Great article, thanks very much George. We can't stress enough how cruel it is what we do to caged chickens. I must say I cringe every time I see a pile of boxes with cage eggs. Knowing the torture these animals have to go through, it is disgusting that cage eggs still haven't been banned.

I simply try to tell everyone who wants to listen what George says in this article: Buying cage eggs means that you buy a product produced by animals that are in a continuous state of pain. It's about time the RSPCA sstarts working towards a ban on cage eggs.

Given a choice between a cage with access to a food supply but a cage with a equal access to a great big chook playground…. The chicken will stay close to the food supply and ignore the playground.

So the chook speaks, by her actions.

What dear old George is peddling is sentimentality.

He is promoting the notion that chooks care and are motivated by the same sentimental tish which motivates dear George.

If one ever saw chooks at play you would notice one of them is skinny with half its feather missing… chooks have a literal "pecking order" and the one at the end of that order gets picked on.

When chooks stop pursuing this terrible victimisation of one another (the “pecking order”), then we might consider applying the same values to them as George is twittering on about but until that time we should assume they are motivated by different standards and expectations to the bleeding hearts who see them as the emotional equivalents to humans.

thanks, col. that was the single most idiotic defence of battery cages, or of pretty much anything, i've ever read.

I reckon that's pretty spot on Col. Hey did you know a dog got a medal recently for jumping up and down on it's owner (performing CPR)? I'm sure the dog was so proud.

Well said George, too much animal advocacy is concnered with esoteric concepts of rights when what should really matter is the morality of carelessly treating another living being as if it were an inanimate object. As humans we have become blind to the terror we inflict on all other animals.
An aspect of egg producing which I find particularily dissapointing is what happens to the male chicks. The female chicks go onto a life of producing eggs but the male ones dont end up at kfc. The breed has been bred to lay eggs not produce meat and so they are "destroyed" within a couple of days of being born.

People are so thoughtless. I cringe when I think of the gut bacteria that get exploited so cruelly everyday, and the widdwe a-ants that get stood on when thoughtless *people* walk down the stweet.

This is one of those debates without an end,
The people need to have a variety of the same product to bye.
Free range eggs, cage eggs, so what.
You could keep going on for ever, where's the end.
Every day gods creatures are destroyed under someones foot.
I say chooks are a part of the human food chain.
Put a count on the unfortunate creatures that are eaten with free range chooks.
I prefer smoked chicken cabana, and omlets thank you.

What makes a creature, an animal, worthy of compassion or even consideration? What give us the right to exploit or kill another creature for our own benefit? Is it size, intelligence, abundance, sustainability of the kill? Surely the ability to feel emotions like pain, anger, sorrow, and fear are of more vital concern than the ability to use technology or to obey human expectations? The size of the heart should be more important than brain size.
The Church teaches that God gave humans dominion over the Earth, to be caretakers of His wonderful Creation. If we believe that God is Love, then this blessing of dominion must be part of His purpose, his great commission. However, the circle of compassion is mainly for humans. Non-human creatures are exploited, confined, tortured and killed as a resource for food without giving them at least some normal living conditions and allowing normal behaviors. It is human-caused hell on Earth for these animals!
The churches dispute modern ethical issues but the plight of living and sentient creatures is totally ignored, if not silently supported by Christians.

Once you bring religion into an opinion debate, you have a no gsituation.
Religion covers to wide a scope to talk about.
If that is your ways of living so be it, but don't force it on any one else.
Food chains exist in every life style, or evolution on earth.
You can't deny any of them the chance of a feed.
A chook is very edible and so are their eggs.
I suppose you say you don't touch either.
If thats your preference, live with it.
Don't be like catholics and cleans your soul once a week, and that makes every thing ok.

There can never be a justification for causing needless suferring. Caged chickens suffer needlessly, therefore the practise of keeping these creatures under such conditions is wrong.

Bushbasher “thanks, col. that was the single most idiotic defence of battery cages, or of pretty much anything, i've ever read.”

Then maybe you could challenge what I said.

Because, as it stands, what you have written contains the debating prowess which I commonly associate as coming from a lump of KFC.

VivKay brings on the moral issue and as Desmond points out creates a moralistic no-go situation.

So Viv, if we are made in the image of God… and Jesus held critter rights so highly… why was he not a vegetarian and why did he choose from among fishermen for apostles?

Nalood100 “Caged chickens suffer needlessly, therefore the practise of keeping these creatures under such conditions is wrong.”

Read my post.. given a choice.. chooks make a free choice and choose what is closest to the food supply… therefore where does “needless suffering” come into what would amount to rational case of “non fit injuria”?

I read an article in New Scientist about a decade ago on the issue of battery hens, and it was clear that the battery hens showed no greater signs of distress than free range hens.

In fact hens that grew up in a cage would remain in the cage if the door was open and would return if forced out. This behaviour would remain with them pretty much indefinitely.

While I recoil in horror at the thought of being caged, I understand that using human emotions and thoughts on a chicken is ridiculous.

I hardly imagine the Noble chicken freed from his shackles striding forth into the wide blue world to forge his destiny, fame and fortune.

The real world is very different from the wind in the willows.

The first people on Earth, according the Genesis Creation story, were vegan and were give the whole garden of Eden to choose their food from. Sin and rebellion meant the desire for meat and infliction of suffering onto the Earth. Many early Christians were vegetarian but the Church was standardised under Emperor Constantine and it was prohibited. There is no evidence of Jesus being a meat eater - probably only fish! There is no mandate to cause the slavery, suffering and confinement of animals as a human resource. In fact, physiologically, humans are more like primates than carnivores. If we emulate our nearest "cousins" we would be basing the great majority of our diet on plants. Even Chimps, omnivores, have only a very small amount of meat, much less than any human society. We reap the suffering we sow due to Western diseases of excess. A religion that teaches compassion should be protesting about the exploitation of His creatures.

Well said George.

We humans have managed to land men on the moon and send objects in to space to investigate our solar system and yet we still can't manage to farm eggs in a humane way.

To argue evidence shows that caged hens return to the cage if that is where the food source is means they prefer those conditions is drawing a long bow. Humans do the same thing in refugee camps where the conditions are appalling if the food is only served in that camp. Long term prisoners can become so institutionalised they find it difficult to leave their confined 'safe' environment.

Perhaps those in doubt should visit their local battery farm and see if you think those chickens look healthy and well cared for. Make sure to look at their feet, feathers and beaks.

The best thing is to get your own backyard chooks or buy 'real' free range eggs and vote with your feet.

You don't have to be a vegetarian to advocate for more humane treatment of the animals we eat both how they are killed and how they live.

Chickens are very well cared for in intensive raising conditions. That is the whole point, to raise them in optimal growing conditions, disease free, low stress and with a ready supply of excellent food and clean water.

This is the sort of environment the Left would wish on whole populations: housing and food for free, everything 'sorted' and controlled by big brother (big sister these days!) and you don't even have to see the kids, who are taken at an early age and raised by the State. Paradise for a Left-wing chicken I would have thought.

Coming from a farming background I know many farmers but few of them could be considered well off or at all well paid considering the size of their investment and the amount of work they do. Chicken (incl egg) farming in Australia is highly efficient and it has to be to compete. Most people are glad they have the supply of first class protein and at a prices they can afford. Most people are aware that farmers live from day to day and are at the mercy of cruel seasons (a good reason why chooks are in sheds), the market and of course the endless flow of regulation and inspection by government.

George, what you really need to show is how farmers can live high on the hog like most lawyers, while producing little of any practical benefit to the community and under the protection of a self-serving club. Solve that and doubtless more farmers will be able to afford the inefficiency of lower production, higher costs and uncertain markets.

As for the consumer on a low income who needs protein, what self-respecting lawyer would worry about them, eh George?

Bushbasher: “thanks, col. that was the single most idiotic defence of battery cages, or of pretty much anything, i've ever read.”

I second that.

When i was a kiddie, an uncle (one of many) and aunt had a small mixed dairy and chicken farm. The chickens were free range but had a nice, spacious, clean and well ventilated wooden shed that they returned to in the evening.

He sold eggs to whoever drove in and supplied to small shops. There was immediate quality control - if the eggs were not up to par the buyer wouldn't return. People driving in - well it was like a family outing and they got a bargain of a whole tray of eggs and maybe an old boiler or two to stew. The hens who had aged were given a quick and humane end after a long (ish, for a hen) and peaceful life.

It was just beaut as a kid to sit in a tree and watch the hens; some with chicks. I loved hearing roosters in the morning (still do). Fun feeding them; collecting eggs and all of those things.

One holidays I went to visit and there were no hens; chickens; happy sites and sounds or pleasant chores.

EGG BOARDS had been created - supposedly to ensure product quality.

My uncle couldn't afford to adhere to the production quota that was imposed. People got their eggs up to two weeks old and from goodness knows where.

No more happy farms - instead battery hens. No doubt more easily taxable.

A genuine case of knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

George - excellent article.

'I hardly imagine the Noble chicken freed from his shackles striding forth into the wide blue world to forge his destiny, fame and fortune.

Applause!

If we're all supposed to be vegetarian, how come animals are made from meat! Hey, answer that one!

pelican,

'We humans have managed to land men on the moon and send objects in to space to investigate our solar system and yet we still can't manage to farm eggs in a humane way.'

It's not a priority. I think the use of the word human-e is where you are going wrong. They're chickens.

'buy 'real' free range eggs'
Yeah like I'm gonna be able to check up on where each egg really comes from and check in fortnightly to see that the chickens there are having a fab time and are intellectually stimulated.

cornflower,

'This is the sort of environment the Left would wish on whole populations: housing and food for free, everything 'sorted' and controlled by big brother (big sister these days!) and you don't even have to see the kids, who are taken at an early age and raised by the State. Paradise for a Left-wing chicken I would have thought.'

More! rapturous applause!

'The chickens were free range but had a nice, spacious, clean and well ventilated wooden shed that they returned to in the evening.'

Ah, but did they have a log fire, and a cognac? I will be looking for the log fire and cognac range eggs next time I go shopping.

'The hens who had aged were given a quick and humane end after a long (ish, for a hen) and peaceful life.'

How did you know that? I didn't know chickens were able to convey such feelings to humans. How do chickens experience peacefulness? Are they spiritual? Do they prefer solitude? Do they fight with their in-laws? Does it vary from hen to hen, and should we really be providing life counselling to make sure of the psychological health of the hens?

Col Rouge seems to think that, because chickens have a pecking order, this justifies our abuse of them. Of course it justifies nothing at all. Because humans build concentration camps and practise genocide is not a justification for the needless abuse of innocent humans. Does one logic apply to humans and another logic apply to other sopecies?

Houlley

Do you believe chickens, or any animal for that matter, can feel pain. Why do we assume because an animal is not human that immediately absolves us of any responsibility for that creature’s welfare or quality of life?

One doesn't have to anthropomorphise to observe animals feel pain, care for their young, some even forming monogamous partnerships for life.

If you could choose a quick painless death for an animal you are about to eat why wouldn’t you? Same applies to the environment in which they are raised.

Just because chickens would not naturally choose to retire with a cognac in front of a log fire in the evening, does not mean they enjoy being de-beaked or having to live unnaturally on wire floors with resulting deformed feet.

Cornflower
How does animal cruelty become a big brother issue? Are you out there campaigning against murder, assault or other laws. We have laws for a reason, including animal cruelty (not enough in my mind) for good reasons. We don’t like news stories about how young hoons may cruelly torment a kitten at a railway station, yet we are quite happy to let some farmed animals live their short lives in awful conditions.

Perhaps if we gave the hens some cognac of an evening it might dull the pain.

Thanks Pelican you said it so well.

Houellebecq: I admit it - for once (no, second time now I think on it) I laughed at one of your posts. Reminded me of the movie Chicken Run. Pity that you applied that humour to supporting cruelty. What a waste.

However, the point of my comment was to illustrate that we can be kind to animals and still get produce - and so much more in terms of small local industry; community connections; independence and nice family memories.

I find it a bit hard to understand how we can be arguing about whether or not it's ok to be cruel.

Here's a pledge site anyway with information:

http://www.freebetty.com/

Just to rub salt in the wound, I read an article some weeks ago where someone had calculated that about twice as many eggs were being sold as free range as could be produced by registered free range farms.

I suspect that the extra 50% about you pay for empancipated hens is going into the feed box of the producers.

Next the boxes will be too restrictive and eggs (potential chickens) will be packaged in shoe boxes where they will be free to roam.

Shadow Minister,

I have to admit I buy free range eggs. But that's what messes with my head. How do you really know? Maybe we need a photo of the actual chicken the eggs came from on the front of the pack. Maybe a letter about how the extra money we are paying for the eggs has helped the chicken and it's family.

pelican,

'pain' to 'quality of life' is a bit of a slide down the wedge. Show me a screaming animal and I will be on side. Show me though, don't tell me. Tell me the animal 'feels cramped, and needs more solitude', or 'has a burning desire to get more exercise so he doesn't beat the missus', 'relies on us to encourage it to exercise' and I cant take you seriously.

I think it's a case of crying wolf. The greenies and animal liberationists have gone on about 'psychological' effects on animals and are totally inconsistent themselves about which species they want protected. The manatee is much more endangered than the dolphin but gets 100th the attention, and I'm sure rats would never get a look in were they to become endangered.

Besides, the food chain isn't 'humane'. Humans are humans and they are as naughty as a cat toying with a lizard until it dies a slow death. It's inconsistent to say humans should be 'above' and simultaneously 'be one' with nature. Nature is cruel. If chickens were big enough and liked the taste of us they wouldn't return the favour that's for sure.

Pynchme,

That's ok I laugh at most of your posts.

Top order carnivore predators cannot include humans as the rate of our population growth is far to heavy to support. Our "hunting and gathering" for bearers have been much more celebrated for their hunting, but the reality is that the gathering part was probably much more part of their diet. We are actually physiologically more foraging herbivores than carnivores, despite the hype and what our culture and conditioning tells us.
Economies developed from a culture of breeding, herding and eating animals. Civilisations meant captive domestic animals instead of a subsistence level of hunting. Livestock ownership became a currency.
Our nearest "cousins", Chimpanzees, are omnivores, but the amount of meat they eat is minimal compared to what most human societies eat. Chimps may eat up to 3% meat, but mostly fruits and nuts. If we want to continue our livestock reliance and gorge ourselves while other countries go hungry, then animals lose their rights to normal behaviors and conditions. Humans will continue to abuse and consume the planet.
Most people accept Darwin's theories, yet throw them out when it is convenient! The food pyramid should be turned upside down.

Nalood1 “Because humans build concentration camps and practise genocide is not a justification for the needless abuse of innocent humans. Does one logic apply to humans and another logic apply to other species”

You know when someone is totally desperate and devoid of any rational argument ……

Their sentimental dross descends to making fatuous analogies with Nazi Germany.

Nalood,1 there is no comparison between battery egg production and concentration camps, for one very good reason

Concentration camps with designed with the primary goal to exterminate its inmates

Battery egg production units lacks that primary objective. Every operator of a battery egg unit is going to maintain the environment at its optimum for egg production and if chooks is anything like women (re female egg producers)….

I will point out, in simple words, so even you can understand
:
women imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps ceased having periods (not ovulating = unhappy) almost immediately they were interred

Now, if there are, as you imply, any sense or comparison between battery egg production and concentration camps … hen egg production, (ovulation ) would cease and the practice of battery eggs farms abandoned, ego.. ovulating chooks = happy chooks.

So I suggest you find some other reason to bolster your feeble view, instead of relying on what is a lame-brained, sentimental notion and a stupidly erroneous analogy between battery egg production and concentration camps

Now, I have more than adequately resolved the error of your reasoning. I suggest we all forget the namby-pamby lisping whines of “animal advocates” who think from a perspective of complete sentimentality and believe that, as Shadow Minister implied “Wind in the Willows” was a biography about a real frog.

Pelican.. I suppose your logon and gender explains your avian solidarity with female chooks : - )

But it does not explain you “seconding” what I have already described as “the debating prowess which I commonly associate as coming from a lump of KFC.

Maybe you could produce some to real argument instead of offering written support to bushbasher’s putrid and pointless garbage.

Houellebecq: "Show me though, don't tell me."

I doubt you'll bother looking at these (of hundreds available - I just grabbed the first few) and I doubt that kindness is something that can be taught this way. If you, Col and others need to have the WHYS of compassion spelled out I'm not sure if or how that can be inspired at all, especially in this medium. Anyway, give it a try:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ--faib7to&feature=channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dOauM9LNTc

Col's theory about ovulation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd_pCS9N5Vg&feature=channel

Women stopped menstruating because they were starved - like a female with anorexia will stop menstruating. Athletes with low body fat and high energy demands will sometimes stop menstruating too.

Chickens, on the other hand, have ample feed available and little opportunity to move enough to burn up energy.

Excellent article, George, we need more Humans to be 'human'.
On the question of morality, if I was going to emulate someone, I think I would choose someone I admired. I can't think of any reason to say, well chooks do it, so it must be alright...
What sort of idiot would copy a chook?
On the question of economics, eggs have no more intrinsic value than anything else. The law is there to create a level playing field between all people; including one would hope, business competitors.
In other words, battery hen production came into being to gain a competitive edge against more humane forms of production. If the practice was made illegal, competition would still exist, and I think even some battery producers would breathe a sigh of relief; inasmuch as they feel forced to do it, in order to be competitive.
It is interesting to note that many (if not all) hunter gatherer cultures had a great respect and empathy for their prey; adopting animals as totems, etc.
Is it possible city living, and plastic wrapped foods has cost (some of) us a certain 'humanity'?

Houellebecq, no question that you'll find plenty of inconsistency and unjustified moral superiority amongst "greenies and animal liberationists". but i think there's an element of cheap shot there.

first of all, you're lumping a lot of people, with hugely varying beliefs, into one big basket.

secondly, though of course you're right that the food chain is not humane, humans of course *are* humane. though we are part of nature, that does not negate the clear fact that we *do* in general feel concern for other humans, and at least some other animals. which species, and why, and how, that's obviously very far from clear.

thirdly, though inconsistency can be a sign of wooly thinking, it can also be a sign of grappling semi-successfully with real, difficult moral issues. moral sense develops. that can be true of an individual and of a society. to say "there's no moral issue here" makes it easy to be consistent, but probably only by being wrong.

fourthly, your quotes for the "show me, don't tell me" bit are made up, and your response is too harsh even if they weren't. yes, we shouldn't anthropomorphise, but it's a fine line between that and empathy.

fifthly, your talk about the relative endangerment of species, dolphins versus manatees etc, is really quite a different point to the ethical treatment of animals. (by the way i think you're wrong about the rat).

sixthly, for all that, i appreciate your posts. col rouge, you ain't.

Bushbasher seems to be selective in his responses and has, in replying to Houllebeqc in listed point form and added a derisory comment regarding myself. Yet he has completely failed to actually challenge anything which I said. Maybe he has been bashed with a bush too many times….
And get this there is only one Houllebeqc… one unique individual

And only one Col Rouge… another unique individual

But to bushbashers… wooly minded sentimentalists seem to be as common as chooks around here.

Pynchme.. the point I was making and you are confirming was initiated by nalood1 00 with the comment “. Because humans build concentration camps and practise genocide is not a justification for the needless abuse of innocent humans. Does one logic apply to humans and another logic apply to other sopecies?”

Which was nalood100 cheap shot attempt to sensationalise battery egg production by placing it on a par with concentration camps.

Thankyou for your observation to starving, which confirms the point I was making, that the processes of battery egg production are the antithesis of concentration camps.

Nalood100, please note you are being contradicted by someone on your own side of the debate.

Btw regarding your comment on exercise… go back and read my original post… given a choice chooks choose to sit near the food supply than run around the pasture…. A bit like many modern children

Come back and try again when you can scratch up some thing else I can so easily invalidate.

This topic has become surprisingly entertaining. Must be because Col is in the house.

pynchme,

How will I know that the chook snuff video links you put up are taken at the same location where my eggs come from? How will I know my hen is involved? I didn't watch them obviously, I assume that kinda stuff is grief porn for greenies? I generally make it a rule not to bother reading people's links. It encourages people like Fractelle to get a wet spot, and I wouldn't want you to get aroused by my recognising your googling skills like Fraccy does.

bushbasher,

'i appreciate your posts. col rouge, you ain't.'
It was no trouble. Oh I wish I was Col Rouge.

Col,

'given a choice chooks choose to sit near the food supply than run around the pasture'

COl you sound to me like a chook liberationist. I'm sure the communists would like to stifle the chook's free choice to sit and eat and get fat if it so wishes. You're a beacon of consistency.

All,

I think cornflower has nailed it...

' to raise them in optimal growing conditions, disease free, low stress and with a ready supply of excellent food and clean water.

This is the sort of environment the Left would wish on whole populations: housing and food for free, everything 'sorted' and controlled by big brother (big sister these days!) and you don't even have to see the kids, who are taken at an early age and raised by the State. Paradise for a Left-wing chicken I would have thought.'

Houellebecq, (Col and Co): You demanded to be shown rather than just told; I wondered why you didn't bother Googling it or whatever and suspected it was the 'head in the sand' strategy to remain happily ignorant.

As I guessed, you didn't have the courage of your convictions to watch the Utubes, but at least it's a fair bet that you have a conscience, otherwise you wouldn't feel compelled to hide from it.

Col if you knew anything about chickens you'd know that they like to wander and browse (chicks in tow sometimes - they show the chicks how to scratch, forage and take dust baths). They don't sit on their feed dish all day - but go about pecking grass and insects and the like. They don't sit in their own droppings, unless they have no way to escape that. The idea that they are kept or that eggs are produced hygienically would be hilarious if I didn't think you were serious. Look at the utubes - ordinary egg production.

Someone was going on about big brother or communism or something causing animal rights campaigners/ zealots. I see it as quite the other way. For one thing; not everyone that is pro-kindness is a zealot; vegan or vegetarian. I see those who pooh-pooh concerns about the egg industry as followers waiting for rationalist economics and $ justification to tell them what is right and wrong. Can't get much more unimaginative or unoriginal than that.

If we all created a demand for creatures to be farmed and dispatched as kindly as possible, there'd be an industry for it (like when my uncle used to farm) and we'd get better eggs anyway.

Btw: If you saw a youngster torturing a chook - doing something gross to it - would you approve? Would you stop it happening? Please explain why you would or wouldn't.

For a short while at the school I was at we had an exercise of raising free range broiler chickens as a "business". One of my stronger memories is having to burn off a chunk off the top of their beaks to stop them cannabalising each other. This did not entirely stop them killing eachother.

Was it more humane than keeping them separate? Why on earth do we ascribe human values and emotions to these birds?

See pynchme, you don't understand my position.

'f we all created a demand for creatures to be farmed and dispatched as kindly as possible, there'd be an industry for it (like when my uncle used to farm) and we'd get better eggs anyway.'

I agree. But there's currently no way of knowing. As Shadow Minister said, there is 50% more free range eggs being sold than can possibly have been produced by the free range farms. So how do you know you're not eating non-free range eggs yourself.

'Btw: If you saw a youngster torturing a chook - doing something gross to it - would you approve? Would you stop it happening? Please explain why you would or wouldn't.'

I would. Unless the child was starving and in the process of killing it for food. Which was exactly my point. Show me. Don't show me some greenie grief porn, prove to me that the actual eggs I am buying came precisely from that place. And prove to me the chicken really is in pain, not just 'crowded' and denied doing what it 'likes' to do.

A question for you. If you saw many humans starving, and the only way of getting enough food was to farm chickens in this way, would you still rather the chickens were more comfortable and the little kiddies died. I'm not saying this is the case in any way, but hypothetically, would you?

Houlle “COl you sound to me like a chook liberationist “

HA HA not at all… I don’t think critter experience life on the same complex emotional level as humans… thus the notion of “chook liberation” would be as wasted on chooks as it would be on the grit chooks nibble on to make eggshell.

Pynchme “You demanded to be shown rather than just told”

I demand nothing and particularly not when a bunch of wallies make attempts, like nalood100 (misspelt “noodle”), to apply chook welfare on the same standards as humans. Putting “chook life quality” and their emotional esteem equal (re the stupid analogy to concentration camps) are the reactions of an intellectual dullard, however, it might be a reflection of developed reasoning skills comparable to a chook.

Pynchme “Col if you knew anything about chickens you'd know that they like to wander and browse”

Perhaps but the test should be “do they miss ‘wandering and browsing’ when they have never experienced it and how reliant is a chooks life on “wandering and browsing” – have you asked the chook or can you produce any wandering and browsing surveys or statistics proving your point or responded to by chooks?

Regarding the pointless torture of any animal is as offensive to me as anyone but such behavior, where sadistic gratification is the objective, is not comparable with commercial farming practices.

Cornflower “ to raise them in optimal growing conditions, disease free, low stress and with a ready supply of excellent food and clean water.”

I agree

It gets back to the ambience of the production process… stressed chooks are likely to be less productive than happy ones… and I did mention (modestly), on a previous post to this thread “happiness”.

I make a point of buying eggs from caged hens… why.. because they are likely as content and happy as free-range, despite what emotions some wallies imply (without the results of chook surveys) and they give them to me at half the price of the so called “free range” product, labeled solely to salve the conscience of the chronic sentimentalists.

Shadow Minister, hens end up "cannibalistic" due to stress! By crowding them together in such confined spaces, they become more aggressive. This is why part of their beaks are chopped off if caged. Hens do not normally display this amount of aggression. People crowded together in ghettos are more likely to evidence higher crime rates. The tails of piglets are chopped off for the same reason. Many people clearly have no empathy with animals and think of them as objects, resources, rather than as sentient creatures. We many have ended the official slavery of people, but the slavery of animals continues.

Yes Col I do feel an affinity and 'at-one' with the feathered creatures. That is all I can say - no point trying to teach an old dog new tricks. :)

Houlley, there is pleny of evidence - I have already said go visit a battery farm (if they let you in) or read a book, google etc, - make your up your own mind - although it seems you already have.

Personally, I blame "Humpty Dumpty" authors. It is of course, an intentional thwartmentisation of human compassion for hatching chickens. I'm sure it's part of the New World Order the Illuminati have in store for us.

Chickens first - then humans. Think I'm wrong? Ha! Read the US dollar bill, read the Mayan calendar. It's obvious: after 2012 it's one eyed chickens with pyramid shaped eggs. Why? Easier to transport so bankers and interbreeding cartels can save on road costs.

Turtles? Cute. Penguins? Very, very cute and they have Attenborough as their Patron. Poo powered pigeons? Annoying, but protected by law from assault.

Still, we can kill 'em ever so slowly via high cholesterol by tossing Macca's chippes at 'em as we wait... and wait... for public transport. Illuminati owned public transport no less. Then, in preparation for pyramid shaped seats, they squeeze us into carriages - like, like... hen cages! See?!

Oh Humpty! If only you had sat on a cage floor.

Houellebecq: The utubes aren't "grief porn". You say that as if you are somehow superior for ignoring the cruelties that are within our power to stop. What followers you all are.

Re: your question: I would have the animals killed quickly to supply the food.

Nobody said that a creature's life is worth more than a human's, but an animal's life isn't worthless either. I believe it has more value though than whether or not you get scrambled eggs occasionally.

Your answer to my question: As you want to deny it, the cruelty that you SAY you would stop a child from committing, is in the same ballpark as this mass cruelty - callousness; desensitization; barbarity and so on - birds of a feather. In each case, the exploiter/s gets something for themselves out of indifference to the pain and suffering of another being. That is - self-interest over rides any concern for the pain of another living thing.

There is *no* need for them to suffer just to deliver eggs. If there weren't a lot of absurd local council regulations - we could keep our own chickens. If there were no egg boards; it would be a reasonable economic proposition for eggs to be produced in a way that doesn't require mass cruelty.

Btw - Col haven't I seen you refer to yourself somewhere/ sometime as a libertarian ? Houellebecq; don't you think you are something in that general direction yourself? - so what; you're libertarian as long as it serves your wants but you're not when there's an injustice somewhere else. That's pretty inconsistent and hypocritical isn't it.

Also Col. nobody said that chickens are like humans; but the disgusting conditions in which prisoners were kept and the conditions in which chickens are kept were/are very much the same. Your determinedly cruel ignorance is one thing - almost tolerable, and I could let it pass - but your nasty sneering and twisting of the analagy, long after the (perfectly reasonable) comment irks me such that I feel compelled to state it.

Pynchme “so what; you're libertarian as long as it serves your wants but you're not when there's an injustice somewhere else. That's pretty inconsistent and hypocritical isn't it.”

“Yes dear”….

You see, it is like this… people are not critters and critters are not people.

“but the disgusting conditions in which prisoners were kept and the conditions in which chickens are kept were/are very much the same”

“Yes dear”….

You see, it is like this… people are not critters and critters are not people.

“Your determinedly cruel ignorance is one thing - almost tolerable, and I could let it pass - but your nasty sneering and twisting of the analagy, long after the (perfectly reasonable) comment irks me such that I feel compelled to state it”

“Yes dear”….

You see, it is like this… people are not critters and critters are not people.

Now you have said it I assume it is off your chest and we can move on….

Perhaps we could discuss hog farming, trout breeding and turning cattle into sex machines to keep the milk flowing…

Or maybe we could have an afternoon siesta

Yawn

OK Rouge, I'll bite.
"You see, it is like this… people are not critters and critters are not people."
In what way? People are more compassionate than critters?
You fail.
People are able to empathise with others, even 'critters'?
You fail.
Humans are able to imagine what it must feel like, to be a victim?
You fail.
Rouge, you hit the bottom of the barrel when you suggested we should treat chooks, the way chooks treat each other.
Only to a libertarian as shallow as you, would that make sense.