[flagged]
If so, awful take. This is infinitely better and most definitely a step in the right direction.
I don't see much difference between killing chicks after them being born, or stopping them from being born in the first place. The only difference is in the efficiency of business operations.
If my values are that each deserves a chance at a life--whatever life it may be, I can advocate for searching for a better solution. I did not prescribe an alternative, don't pretend that I have.
EDIT: Damn, the hostile responses (Ad hominem, bad faith arguments, etc) to such a simple philosophical discussion I've been getting are unbelievable. I don't think there is much value in participating anymore. Thank you everyone for your responses.
--
Isn't this carrying the pro life movement too far? Chickens do not have souls, in the biblical context.
If this isn't a religious thing, then note the article has two methods. One detecting feather differences, the other a genetic test.
The genetic test should be quite early. If at that stage, I imagine a blade of grass has more intelligence, there isn't a brain yet, and nerves don't even exist.
No pain, no feeling, just a few dozen cells hanging out.
Does this not seem OK to you, if the case?
I do. One of those involves a (presumably painful) death of a conscious animal. The other does not.
> No, you are putting words into my mouth.
As an onlooking third party, I don't understand. You further say:
> I don't see much difference between killing chicks after them being born, or stopping them from being born in the first place.
But as far as I can understand it, that is the same thing.
> I did not prescribe an alternative, don't pretend that I have.
It was not supposed that you were prescribing an alternative. The words "you think the solution" were not introducing a supposed solution of yours; they were introducing a solution (the process discussed in TFA) about which you (appeared to) have a thought.
Are you implying that the chicks being killed are not suffering?
If something isn't more humane, it must be the same or less. I think it is you who needs to better articulate your position broski.
But that aside, one method kills living creatures and the other does not. If you cannot see a difference then I'm afraid you are lost.
Can you explain what you mean by this?
But that doesn't explain anything about why you're saying an entire hen house can be murdered when you fail to sex chicks. I've never heard that male chicken are worse in this regard, excessive feather pecking is a result of keeping chickens in terrible environments like battery/cage farms and happens in fully female groups.
I've never had a rooster kill hens, though. Each other, sure, but not the hens. I don't really buy that.
Some context for this article that most people don't know: there are chicken breeds for meat (Cornish Cross, mostly) and breeds for eggs. The egg breeds are skinny and won't become a good meat bird no matter how much you feed them. I guess you can caponize them and they'll gain more weight, but that's a process that costs money. You could use them for soup, but that probably wouldn't be cost-effective either, so that's why the large-scale operations just kill them.
It seems like a sick joke of nature that a species that behaves this way wouldn't also naturally be born in a similar ratio. I wonder if they're like that in the wild, too....
In general, life in nature just ain't that fun as a junior member of an r-selected species, which includes chickens.
The problem with egg roosters is that the breads used for eggs are so badly bred for maximum egg laying that they mostly unusable for good food. Might be good for pet food and canned stuff.
The real solution here is to demand mixed bread chickens that lay slightly fewer eggs, but can also be used for good meat.