of chicks get dumped directly into a meat grinder. It's simply not right. And while there are still many issues remaining in the meat industry (arguably its existence at all), this is one less.
> conveyer belt of chicks get dumped directly into a meat grinder. I haven't seen it, and correct me if this is not the case, but it doesn't strike me as a bad way to go. Getting macerated beats most of the ways humans and wild animals die. Do these chicks have any idea "what hit them"?
[1] https://eji.org/news/lethal-injections-cause-suffocation-and...
This tech is able to select the female eggs only for hatching and redirect the male eggs for egging. The result is we have more eggs for people. And less waste of resources. Win win. Also a win for PETA. Something like this should be adopted en masse for market value reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, so we can all agree that killing the male chicks is inhumane. But you think the solution, _to not birth the male chicks_, is just as inhumane? If so, awful take. This is infinitely better and most definitely a step in the right direction.
No, you are putting words into my mouth. Try to argue in good faith through understanding the other party's viewpoint before responding. I don't see much difference between killing chicks after them being born, or stopping them from being born in the first place. The only difference is in the efficiency of business operations. If my values are that each deserves a chance at a life--whatever life it may be, I can advo…
If something isn't more humane, it must be the same or less. I think it is you who needs to better articulate your position broski.
But that aside, one method kills living creatures and the other does not. If you cannot see a difference then I'm afraid you are lost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, so we can all agree that killing the male chicks is inhumane. But you think the solution, _to not birth the male chicks_, is just as inhumane? If so, awful take. This is infinitely better and most definitely a step in the right direction.
No, you are putting words into my mouth. Try to argue in good faith through understanding the other party's viewpoint before responding. I don't see much difference between killing chicks after them being born, or stopping them from being born in the first place. The only difference is in the efficiency of business operations. If my values are that each deserves a chance at a life--whatever life it may be, I can advo…
--
Isn't this carrying the pro life movement too far? Chickens do not have souls, in the biblical context.
If this isn't a religious thing, then note the article has two methods. One detecting feather differences, the other a genetic test.
The genetic test should be quite early. If at that stage, I imagine a blade of grass has more intelligence, there isn't a brain yet, and nerves don't even exist.
No pain, no feeling, just a few dozen cells hanging out.
Does this not seem OK to you, if the case?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't get along with any animals, and the problem starts well before they're butcher weight. It's not uncommon for an entire hen house to wind up murdered if you don't sex your chickens.
Do elaborate. Does Chad Thundercock go ballistic on all the hens?
I've never had a rooster kill hens, though. Each other, sure, but not the hens. I don't really buy that.
Some context for this article that most people don't know: there are chicken breeds for meat (Cornish Cross, mostly) and breeds for eggs. The egg breeds are skinny and won't become a good meat bird no matter how much you feed them. I guess you can caponize them and they'll gain more weight, but that's a process that costs money. You could use them for soup, but that probably wouldn't be cost-effective either, so that's why the large-scale operations just kill them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you are putting words into my mouth. Try to argue in good faith through understanding the other party's viewpoint before responding. I don't see much difference between killing chicks after them being born, or stopping them from being born in the first place. The only difference is in the efficiency of business operations. If my values are that each deserves a chance at a life--whatever life it may be, I can advo…
"I don't see much difference between killing chicks after them being born, or stopping them from being born in the first place." I do. One of those involves a (presumably painful) death of a conscious animal. The other does not.
People are worried about seemingly extraordinary cruelty perpetrated against a cute animal (maceration of young chicks) but basically accept regular, banal cruelty against typical farm animals (the practice of eating farming and eating meat and eggs).
I personally think the cause is at least on balance positive morally for any given male chick, but it’s not so clear to me that it’s moral if this scales to the point that the industry may raise more female chickens to lay eggs with less resources/comfort/etc.
How do 10% not know boys don't lay eggs and the plurality not realize we don't eat roosters
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, so we can all agree that killing the male chicks is inhumane. But you think the solution, _to not birth the male chicks_, is just as inhumane? If so, awful take. This is infinitely better and most definitely a step in the right direction.
No, you are putting words into my mouth. Try to argue in good faith through understanding the other party's viewpoint before responding. I don't see much difference between killing chicks after them being born, or stopping them from being born in the first place. The only difference is in the efficiency of business operations. If my values are that each deserves a chance at a life--whatever life it may be, I can advo…
> No, you are putting words into my mouth.
As an onlooking third party, I don't understand. You further say:
> I don't see much difference between killing chicks after them being born, or stopping them from being born in the first place.
But as far as I can understand it, that is the same thing.
> I did not prescribe an alternative, don't pretend that I have.
It was not supposed that you were prescribing an alternative. The words "you think the solution" were not introducing a supposed solution of yours; they were introducing a solution (the process discussed in TFA) about which you (appeared to) have a thought.