Free Range Chicken

[bluskool]

I just started listening to Skeptoid and have been going back over the past episodes. First of all, it's a great podcast and I am in general agreement with Brian's conclusions, but I did have a big problem with one argument he made in the free range chicken episode.

First, I am not prepared to argue that free range chickens are, in practice, treated better than other chickens. For all I know, Brian is correct that the free range label misleads people into thinking that the chickens actually have, ya know, free range.

What I do have a problem with is Brian's argument that he can tell that chickens would not have a better life if given the opportunity to roam freely outside because he grew up around chickens, used to catch them and stick his finger in their nose and they seemed dumb to him. My jaw dropped to hear a skeptic make such a blatantly terrible argument from personal incredulity. He then went on to say that those who think free range chickens would have a better life if truly allowed to roam free have either never spent time around chickens or have a different experience. I would fall into the latter category.

I have spent a lot of time around chickens. I live and have grown up in Sussex County, Delaware and we have a very large poultry industry. In fact, we produce more broiler chickens than any other county in America. I grew up around chickens and am still exposed to exactly how they are treated on a regular basis and I have come to the exact opposite conclusion. Chickens on modern farms appear to me to be psychologically distressed and in a constant state of misery. I am not suggesting that my assessment proves that they are worse off than free range chickens would be, but I was unable to find any research comparing the welfare of broiler chickens vs. free range chickens.

My point is that it was wrong for Brian to conclude that chickens given free range would not be better off, from an animal welfare standpoint, than those raised in broiler production based on his personal assessment of the intelligence level of a few chickens in his back yard. Neither my personal experience or his should count as evidence.

[The Fool]

I Have 3 chickens, they have a little house and roam free in my yard. Occasionally visiting neighbors when they discover or create a breach in the fence. They are 3 individual birds and have different personality traits. They are not particularly intelligent but they are not on the level of roaches either.

They do not deserve to be shut into cages little bigger than their own bodies. We can do better.

Pay a little more money for your chicken and eggs so these birds can live their life without suffering and don't whine about it or I'll put you in a cage little bigger than your body.

[Cainkane1]

I used to enjoy watching chickens in my grandparents backyard. Neat pecking order they have.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I was going to make a joke about drumsticks, but I have writers block. Can someone help?

[The Fool]

I was going to make a joke about drumsticks, but I have writers block. Can someone help?

how can you possibly joke about chickens?

makes me wonder why they bothered crossing the road...

[Aufbruch]

I just started listening to Skeptoid and have been going back over the past episodes. First of all, it's a great podcast and I am in general agreement with Brian's conclusions, but I did have a big problem with one argument he made in the free range chicken episode.

First, I am not prepared to argue that free range chickens are, in practice, treated better than other chickens. For all I know, Brian is correct that the free range label misleads people into thinking that the chickens actually have, ya know, free range.

What I do have a problem with is Brian's argument that he can tell that chickens would not have a better life if given the opportunity to roam freely outside because he grew up around chickens, used to catch them and stick his finger in their nose and they seemed dumb to him. My jaw dropped to hear a skeptic make such a blatantly terrible argument from personal incredulity. He then went on to say that those who think free range chickens would have a better life if truly allowed to roam free have either never spent time around chickens or have a different experience. I would fall into the latter category.

I have spent a lot of time around chickens. I live and have grown up in Sussex County, Delaware and we have a very large poultry industry. In fact, we produce more broiler chickens than any other county in America. I grew up around chickens and am still exposed to exactly how they are treated on a regular basis and I have come to the exact opposite conclusion. Chickens on modern farms appear to me to be psychologically distressed and in a constant state of misery. I am not suggesting that my assessment proves that they are worse off than free range chickens would be, but I was unable to find any research comparing the welfare of broiler chickens vs. free range chickens.

My point is that it was wrong for Brian to conclude that chickens given free range would not be better off, from an animal welfare standpoint, than those raised in broiler production based on his personal assessment of the intelligence level of a few chickens in his back yard. Neither my personal experience or his should count as evidence.

This was one of the few Skeptoid episodes that I took issue with as well, but...evidently not for the reasons you did. : )

My quibbles were more to do with his assertion that the flimsineess of the legal/stipulations of the term "free range" automatically meant that they were being abused to the greatest degree possible by "free range" farms.

Not that I'd be surprised to learn that such was the case, but the sources and citations he offers for the ep don't really in any way support this. The meaninglessness of Free Range chicken was rather key to his argument here, and thus, I think it's important that he back it up very solidly, which....he really did not if you check the footnotes/citations list in the text version of the ep.

As for "suffering chickens"...I've raised chickens before...and really I have to condlude that it's really no more valid than whining about hook0pain from angled fish. Fish don't have the necessary brain parts to experience "pain"....and really I don't think it's any stretch of the imagination to conclude that chickens lack the brain parts to suffer from "stress"; at least, in any way that's meaningfully comparable how humans, chimps and dolphins, etc., do. Granted, I'd assumed chicken brains are bit higher on the totem pole than, say, a rainbow trout, but not _that_ much higher. they're stupid, eat poop copulate(or synonyms to that effect) type creatures, and have been bred to be such....I see no reason to conclude anything otherwise.

[jimtron]

FWIW, here's Michael Pollan's take. This was also discussed IIRC in the movie Food, Inc.

Geraci: What’s the deal with free-range chickens? What does this mean?


Pollan: Well, you’d like to think it means that these chickens roam around the farm, but that’s not the case. When I was researching for The Omnivore’s Dilemma, I went to a “free-range” farm in California where forty-thousand chickens were in a warehouse. I asked the farmer how these chickens can be free-range, and he pointed to two small doors and said that the chickens could leave and go outside if they wanted to. The farmer opens these doors after the chickens are five weeks old–when the chickens have already gotten used to an indoor lifestyle, so none usually choose to go outside. Then the chickens die at six or seven weeks, technically “free-range.” At least they’re not in cages. But the better quality chickens are “pastured.”


Above from here (http://themelononline.com/2009/05/an-evening-with-michael-pollan/).

[Aufbruch]

FWIW, here's Michael Pollan's take. This was also discussed IIRC in the movie Food, Inc.



Above from here (http://themelononline.com/2009/05/an-evening-with-michael-pollan/).

I'm actually inclined to agree with him on the recommendation of "eat food, not too much, and mostly plants", point. Not because of lost sleep over the well being of any amount of stupid birds, but just because plant based agriculture is a far more efficient way of feeding an increasingly overgrown and birth control illiterate population of humans.

I mean, honestly....which is going to leave the lesser ecological "footprint"(or whatever they're calling it these days): Driving an SUV and not eating a vegan diet, or deciding not to abort that third kid you're not sure you really want? : )

[bluskool]

As for "suffering chickens"...I've raised chickens before...and really I have to condlude that it's really no more valid than whining about hook0pain from angled fish. Fish don't have the necessary brain parts to experience "pain"....

I have always heard this, but never really researched it.

...and really I don't think it's any stretch of the imagination to conclude that chickens lack the brain parts to suffer from "stress"; at least, in any way that's meaningfully comparable how humans, chimps and dolphins, etc., do. Granted, I'd assumed chicken brains are bit higher on the totem pole than, say, a rainbow trout, but not _that_ much higher.

I am reasonably certain this is false. Psychological disorders in humans that result from traumatic events are associated with damage to different parts of the limbic systems. Since chickens have limbic systems, I don't really see any reason to think that they can't suffer from similar disorders, even though they probably aren't thinking too deeply about them. Folk wisdom has always held that emotions are some sort of higher level cognitive function that only humans possess, but the more we learn about neuroanatomy, the more it seems like emotions are much more universal and probably evolved well before mammals and birds were on the scene.

[bluskool]

FWIW, here's Michael Pollan's take. This was also discussed IIRC in the movie Food, Inc.



Above from here (http://themelononline.com/2009/05/an-evening-with-michael-pollan/).

Pollan's view seems much more inline with my understanding. I have also heard that pastured chicken is the most humane method.

[Last of the Fraggles]

I can't bring myself to care enough about chickens to change my buying behaviour. I still buy the cheapest chicken I can find and it tastes fine to me. Does this make me a bad person?

Same with eggs.

Same with most meat actually.

[bjornart]

I can't bring myself to care enough about chickens to change my buying behaviour. I still buy the cheapest chicken I can find and it tastes fine to me. Does this make me a bad person?

Same with eggs.

Same with most meat actually.

Yes, it makes you a bad person. For some definitions of "bad person".

[Last of the Fraggles]

Yes, it makes you a bad person. For some definitions of "bad person".

I find it hard to get excited about this stuff. If someone puts me on the spot and says 'do you think this is OK?' I would say 'No, its not OK' then go right to the store and buy El Cheapo's Tortured Chicken Breasts.

I don't buy organic, free range, fair trade anything unless its noticeably better or the same price as regular.

[bluskool]

I find it hard to get excited about this stuff. If someone puts me on the spot and says 'do you think this is OK?' I would say 'No, its not OK' then go right to the store and buy El Cheapo's Tortured Chicken Breasts.

I don't buy organic, free range, fair trade anything unless its noticeably better or the same price as regular.

I don't tell others that they are bad for eating the kind of meat that I wouldn't. It's a personal thing for me and I've never really liked preachy people, so I try not to be one. The reason I don't do it is just because I do feel bad for the animals and don't want to participate in their mistreatment.

If I was to speculate as to why most people do not feel bad, I would say that they are just desensitized to it. For one, chickens don't look like us so it hard to form any emotional bond like we do with dogs and cats. Another thing is that when we go to war, most people don't want to go around killing other humans, so we come up with reasons to think that the other side is somehow less than human and refer to them with terms like "gook." I think we do a similar thing with animals we eat, although dehumanization wouldn't be the right term to use. For example, we call chickens dumb and suddenly it doesn't seem so bad to cut off their beaks and stuff them in a cage with a few other birds for the duration of their life, because hey, they're too dumb for that to bother them right?

As an aside, I don't think there is really any good reason to buy organic anyway and I certainly don't think there is anything unethical about conventional agriculture. I don't know enough about fair trade to really form an opinion on that.

[Aepervius]

IIRC legally here around a chicken is free range if it has at least 2 m² of surface to walk, but I may recall this wrongly.

I have helped rise chicken , slaughter them and rabbits and pigs etc... Guess what ? Meat is a dirty business and means killing , and sometimes (or often) stress and pain for the animal.

Still meat is tasty.

So you can definitively call me a bad person if you wish. I also eat babies (*) and torture slowly animal by suffocation and tearing their throat (**) and I do not care a single bit.

You have only one life. You can spend it ethically eating your vegetals, or you can live it egoistically hedonistic-ally eating tasty meat in addition to the aforementioned vegetals. I choose the second. ETA And I am well aware that people see me as a bad person. I simply don't care.

(*) lamb (**) fishing with hook

[I Ratant]

I can't bring myself to care enough about chickens to change my buying behaviour. I still buy the cheapest chicken I can find and it tastes fine to me. Does this make me a bad person?

Same with eggs.

Same with most meat actually.
.
I do that also, except for the eggs and meat.
Haven't bought those in years.

[bluskool]

IIRC legally here around a chicken is free range if it has at least 2 m² of surface to walk, but I may recall this wrongly.

I have helped rise chicken , slaughter them and rabbits and pigs etc... Guess what ? Meat is a dirty business and means killing , and sometimes (or often) stress and pain for the animal.

Still meat is tasty.

So you can definitively call me a bad person if you wish. I also eat babies (*) and torture slowly animal by suffocation and tearing their throat (**) and I do not care a single bit.

You have only one life. You can spend it ethically eating your vegetals, or you can live it egoistically hedonistic-ally eating tasty meat in addition to the aforementioned vegetals. I choose the second. ETA And I am well aware that people see me as a bad person. I simply don't care.

(*) lamb (**) fishing with hook

My brain obsesses over having as consistent a world view as possible. If I thought like you did, then I would also have to say that it is fine to kill and eat humans if they taste good. You might say that humans have higher level cognitive functions that somehow entitle them to not be eaten by other humans. I don't buy that argument, but even if I did, I would still have to say that it is okay to kill and eat severely brain damaged humans.
I am not saying you are bad and should change. I definitely have no desire to make ethical decisions for anyone else, but I am just trying to explain why I can't get on board with that sort of reasoning.

[bluskool]

.
I do that also, except for the eggs and meat.
Haven't bought those in years.

What do you mean? You eat chicken, but not other meat or you don't eat meat at all?

[I Ratant]

What do you mean? You eat chicken, but not other meat or you don't eat meat at all?
.
Chicken is within my budget.
Steak, rabbit, lamb, pork, outside my budget.
Eggs do that cholesterol thing.

[bluskool]

.
Chicken is within my budget.
Steak, rabbit, lamb, pork, outside my budget.
Eggs do that cholesterol thing.

ic, was just curious.

[Aepervius]

My brain obsesses over having as consistent a world view as possible. If I thought like you did, then I would also have to say that it is fine to kill and eat humans if they taste good. You might say that humans have higher level cognitive functions that somehow entitle them to not be eaten by other humans. I don't buy that argument, but even if I did, I would still have to say that it is okay to kill and eat severely brain damaged humans.
I am not saying you are bad and should change. I definitely have no desire to make ethical decisions for anyone else, but I am just trying to explain why I can't get on board with that sort of reasoning.

It is quite a jump to go from eating other species, to eating to one member of own specie (a HUGE one). Some specie might indeed do that in the animal reign. Some even shortly after copulating ;). As far as I can tell, beside the legal or sanitary objection, the taboo to cannibalism are a cultural one, not a moral one (dead people could be a source of protein, that is not as if they care, and some culture as far as 19th century and today in some war zone some people seem to think so too, so if you remove the moral and sanitary objection by eating safe meat from people which died "unhelped" of natural cause there is no moral reason to not eat dead people meat, only a cultural one).

Two Legged sheep, marinated in porto and cooked on a bed of potatoe and herb de provence, with butter. With Chianti. tasty.

[Last of the Fraggles]

My brain obsesses over having as consistent a world view as possible. If I thought like you did, then I would also have to say that it is fine to kill and eat humans if they taste good. You might say that humans have higher level cognitive functions that somehow entitle them to not be eaten by other humans. I don't buy that argument, but even if I did, I would still have to say that it is okay to kill and eat severely brain damaged humans.
I am not saying you are bad and should change. I definitely have no desire to make ethical decisions for anyone else, but I am just trying to explain why I can't get on board with that sort of reasoning.

Going down a bit of a tangent here but I think I draw a distinction somewhere between 'farmed' animals and 'wild' animals. I'm fine with eating a chicken but wouldn't want to shoot an eagle just to eat its meat. I'm fine with eating dogs farmed for the purpose of being food but wouldn't eat the next door neighbours' puppy. So I guess the question is whether you can farm humans for the purpose of food and whether I would have a problem with that.....

[bluskool]

It is quite a jump to go from eating other species, to eating to one member of own specie (a HUGE one).

Other than our emotional reaction to it, what's the difference?

[bluskool]

Going down a bit of a tangent here but I think I draw a distinction somewhere between 'farmed' animals and 'wild' animals.

What is the distinction? What is it about being raised on a farm that would change the ethical considerations?

[Darat]

Other than our emotional reaction to it, what's the difference?

Do you want to be eaten?

[bluskool]

Do you want to be eaten?

No, but is that a difference? I can't imagine animals want to be eaten.

[Darat]

No, but is that a difference? I can't imagine animals want to be eaten.

Oh that's made me think but that wasn't what I meant but it raises a good point. :)

What I was trying to get across was the reason why I think we don't generally eat each other is that if we did consider each other foodstuff someone might want to eat us. Developing taboos and so on against eating humans may have arisen to protect us from being eaten by other folk.

Can you imagine it?

You: "Do you want to come over for dinner tonight?"

Me: "Sure, can I bring anything?"

You: "No, just yourself"

Me: "Gulp!"

[I Ratant]

Other than our emotional reaction to it, what's the difference?
.
The source.
Although the FDA checks for the occasional gamy leg.

[I Ratant]

No, but is that a difference? I can't imagine animals want to be eaten.
.
I see that all the time.
Every animal appears to desire to live, evading every other animal that is larger at the very least.
Whether they are aware of death and eating, they take pains to avoid the possibility.

[bluskool]

Oh that's made me think but that wasn't what I meant but it raises a good point. :)

What I was trying to get across was the reason why I think we don't generally eat each other is that if we did consider each other foodstuff someone might want to eat us. Developing taboos and so on against eating humans may have arisen to protect us from being eaten by other folk.

Can you imagine it?

You: "Do you want to come over for dinner tonight?"

Me: "Sure, can I bring anything?"

You: "No, just yourself"

Me: "Gulp!"

That's true. There is also an emotional connection with things that look like us. I bet that most people would have a problem eating a chimpanzee. It doesn't really answer the ethical question though.

[bluskool]

.
The source.
Although the FDA checks for the occasional gamy leg.

That's special pleading. You are just saying that the difference is that they are different. What I mean is why is it unethical to eat a human, but not unethical to eat a chicken?

I did think of a possible answer. Self-awareness. If we raised humans on a farm to eat them, they would be aware that they are being raised for food and this could warrant a different standard. It's probably safe to assume that chickens on farms are unaware that they are being raised for food. If they were treated humanely, they would probably have a better life on a farm than in the wild (no predators, food and water in constant supply.) The problem with this argument is that it wouldn't apply to severely brain damaged humans that wouldn't be aware of what was happening.

[I Ratant]

Would "free range humans" be aware of their destination?
Or would that be masked so that as the flock is culled, those chosen go to the packing plant without any fore-knowledge of their fate, and those remaining behind just notice there's more room and grub for them?

[Aepervius]

Other than our emotional reaction to it, what's the difference?

As I said in the rest of the post, none whatsoever. It is simply today illegal due to our cultural background. I never considered burning people or putting them in earth in special plot where next to no plant life grow to rot (french cemetery I visited are mostly gravel), a really efficient proposition. Soylent green in a way sounded much more rational.

But here is the deal, with death we are mostly irrational. So to answer you : no difference. Just respect some FDA standard and you got your Aepervius burger after I died, or if you do earlier, I get my bluskool entrecote.

[bluskool]

As I said in the rest of the post, none whatsoever. It is simply today illegal due to our cultural background. I never considered burning people or putting them in earth in special plot where next to no plant life grow to rot (french cemetery I visited are mostly gravel), a really efficient proposition. Soylent green in a way sounded much more rational.

But here is the deal, with death we are mostly irrational. So to answer you : no difference. Just respect some FDA standard and you got your Aepervius burger after I died, or if you do earlier, I get my bluskool entrecote.

I go well with a nice Pinot Noir BTW. :D

[bluskool]

Would "free range humans" be aware of their destination?
Or would that be masked so that as the flock is culled, those chosen go to the packing plant without any fore-knowledge of their fate, and those remaining behind just notice there's more room and grub for them?

If the humans are kept in captivity, I am not sure you could call them "free-range." Any normal human is going to be aware of their captivity. But as I said above, my argument wouldn't work in a situation where the human wasn't aware of what was happening.

As an aside, I don't think the destination or the killing of the animal is wrong. I just think it is wrong to cause them suffering throughout their lives.

[Safe-Keeper]

I Have 3 chickens, they have a little house and roam free in my yard. Occasionally visiting neighbors when they discover or create a breach in the fence. They are 3 individual birds and have different personality traits. They are not particularly intelligent but they are not on the level of roaches either.

They do not deserve to be shut into cages little bigger than their own bodies. We can do better.

Pay a little more money for your chicken and eggs so these birds can live their life without suffering and don't whine about it or I'll put you in a cage little bigger than your body.Chickens aren't humans. Just that we suffer distress when shut in a cage doesn't mean they do. Consider the example of mice -- they love to run around in dark, narrow tunnels barely wider than their bodies. Does this mean that if some race of intelligent giant mice enslaved us and wanted to treat us well, they should shut us in some tiny building where we'd run around hunched over in utter darkness? Of course not, because we have different needs than mice.

From what I've been told, "free range" means just that -- free range. Free to get soaking wet in the rain, peck each others' brains out, and suffer the other indignities of being a chicken in the outdoor company of other chickens.

[bluskool]

Chickens aren't humans. Just that we suffer distress when shut in a cage doesn't mean they do.

That's true. Of course, the reason we think they are distressed when crowded in a cage is because they exhibit behavior indicative of animals that are distressed, not because we think they are humans.

[jakesteele]

I was going to make a joke about drumsticks, but I have writers block. Can someone help?

Chickens who play drums never have to buy any drumsticks.

That rooster comedian on stage is mediocre and has very humdrum shtick.

[Craig4]

I will say that I prefer to buy free range chickens when I can but only because I think they taste better. Chickens that eat insects and worms definitely have a fuller flavor than those they only eat chicken feed. You get the taste more in the dark meat than the white and you do give up some tenderness (which you can get past by carving a bit differently). As to the health effects, I have no opinion.

As for cruelty, if you want to be nice to them try not loping their heads off.

[bluskool]

I will say that I prefer to buy free range chickens when I can but only because I think they taste better. Chickens that eat insects and worms definitely have a fuller flavor than those they only eat chicken feed. You get the taste more in the dark meat than the white and you do give up some tenderness (which you can get past by carving a bit differently). As to the health effects, I have no opinion.

As for cruelty, if you want to be nice to them try not loping their heads off.

There are not any health benefits as far as I know. But I don't see how killing them quickly is cruel. Since we are killing them for food, lopping off their heads seems like a pretty humane way to go about it. Now putting them through suffering for the duration of their lives in the name of efficiency, that's most certainly cruel.

[fuelair]

No, but is that a difference? I can't imagine animals want to be eaten.

Actually, I am pretty sure (a phrase that means here that I do not know absolutely and am not really planning hard research on it)that animals do not have sufficient intellectual capacity for the specific thought/concept "I do not want to be eaten!" even in some symbolic form. At best, they will avoid expected pain normally and things they have been taught mean danger/pain/hurt. But no concept for personal death/be eaten.:)

[Craig4]

My point about cruelty was if you're that worried about it don't kill them. It strikes me as odd to get worked up over how good the lives of chickens are when the only reason for their existence is to get put down for a dirt nap and turned into dinner.

I am not advocating for excessive or recreational cruelty here mind you.

[bjornart]

My point about cruelty was if you're that worried about it don't kill them. It strikes me as odd to get worked up over how good the lives of chickens are when the only reason for their existence is to get put down for a dirt nap and turned into dinner.

I am not advocating for excessive or recreational cruelty here mind you.

How do you define excessive cruelty? I find it odd that you consider there to be a limit to allowable treatment of animals, even when the reason for their existence is human consumption, yet can't grasp that someone might draw that line differently.

[MattRussNC]

Hey if you don't agree with a persons eating habits, fine, but don't try to change them. Personally i love me some fried animal flesh and make no distinction from where it comes from. If you wish to pretend you are getting kind and humane meat for moral smugness great. Just dont really believe you actually know where your food came from based solely on the label and the hippy behind the counter, you just look foolish. All this bs of organic, free range, ect ect is just marketing ploys to charge more and make you feel better. In some cases the same is true for kosher foods as well, most of the time kosher food is shipped according to the definition. However just like organic and all the rest of the terms, these are just labels that are very easily applied to any pallet of foodstuffs depending on supply needs.

Just eat your damn kfc, and bitch about politics. Or go vegan, i could care less as i will never give up my steak and i shall continue to be happy.

[Darat]

If the humans are kept in captivity, I am not sure you could call them "free-range." Any normal human is going to be aware of their captivity. But as I said above, my argument wouldn't work in a situation where the human wasn't aware of what was happening.

As an aside, I don't think the destination or the killing of the animal is wrong. I just think it is wrong to cause them suffering throughout their lives.

I think Rolfe posted about this once, apparently in bad weather the hens don't use their allocated outdoor space and subsequently can end up being packed more densely than "barn" raised chickens, with all the behavioural and disease problems that causes.

[bluskool]

Hey if you don't agree with a persons eating habits, fine, but don't try to change them. Personally i love me some fried animal flesh and make no distinction from where it comes from. If you wish to pretend you are getting kind and humane meat for moral smugness great. Just dont really believe you actually know where your food came from based solely on the label and the hippy behind the counter, you just look foolish. All this bs of organic, free range, ect ect is just marketing ploys to charge more and make you feel better. In some cases the same is true for kosher foods as well, most of the time kosher food is shipped according to the definition. However just like organic and all the rest of the terms, these are just labels that are very easily applied to any pallet of foodstuffs depending on supply needs.

Just eat your damn kfc, and bitch about politics. Or go vegan, i could care less as i will never give up my steak and i shall continue to be happy.

Welcome to the forums Matt. Who are you directing this to? If it is me, I think it is safe to assume that you did not read any of my posts in this thread. You seem to be addressing some generic hippy straw man you have in your head and certainly not any view I have expressed in this thread.

[bluskool]

Actually, I am pretty sure (a phrase that means here that I do not know absolutely and am not really planning hard research on it)that animals do not have sufficient intellectual capacity for the specific thought/concept "I do not want to be eaten!" even in some symbolic form. At best, they will avoid expected pain normally and things they have been taught mean danger/pain/hurt. But no concept for personal death/be eaten.:)

You may be right. My hunch is that birds and non-human mammals probably have more intellectual capacity than we think they do. I don't think we know enough neuroscience to be able to say if this question is even answerable, but my hunch is that it is.

My point about cruelty was if you're that worried about it don't kill them. It strikes me as odd to get worked up over how good the lives of chickens are when the only reason for their existence is to get put down for a dirt nap and turned into dinner.

I am not sure why. That doesn't seem odd to me at all. Let's say there are two people that breed working dogs. One keeps their dogs tied up in all weather conditions without shelter, beats them when they make a mistake and never takes them to the vet. The other person cares for their dogs well, provides them shelter, takes them to vet regularly, bathes them, etc. Would you really say that there is no moral difference between the two people since they are both raising dogs to sell? Would you also think it odd that I would rather buy a dog from the person who cares for their dogs even though I am only buying the dog to work?

[bluskool]

I think Rolfe posted about this once, apparently in bad weather the hens don't use their allocated outdoor space and subsequently can end up being packed more densely than "barn" raised chickens, with all the behavioural and disease problems that causes.

Wouldn't that mean they just need a bigger shelter?

[Darat]

Wouldn't that mean they just need a bigger shelter?

No - because that would cost more and farmers tend to want to maximise their profits.

[bluskool]

No - because that would cost more and farmers tend to want to maximise their profits.

The strength of that argument depends on how much consideration you have for the well-being of the birds. If none, then the whole idea of free-range, whether it gives the birds a better existence or not, is pointless to begin with.

[Darat]

The strength of that argument depends on how much consideration you have for the well-being of the birds. If none, then the whole idea of free-range, whether it gives the birds a better existence or not, is pointless to begin with.

It doesn't really - if you can't turn a profit on keeping the chickens you can't keep them no matter how much you are concerned about their welfare (unless you are independently wealthy from the money your chickens make).

For eggs and meat to carry the "free range" descriptor in the UK (and I think the EU) there are certain minimum standards, such as how much space the birds have to have, that they have access to outside space and so on that have to be met. Once the farmer has met those standards there is no monetary incentive for the farmer to go beyond that and farmers are first and foremost business people and raising chickens for eggs or meat is a business.

[iknownothing]

Going down a bit of a tangent here but I think I draw a distinction somewhere between 'farmed' animals and 'wild' animals. I'm fine with eating a chicken but wouldn't want to shoot an eagle just to eat its meat. I'm fine with eating dogs farmed for the purpose of being food but wouldn't eat the next door neighbours' puppy. So I guess the question is whether you can farm humans for the purpose of food and whether I would have a problem with that.....

Well I would say the opposite. I feel better about eating a deer that was able to run around and live its natural deer life until the moment it was shot, than I do about eating animals that live in factory farm conditions.

Of course, that doesn't include eating endangered species or people's pets.

Actually, my major ethical hesitation is in eating predators. Like an alligator or something. It just doesn't feel right. I figure that a deer, cow or chicken falls into the "gets eaten" category of life, and I am okay with it.

Oh, and my other major hesitation (but not because of ethics) is with anything that resembles an insect. Lobster, crabs, shrimp. Yuck.

That's true. There is also an emotional connection with things that look like us. I bet that most people would have a problem eating a chimpanzee. It doesn't really answer the ethical question though.

People in some places do eat chimps though, correct? For that matter, people in some places are fine with eating humans. So is it just variable by culture?

[bluskool]

It doesn't really - if you can't turn a profit on keeping the chickens you can't keep them no matter how much you are concerned about their welfare (unless you are independently wealthy from the money your chickens make).

For eggs and meat to carry the "free range" descriptor in the UK (and I think the EU) there are certain minimum standards, such as how much space the birds have to have, that they have access to outside space and son that have to be met. Once the farmer has met those standards there is no monetary incentive for the farmer to go beyond that and farmers are first and foremost business people and raising chickens for eggs or meat is a business.

I don't disagree with you. My point is that if the requirements for the free-range label don't actually lead to the birds being treated better, it defeats the purpose for me since concern for the well-being of the birds is the only reason I find compelling for using presumably less efficient farming practices.

[iknownothing]

I don't disagree with you. My point is that if the requirements for the free-range label don't actually lead to the birds being treated better, it defeats the purpose for me since concern for the well-being of the birds is the only reason I find compelling for using presumably less efficient farming practices.

I think there's a lot of progress to be made in how labels like "free range" are earned. But, what I reason when I buy "cage free" eggs is, buying them at least shows that there is a market for such things. The more that people buy those, the more that a better supply will hopefully rise to meet the demand.

[Squishua]

My brain obsesses over having as consistent a world view as possible. If I thought like you did, then I would also have to say that it is fine to kill and eat humans if they taste good.
Have any pets, like a dog? Doesn't make it seem ok to take a person for a walk, let him poop on the sidewalk, then scoop it into a bag and dispose of it... does it?

See? No dissonance required! :-)

[Squishua]

Duplicate - oops

[Squishua]

Would "free range humans" be aware of their destination?
Or would that be masked so that as the flock is culled, those chosen go to the packing plant without any fore-knowledge of their fate
As long as they don't discover what "To Serve Man" is about.

[Slimething]

Let's say there are two people that breed working dogs. One keeps their dogs tied up in all weather conditions without shelter, beats them when they make a mistake and never takes them to the vet. The other person cares for their dogs well, provides them shelter, takes them to vet regularly, bathes them, etc. Would you really say that there is no moral difference between the two people since they are both raising dogs to sell? Would you also think it odd that I would rather buy a dog from the person who cares for their dogs even though I am only buying the dog to work?

I don't see the relevance to high-efficiency farming vs cage-free voodoo. To put a fine point on it, it wouldn't matter because you'd be buying the dogs for meat. Your analogy would be en pointe if you were buying chickens to work.

[Slimething]

I think there's a lot of progress to be made in how labels like "free range" are earned. But, what I reason when I buy "cage free" eggs is, buying them at least shows that there is a market for such things. The more that people buy those, the more that a better supply will hopefully rise to meet the demand.

The progress you see is the result of wealth. People with money in their pockets and a lot of time on their hands don't have to constantly be finding their next meal. For some, their meat must now have the right provenance.

Reminds me of a joke:
Q. What's the fastest bird on the planet?
A. An Ethiopian chicken.

Worrying about how your meal felt before it died is OK, I guess. I don't do it. I don't believe most ranchers/farmers torture the animals that make them their money. That would take too much time.

[MattRussNC]

Forgive me for being quick to take an ill tone when it comes to such topics that to me seem to place more value on the animals life than the humans. In many arguments of free range or organic the worst off among us for the most part are not relevant as the food stuffs in question were never an option for them to start with, for the most part at least. Primarily it seems to me at least that the largest benefactors of mass produced low cost chicken, beef and pork products impact only the lower and middle class. So while saving lives may not always be the largest rallying cry for the low cost food that comes from this style of farming, it certainly greatly increases the quality of said lives. Thanks to those that conduct these large scale "dirty" farms a great many of the worlds lower class are able to at least feel as though they are not so bad off. If it were not for these farmers far to many would no longer have the option of meat with any regularity. That said i do not condone needless cruelty of animals for recreation as in dog fighting and other demented acts (hunting i do not put in that list). However should some cruelty in farming ease peoples hunger and bring happiness in having options on the plate i feel it is worth it.

In the end we must put a number on whats more important, as far as im concerned i would see the remainder every endangered species fried up if it went to the starving. When it comes to the quality of life to those of the lower class i feel a animals living conditions take a back seat. But hey i prejudiced i think human life is just more important, if not divinely then simply because we are stronger.

[bluskool]

Have any pets, like a dog? Doesn't make it seem ok to take a person for a walk, let him poop on the sidewalk, then scoop it into a bag and dispose of it... does it?

See? No dissonance required! :-)

Yes, I do have pets.
If it was a person that didn't have the capacity to understand that there is a place where people normally poop, I guess I would have to pick up their poop or put a diaper on them. And if the person would spontaneously run directly in front of cars after whatever it found interesting, I guess I would have to leash them or take a similar precautionary measure.

[bluskool]

People in some places do eat chimps though, correct? For that matter, people in some places are fine with eating humans. So is it just variable by culture?

Yes, that is why I said most people. There will be some cultural variance, but for the most part humans do feel more empathy towards animals that more closely resemble them.

[bluskool]

I don't see the relevance to high-efficiency farming vs cage-free voodoo. To put a fine point on it, it wouldn't matter because you'd be buying the dogs for meat. Your analogy would be en pointe if you were buying chickens to work.

The point of the analogy is that you are buying the dog and buying the chicken to serve your own ends, it need not matter what those ends are. If you really think that your objection has merit, you would have to think that the reason that it is wrong for a dog breeder to mistreat his dogs is because he is not selling them for food. If that's the case, can you explain why raising an animal for food suddenly makes mistreatment justifiable?

[Kevin_Lowe]

As for "suffering chickens"...I've raised chickens before...and really I have to condlude that it's really no more valid than whining about hook0pain from angled fish. Fish don't have the necessary brain parts to experience "pain"....


I'm pretty sure that this is a complete myth made up by people who like to fish. Whenever I've tried to track it down there's never been any hard evidence to back it up, and the research that I am aware of indicates that fish have stress hormones and responses just like we do.

Some people used to claim that all animals but humans were just automatons and that a dog, for example, could not experience pain. They had no evidence for their belief, but as far as they were concerned the burden of proof was on everybody else to prove that the animal howling and thrashing around in agony was really in pain.

This fish thing looks to me exactly like a modern version of the same comforting fairy story.


and really I don't think it's any stretch of the imagination to conclude that chickens lack the brain parts to suffer from "stress"; at least, in any way that's meaningfully comparable how humans, chimps and dolphins, etc., do.

Around here conclusions require evidence. I could say that I imagine that zebras enjoy being eaten by lions, but me imagining it has absolutely no evidentiary value.

Granted, I'd assumed chicken brains are bit higher on the totem pole than, say, a rainbow trout, but not _that_ much higher. they're stupid, eat poop copulate(or synonyms to that effect) type creatures, and have been bred to be such....I see no reason to conclude anything otherwise.

So that's an argument from personal ignorance, and I'm guessing the backup plan will be to try to shift the burden of proof. Do I win the million?

[Dinwar]

This argument is why I prefer to buy my meat/eggs from farmers I know. Well, that and my grandfather (where I used to get pork, eggs, chicken, etc) has a deal with the butcher. Most people don't know it, but "whole hog" sausage you get at a store isn't actually whole hog. Grandpa's uses ALL the cuts of meat, even the choice cuts usually left out. In terms of animal wellfare, I'm pretty certain that the animals are well treated. After all, I've helped out enough to know exactly how they're treated.

As for chicken factories....My opinion is mixed. On the one hand, overcrowding is obviously bad. From a purely economic standpoint having that much disease, death, and loss/reduction of investment isn't a good thing. And torturing animals for kicks is sick. On the other hand, chickens do tend to huddle up a lot, even in wide-open spaces. So it's not like "overcrowding" has the same definition for chickens as it does for humans.

and really I have to condlude that it's really no more valid than whining about hook0pain from angled fish. Than you've never raised chickens before. They're dumb as rocks, don't get me wrong--but they feel pain, and they remember what caused it. After you whack a chicken with a bucket a few times (roosters tend to try to attack people, and saying "Come on, play nice" doesn't work) they remember you, and avoid you.

and really I don't think it's any stretch of the imagination to conclude that chickens lack the brain parts to suffer from "stress"; at least, in any way that's meaningfully comparable how humans, The bolded part I agree with. Chickens are different, and thus have different requirements. Treating a chicken like a human is stupid. However, it's pure ignorance to say that they don't experience stress.

are bit higher on the totem pole than100% wrong way to think of organisms. "Higher" and "Lower" are leftover concepts from the Chain/Ladder/Whatever of Creation. Chickens are every bit as advanced as humans. Just with a different niche.

[Slimething]

The point of the analogy is that you are buying the dog and buying the chicken to serve your own ends, it need not matter what those ends are.
The ends matter very much and that is why your analogy fails. Maltreatment of an animal for slaughter is wrong (my opinion as well) but it will not affect the final product. Buy a pet that's been maltreated and you have a problem on your hands. In one case, nurture is important but on the other not.

If you really think that your objection has merit, you would have to think that the reason that it is wrong for a dog breeder to mistreat his dogs is because he is not selling them for food. If that's the case, can you explain why raising an animal for food suddenly makes mistreatment justifiable?
I was raising the point above. You said that buying meat was like buying dogs for pets or hunting or whatever. That's not true. You need a better analogy. Neither circumstance justifies maltreatment. The two phenomena are not related.

[bozman]

Personally, the only reason I buy them is because I enjoy telling others that I will only eat "cage free farm fresh" chickens. It's like having a conversation topic that's always ready, and it fits just about any kind of situation. Wife asks me what sounds good for dinner? I say "Oh, just about anything... but if it's chicken you know I only eat Cage Free Farm Fresh!" Or when the mail person arrives to give me a package, I'll casually say, "I wonder what this could be! Hopefully it's something good for dinner... but if it's chicken I'll only eat Cage Free Farm Fresh!" Once it even worked when I got pulled over for speeding. When the cop asked why I was driving so fast, I explained that I had to get to a certain store before it closed. Since it was chicken night, I had to get them at the store that sells "Cage Free Farm Fresh." The cop seemed impressed and let me go with a warning.

Yep, I'm doing my part to make sure they are treated humanely before I have them killed and slap them on the barbecue. ;)

[!Kaggen]

Pollan's view seems much more inline with my understanding. I have also heard that pastured chicken is the most humane method.

The legal free-range definition is a joke in practice. It defines floor area and access to the outdoors for chickens after the age of 2 -3 weeks.
There are a couple of problems with this:
1. Broiler chickens are so highly bred away from their wild relatives that they have almost completely lost their instinct for avoiding predation. They are completely oblivious to their surroundings. Unlike layers who are much more aware and will notice a predatory bird hovering overhead and take the necessary precautions. For this reason broilers should not be left unprotected in any environment, outside or inside.
2. Between 1 day and about 2-3 weeks baby chickens need to be indoors and be warm/sheltered at night or during bad weather until they have feathers and have built up immune systems that can cope with harsher environments. They also will not stray far from food, water and shelter. Now the definition of free range does not state the chickens must go outdoors, only must "access" to outdoors. If they never strayed out the open door of the chicken house as chicks they will rarely stray outside as adults especially when their food and water is inside. So free range producers are allowed to simply open the door of the chicken house to a yard after 2-3 weeks and therefore increase theoretical floor space as the chickens grow in size and allow "access" to the outdoors.
3. Those few chickens that might roam into the yard end up turning it into a barren mud bath in the winter and a concrete floor in the summer. This besides the pathogen build-up from feces. This defeats the idea of giving the chickens access to plants, insects etc...

The idea with pastured poultry is to physically take the 2-3 week old chickens out onto a pasture put them into small mobile cages which will protect them from incremental weather and predators and move them everyday onto new pasture. This reduces damage to the pastures, allows the chickens access everyday to fresh clean vegetation, insects, healthy soil and of course sunshine and fresh air.
Because they are moved everyday there is less chance of pathogen build-up in the soil and over fertilization from feces.
Its a clever way of bypassing having to deal with mountains of chicken feces, by getting the feces direct onto the land. Chickens are very inefficient in turning food into meat and thus the farmer grows and sells chickens and the normally lost nutrients go into fertilizing his fields. If you combine this system with cattle its even better as the chickens follow the cattle, scratch their dung around, eat the fly larvae and nibble on the herbage that the cows did not get too. This helps get an even fertilizer spread , reduce flies and maximize pasture usage. Some farmers have included turkeys and rabbit into this system too. Its a clever rational way and far better than "free range".


From what I've been told, "free range" means just that -- free range. Free to get soaking wet in the rain, peck each others' brains out, and suffer the other indignities of being a chicken in the outdoor company of other chickens.

So start supporting pastured poultry farmers then ;)

[bluskool]

The ends matter very much and that is why your analogy fails.

No, you don't understand the point of the analogy.

Maltreatment of an animal for slaughter is wrong (my opinion as well)

Wait, you do understand the point of the analogy.

...but it will not affect the final product.

:facepalm:

Buy a pet that's been maltreated and you have a problem on your hands. In one case, nurture is important but on the other not.

Okay, so what? I am not arguing that nurture is important for the quality of the meat.

You said that buying meat was like buying dogs for pets or hunting or whatever. That's not true. You need a better analogy. Neither circumstance justifies maltreatment. The two phenomena are not related.

No, they are related in the way that I said they were. In both cases you are buying an animal to suit your own ends. They are not related in the way you said they weren't. Mistreating a working dog will affect its quality as a working dog, but mistreating a chicken will not affect its quality as dinner. That difference, however, is irrelevant to my analogy. They are also unrelated in that one is a chicken and one is a dog, but that too is irrelevant to my analogy.

What you are doing is accusing me of a false analogy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy), but making a false charge of fallacy. Take a look at that Wikipedia article on false analogy, particularly the part about incorrectly classifying an analogy false.

[bluskool]

The legal free-range definition is a joke in practice. It defines floor area and access to the outdoors for chickens after the age of 2 -3 weeks.
There are a couple of problems with this:
1. Broiler chickens are so highly bred away from their wild relatives that they have almost completely lost their instinct for avoiding predation. They are completely oblivious to their surroundings. Unlike layers who are much more aware and will notice a predatory bird hovering overhead and take the necessary precautions. For this reason broilers should not be left unprotected in any environment, outside or inside.

Just to clarify, "broiler" is any chicken raised for meat (free-range included), not a specific breed of chicken. The type of chicken used most often in conventional broiler production, White Leghorn, has been bred to be entirely dependent on humans as you point out. But it is my understanding that free-range farmers use different breeds that are better suited for foraging. It would be stupid for them not to, since foraging birds mean less money spent on feed.

[!Kaggen]

Just to clarify, "broiler" is any chicken raised for meat (free-range included), not a specific breed of chicken. The type of chicken used most often in conventional broiler production, White Leghorn, has been bred to be entirely dependent on humans as you point out. But it is my understanding that free-range farmers use different breeds that are better suited for foraging. It would be stupid for them not to, since foraging birds mean less money spent on feed.

Yes a broiler is a meat bird.

The free range farmers that might use alternate breeds are an insignificant minority since the thick breast meat on the White Leghorn is what the public expects from a chicken. Also it is the same chicken breeders who supply the conventional and free-range producers with day-old chicks.
Pastured poultry producers who are serious about the market also use these birds.

Free-range producers seldom have foraging available for their birds as it is not a requirement for free-range labeling only space and access to the outdoors. The outdoors in most cases is a hard mud yard with no plants in sight.

Your right about being stupid about spending less money on feed. I know a pastured poultry producer that uses 2kg of feed for 1.5kg of bird and the conventional norm is 3 kg feed for 1.5kg bird.

[Slimething]

What you are doing is accusing me of a false analogy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy), but making a false charge of fallacy. Take a look at that Wikipedia article on false analogy, particularly the part about incorrectly classifying an analogy false.

Oh, dear! Your analogy was imperfect. I told you about it. It's my fault I did not understand your analogy. :confused:

Look, I take it all back! Your analogy was perfection itself. Who would quibble with an analogy that equated buying a pet and buying meat and adding animal cruelty into the mix. I mean how could I have been so stupid? :jaw-dropp

This is a derail and I don't want to continue discussing the details of logic. If you are satisfied with your analogy, so be it. :) I don't want to derail this thread.