Battling Battery Cages
There was a great piece by Bruce Friedrich today drawing attention to the horror of battery cages for laying hens. He writes,
Battery cages are small wire cages where about 95 percent of laying hens spend their entire lives; each hen is given about 67-76 square inches of space (a standard sheet of paper measures 94 square inches). To get a sense of a hen’s life in a battery cage, imagine spending your entire life in a wire cage the size of your bathtub with four other people. You wouldn’t be able to move, so your muscles and bones would deteriorate. Your feet would become lacerated. You would go insane. That’s precisely what happens to laying hens.
Having asked us to see matters from such a perspective (our own), he offers this comparison:
After decades of consumer outcry, the veal industry recently took the important step of announcing that it will work toward eliminating the crate confinement of calves. And as discussed previously, gestation crates may also be headed for the dust bin of history. While this is positive news for pigs and calves, there is currently no clear end in sight for battery cages, with roughly 95 percent of all eggs in the U.S. still coming from caged hens. There are roughly 4.5 million mother pigs and fewer than 500,000 calves in crates, and approximately 250 million hens in battery cages. So for every caged calf or pig, there are roughly 50 caged hens.
Pieces such as these—which are essentially designed to go after low-hanging fruit— always raise an important question for me. While it’s critical to draw attention to the inherent atrocities of factory farming, it’s equally critical to stress that the popular alternatives to this sinister form of agricultural production are also deeply flawed. I make this point because so many consumers who are already aware of what Bruce is talking about are willfully clueless about the problems with the small scale, free range alternatives, alternatives that they eagerly support. To be sure, Bruce is ahead of my concern on this one, as he usually is:
At Farm Sanctuary, we spend our lives with farm animals, and we wouldn’t eat them or their eggs under any circumstances. We recoil at the abuse of hens in all systems, including cage-free and colony cage conditions. But we also work to abolish the very worst abuses of farm animals, and it’s hard to imagine anything worse than the tiny, barren, cramped battery cages where 250 million hens currently are forced to spend their lives.
I’m very pleased to see this qualification, as it rarely appears in articles such as this one (um, HSUS). But I think the sentiment needs to be even stronger. In particular, I think opponents of factory farmed animals need to highlight the point that, as consumers, when we eat animal products from any source we commit an act of cultural affirmation. That is, when we eat animals—even animals we have raised ourselves—we say its okay to eat animals. And as long as it’s culturally okay to eat animals, Bruce will be writing the incisive stuff he’s writing until he’s blue in the face, because the factory farms will be going nowhere.
UPDATE (Jan. 15): HSUS—albeit referred to here parenthetically—came calling. The following excerpt is from its literature, and it does indicate that HSUS comes down on the alternatives.
Cage-free hens are spared several severe cruelties that are inherent to battery cage systems. But it would nevertheless be a mistake to consider cage-free facilities to necessarily be “cruelty-free.” Here are some of the more typical sources of animal suffering associated with both types of egg production:
- Both systems typically buy their hens from hatcheries that kill the male chicks upon hatching—more than 200 million each year in the United States alone.
- Both cage and cage-free hens have part of their beaks burned off, a painful mutilation.
- Both cage and cage-free hens are typically slaughtered at less than two years old, far less than half their normal lifespan. They are often transported long distances to slaughter plants with no food or water.
- While the vast majority of the battery and cage-free egg industry no longer uses starvation to force molt the birds, there are battery and cage-free producers alike who still use this practice.
So, while cage-free does not necessarily mean cruelty-free, cage-free hens generally have significantly better lives than those confined in battery cages. The ability to lay their eggs in nests, run and spread their wings are tangible benefits that shouldn’t be underestimated.
Hi Jimmy, thanks to you I became vegan, as I finally realized that even eating free-range animals is participating in cruelty. However, It still makes me feel extremely disheartened to see/read about animal cruelty. Unfotunately, my only solution is to NOT see/read about it. How do you guys handle it? I need genuine help.
Yetik, my own solution is two-fold: first, I DO something about it. There are many different ways to advocate for animals; I write, I volunteer and I sometimes attend protests. There are many things we can do; check out Farm Sanctuary’s Compassionate Communities website or pick up The Animal Activist’s Handbook by Bruce Friedrich and Matt Ball for ideas. Secondly, I think for most of us this CAN get overwhelming. When it does, I recognize it, I acknowlege it, and I take a break. Just a day or two is usually enough. I hide the difficult Facebook posts and I don’t necessarily open all my email. If we can’t deal with the realities, we can’t help the animals, so it’s okay to step back now and then.
I’ve found meditation helps too, Yetik – it’s helped me learn to manage thoughts and emotions and better understand the relationship between the two. And good on ya for going vegan!
thansk Yvonne. I will try meditation.
Yetik, You may also want to try running.
Missed you this morning. U-loop tomorrow!
thanks Debra for the pointers.
We should weep till the end of time over this reality for hens. These sweet and smart innocents are condemned to an unspeakable hell that pushes beyond anything Dante conjured up. Our species knows no bounds, when its comes to acts of cruelty prescribed for the farm animal. Thanks for posting.
From a Change.org petition:
“I recently learned that Au Bon Pain is still sourcing its eggs and meat from farms that use battery cage and gestation crate systems. These farming practices are unnecessarily cruel and dangerous, and Au Bon Pain should commit to supporting more humane living conditions for farm animals. I want to be able to enjoy your restaurant’s food and know that animals did not suffer needlessly for it. Please join your fellow retailers and announce your plan to move away from these confinement systems.”
Please note the motivation for eliminating battery cages is that “I want to be able to enjoy your restaurant’s food and know that animals did not suffer needlessly for it.” Meaning that other abuses such as the slaughter of billions of animals are “needful suffering” to facilitate that daily plate of bacon and eggs.
I respectfully submit that we don’t have the time to pussyfoot around this issue while planetary systems are collapsing around our collective heads.
Precisely. Thank you for your critical eye, Sailesh.
Animal issues receive around 2% of all charity contributions, with 98% devoted to human issues. The abolitionist agenda receives just 2% of all contributions to animal issues thanks to HSUS and others siphoning off 98% of the funds on such feel-good campaigns for the benefit of guilt-ridden meat eaters. Now, suppose that they are wildly successful and they manage to banish battery and gestation crates everywhere. Would they then have the credibility to go back and agitate for veganism?
I think not.
Well said, Sailesh.
I would like to see more people realize (thankfully some already do,) that the movement is taking great steps backward by retreating from a clear unequivocal vegan message, working with animal exploitation industries, and calling those who dare to question, divisive. You hit the nail on the head, what HSUS and the rest of their wannabe offshoots are succeeding in doing is draining grassroots organizations of volunteers and much needed funding, while at the same time, draining the movement of its integrity.
I believe that the draining the movement of funding is precisely the intent of the animal agriculture industries that are supporting the welfare organizations.
I agree with all of your comments, Sailesh, and wanted to reply directly to your post from 8:52 pm: i.e., “I believe that the draining the movement of funding is precisely the intent of the animal agriculture industries that are supporting the welfare organizations.” but there was no ‘reply’ button to hit.
Regarding your quote above, I think you’re on to something. It seems quite obvious who is driving the UEP/HSUS ‘rotten egg bill’ bus, and who is merely going along for the ride. Below is a comment that appeared today at the site of the actual Friedrich HuffPo article that has led to this discussion:
“Egg farmers are already moving away from these conventional cages into enriched colony housing systems which provide hens nearly twice the amount of space, plus enrichments like perches, nest boxes and scratch areas. America’s egg farmers are working with the Humane Society of the United States to formalize this transition from conventional cages into enriched colony housing systems through federal legislation. We urge everyone to contact their Congressmen and ask them to support the Egg Bill as part of the Farm Bill that Congress says it will consider this year! Pursuing state-by-state legislation is not the proper way to address this.”
This could have easily been written by an HSUS rep, or a FS rep, but it was actually written by Chad Gregory, President, United Egg Producers. It’s sometimes hard to tell which “side” is writing what message these days; they often sound identical. A long time leader in the AR movement once told me to always look closely at what industry has to say about any piece of pending legislation: if industry think its a good thing (as in this case), that means it’s likely very bad news for the animals.
“Enriched colony housing systems” — such a pleasant sounding set-up for the hens. Unfortunately, as many of us have come to learn, these cages provide nothing more than what well-respected animal advocate Jo-Anne MacArthur describes as “minimal changes that are masked as improvements”. She has witnessed these so-called ‘enriched’ cages first hand, and unlike those with a vested interested in having the Bill pass, she has nothing to gain or lose by telling the truth about them.
Thanks for the explanation, Barb. If the animal agriculture industry supports a change, I assume that they expect an accelerated growth in their industry as a result of the change, both in terms of their product consumption and their profit.
Please note that charity itself gets less than 2% of world GDP dollars. Therefore, it is really impressive that Veganism is making such great strides (the Green American Vegan restaurant in Phoenix was full for lunch today, on a weekday!) despite trundling along, greased by less than 0.0008% of GDP dollars.
Incidentally, health care takes up around 10% of world GDP dollars and health care costs are exhibiting a hockey stick characteristic – sure to bankrupt the world economy in the near future – mainly due to the consumption of animal products (which pack an order of magnitude more toxins per unit calorie than plant-based foods). Imagine what we could do if just 10% of health care dollars are assigned to promote the consumption of fruits and vegetables to save on health care costs (e.g., give everybody free organic vegetables and fruits as part of health care maintenance). I feel that’s the kind of game-changer we need to be working on instead of “enriched” cages.
Now, if only Michelle were President, this would be already be a done deal in the US under the provisions of Obamacare…
As long as we’re imagining, can we imagine a world in which we end the war on drugs & and all the suffering of sentient beings resulting from it? Can we imagine a world in which we end agricultural subsidies & all the suffering that results from them? After all, the top subsidies are all for grains & sugars, most of which are fed to imprisoned animals (and the remainder of which cause disease in humans).
I like that Michelle Obama started a food garden at the White House. Considering all the government-owned land sitting around unused, it is a shame gardens aren’t offered as alternatives to food stamps. Home-grown fruits and vegetables are much healthier than government cheese, and in growing them, people develop skills that will be valuable for them the rest of their lives.
James, thanks so much for this post. I agree that Farm Sanctuary makes more of an effort to spread the vegan message than some of the other groups. I also agree that people need to hear this message over and over and over from all the groups that work for animals. It is a lack of education that allows the public to think that any animals that have been freed from battery cages or crates are now out in the field happily enjoying life (before I became a vegan that is exactly what I thought). This is not the case and it is an incredible disservice to the animals and the public that these groups don’t explain this in every single article they put out about farmed animals. These campaigns fail if they have the outcome of getting the public to eat more animal products or feel good about animal death. I can’t help wonder how exhausting it must be to fight one or two campaigns at a time when there are so many, it is never-ending and often they lose. To educate and campaign for veganism pretty much covers it all and it is very simple. Most importantly, it will begin to move this culture to one that no longer sees animals as food or commodities.
When Farm Sanctuary founder, Gene Bauer encourages people to eat animals from small farms (http://bit.ly/13w29VU,) or when they produce videos such as this which are devoid of a vegan message (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNxcylWLEH8) it’s clear that their vegan message has gotten weaker, not stronger.
Denis,
Thanks for that. I wasn’t so much defending as comparing. I read the Q & A with Gene and I do think that by telling people if you can’t go vegan eat more humane meat just confuses everyone. I think that immediately implies that living vegan is difficult to do. That is just not the case. I think the vegan message should be in everything that they put out to the public. So, some people don’t go vegan. That’s a given. But many will so, don’t give people the opportunity to choose the lesser of two evils.
I don’t understand why people who work so hard to rescue farmed animals would want to send out mixed messages. Farm Sanctuary has done so much good. Why be afraid to be consistent and share the message they really want the public to hear?
Jill, I couldn’t agree more.
I think the whole “compassionate consumption”movement is doing nothing but making the public more comfortable consuming animals. The most troubling part are organizations like FS and HSUS are very clearly sending out that mixed message.
I don’t think animal advocates should ever be in the business of advocating industry standards for exploitation. We should be clear in opposing all exploitation and in promoting a clear vegan message.
And yes, being vegan has never been easier so why isn’t Farm Sanctuary saying that?
Nothing mixed about this. Gene Baur just posted the following on Facebook:
There is a simple and powerful way for anyone who cares about chickens to prevent their suffering at hatcheries, during transport, and in hellish egg factories:
Take a stand, Don’t eat eggs. http://bit.ly/RXVrEF
Debra,
The definition of a mixed message is one in which a person receives verbal or nonverbal cues that contradict each other, from another person. I think these statements by Gene Bauer qualify:
“There is a simple and powerful way for anyone who cares about chickens to prevent their suffering at hatcheries, during transport, and in hellish egg factories: Take a stand, Don’t eat eggs”.
“But if people are going to eat animals, it’s better to move away from the industrial production techniques to the more local, community based farming system. And the strong part of community-based agriculture where people get to know where their food comes from and there’s more of a connection to the land and to the people who are producing the food”.
Bruce Friedrich was on the board of Farm Forward (the organization cheerleading the sustainable farm movement) until criticism from the animal rights community forced his resignation within the last year. A vegan of more than 20 years should have known better. That sort of hypocrisy is unwelcome in a movement claiming to want animal rights. Everything he says should be taken with a grain of salt.
I think we should go easy on Gene and Bruce. They are great people fighting a great fight. Nobody’s perfect. Pure.
I agree. And really, we shouldn’t be vilifying like-minded people. All movements have disagreements, but we are stronger as a united front.
James, I agree. They have done sooo much. I just really don’t understand why they don’t send out a clear message. I would hate to think that I convinced someone into eating humane meat when I could have actually convinced them to stop eating animal products, altogether.
I don’t doubt Bruce Friedrich’s or Gene Bauer’s sincerity, but we have fundamental differences in the way we think about animal ethics.
This has nothing to do with perfection or purity. A growing number of us feel that this movement needs to be far less personality based — i.e., there needs to be less attention paid toward WHO is sending out a message. Instead, we need to focus far more critically on WHAT the actual [often very conflicting, very counterproductive] message that the general public and animal advocates alike are receiving from various groups and individuals.
It’s very true that many “name” animal advocates have done a lot of great things to further the cause for farmed animals in the past, but anyone who has been in this movement for any length of time knows that some of these same advocates have changed their focus and message in recent years. Just because an individual or group has been very inspirational and effective in the past doesn’t mean that the new tactics and direction they have chosen are automatically worthy of being blindly followed and cheered on without question. There should be no such thing as “free passes” based on past accomplishments.
This discussion, in part, reflects the times in which we live, a governance, that consists of the game of ‘chicken’ or blackmail. The content has been lost in the machinations of strategy to convince the low hanging fruit, that animals have sentience, or the debate of which side are you on, polling of the undecided, our species desire for “leaders”, father knows best, and our level of co-operation with an economic system, not in our long term interest. The surface of this dialogue, may be democracy, but underneath, the corporations get their pound of flesh, and they do it by fear and by force. Keeping in mind, we are mentally programmed to be the factory farmed too – the application of state violence never far away if we stray from the cage. Or for the more middle class charities…donor drop off, is the result of promoting veganism, too radical, too purist, either way, the fear is always there. Money talks. Our thinking so limited, vision so curtailed, challenges so enormous. We are so close to the violence against animals, so close to colluding in that violence every second, by compromising, not speaking out, second guessing……or…..giving half the story. We all benefit economically from violent exploitation of animals, wealthy countries consume more, and the economic violence against human populations who do not have power. The lives, thrown away, for profit, such as the male baby chicks, brought into this world, only to be murdered. Their wings too tiny to fly up and away from the machine that will render them into pulp. We want to believe in bigger cages, kinder machines, that they are a step to change, that Mondays, will be always meat free, and its better to not be abused on Mondays, rather than seven days a week, we work to keep this system going, exactly as it is, with very slight variables. The mental traps of a creature in a cage. The most ‘humane’ and idealistic amongst us, are keeping this system going, ironically. I read a report recently, from the meat industrial complex of China, it said that they needed to make ‘humane’ efforts as regards their product, as that was the wave of the future. Possibly there is another future, that even China has not planned for, where animal agriculture is a thing of the past, its in no ones back yard.
Though I’m on the fence, and I see the value of both sides, I think for now I will still support a regulationist pragmatism with an abolitionist agenda.
I believe that it’s inconsequential that someone who advocates regulatory reform wants abolition in the future. Think about it: One person claims that she opposes war and in favor of peace. Another person says he is also desires peace but wants to use war to get it. Are those positions the same even though both claim to want peace? No. Of course not.
And then there is the concept of war atrocities. To wipe out a military target and to wipe out a whole city of civilians are quite different things.
In addition, if there had been a law passed before slavery was abolished against beating or whipping slaves, a lot of suffering could have been alleviated. Or how about a law against a man beating his wife, before the advent of women’s vote and women’s rights? One could look at reality and say, “I want women to have equal rights, but right now I am able to pass a law that will dramatically alleviate the suffering of millions of women by making the beating of a wife illegal.”
Laws such as those could have meant quite a lot to the women or the slaves who were enduring beatings on a regular basis.
Also, if you can’t see the difference between the above picture that James posted and one with chickens running around a field, then you’re not paying attention.
As a vegetarian for over 20 years, it was my involvement in the local/sustainable food movement that finally brought me to veganism. The transparency of that movement allowed me to come to terms with the hypocrisy of it. If you think all, or most people, are going to have an instant conversion, going from factory farmed meat one moment to vegan abolitionist the net day, I think that is a fantasy. Not to say it doesn’t happen, but I’d be super surprised if it happened like that most of the time.
Lori,
I think that most welfare reforms do very little and most of them won’t be phased in for years (if ever). You’re slavery and equal rights analogies are making my point. We shouldn’t be in the business of regulating what should be abolished.
Campaigns against cage eggs, convey the message that “cage-free” eggs are moral and that simply avoiding factory-farmed products, is a way of eating ethically. The picture that James posted and “one with chickens running around a field” both involve needless suffering, exploitation and death. Neither system challenges the paradigm that treats animals as resources.
Lastly, you say “If you think all, or most people, are going to have an instant conversion, going from factory farmed meat one moment to vegan abolitionist the net day, I think that is a fantasy”. I don’t understand the point of that statement. Of course people will become vegan on their own. What we can do is stop trying to delay the shift in consciousness by promoting useless welfare improvements. We shouldn’t be modifying the end point to accommodate the long and winding road that many of us take to get there. i believe the reason so many people become vegan gradually is that the animal organisations are encouraging them to do so. Welfare groups assume that few of us have the integrity to deny ourselves enjoyment for the sake of justice and compassion. It’s disdain of the worst kind; the kind that assumes others are too stupid to see reason even when sentient creatures are facing suffering and death.
You make good points, but I’ll stick with my opinion on this one. I think that many of the welfare reforms have done a lot to help ease animal suffering. I welcome any group or person who wants better treatment and conditions for animals. I don’t buy that people may take a while to come to veganism because of animal organizations encourage them to do so.
Where I do agree is that animal organizations should always advocate veganism while working on welfare issues. Even if they are advocating the end of battery cages, they should always make sure they are also stating the end result desire.
We in the AR community can and do disagree on how best to achieve our goals. And we should keep having these conversations. However, I’m very opposed to vilification of certain AR groups. One can say, “I believe that this is the best path to end animal exploitation,” but they shouldn’t be dividing the community and causing animosity. You know what they say about divide and conquer.
“A regulationist pragmatism with an abolitionist agenda.”
The problem with this is that pragmatism of this kind has characterized the animal movement since the first protection laws were passed in the 1820s. Since then, the killing and consumption of animals has accelerated every year leading up to the present daily holocaust.
At what point do we say the strategy has failed and turn toward abolitionism — that is veganism. The latter message, “go vegan” has the great advantage of simplicity, clarity and — if widely adopted — great effectiveness.
On a related note (and to somewhat echo what Jill said), what do you think of Bruce’s (or, more broadly, animal advocacy organizations’) use of the word “vegetarian” instead of “vegan”? I’d love to see a post with your take on that.
In his letter to the editor in reply to Bittman’s article “Fixing Our Food Problem” (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/opinion/working-toward-a-better-food-world.html?src=twr&_r=2&
Bruce praises Bittman then pleads, “Readers who care about cruelty to animals should adopt a vegetarian diet.”
I saw this posted on the Farm Sanctuary Facebook page and commented there that I was upset he had used the word vegetarian instead of vegan. Bruce actually responded to me:
“Hey there Jamie, a vegan diet is a vegetarian diet, of course, and saying “go vegetarian” doesn’t say or imply that eating eggs and dairy is okay. I’ve been vegan for more than 25 years, and Farm Sanctuary advocates veganism as a part of our mission. I prefer to use the word vegetarian because I think it creates both more vegetarians and more vegans than using the word vegan, as discussed by Mercy for Animals here: http://www.mercyforanimals.org/v-word.aspx. Thanks for being vegan, and thanks for your compassion!”
to which I replied:
Hi Bruce,
Thanks for your response. I read the article you linked and agree with the strategies outlined there. I think the goal of redefining the word “vegetarian” is a worthy one to strive for, and the use of that word is perhaps more effective in certain circumstances: 1) when the use of the word is followed by more information (a link to the ChooseVeg website, a dialogue with an advocate wearing an “Ask Me Why I’m Vegetarian” t-shirt, etc.) or 2) when targeting certain audiences who would be very put off (or confused) by the word “vegan”.
Unfortunately your letter to the editor was a dead-end; no additional information was provided and there were no links to websites promoting veganism (your connection to Farm Sanctuary was noted, but I think the link may be too indirect and wouldn’t necessarily direct readers to look for more information). If you had simply qualified your statement by saying “Readers who care about cruelty to animals should adopt a vegetarian diet: one free of meat, dairy, eggs, and all animal products” (for example) I think your letter would have been more effective.
I’m not positive, but I would guess that most NY Times readers have a mainstream conception of vegetarianism, that is, lacto-ovo vegetarianism. I do think that in this case saying “vegetarian” does imply the inclusion of eggs and dairy in the diet. However, I also believe they are familiar with the word “vegan” and would not be put off by it. The audience who read your letter also, presumably, read Bittman’s article, and Bittman writes about veganism and uses the word frequently. The NY Times has been publishing an astonishing number of veganism-related articles lately, and I think readers would not have been shocked or turned away from a vegan diet had the word been used.
I apologize for the sarcasm in my original comment. I see that your intentions were good but I do think the use of the word “vegetarian” should be considered very seriously, and should not be used to replace vegan in every circumstance, at least until we succeed in redefining it!
Thanks so much for all you do for the animals.
The website converted something into a winking face for some reason; the link still seems to work though!
Fascinating, Jamie. Lot’s to think about, and I’ll indeed write on the use of “vegetarian” by activists. Hope you are well.
j
“approximately 250 million hens in battery cages”
The average family generates enough food waste to feed at least 2 chickens (most estimates I’ve seen are 4-6). There are 115 million families in America. If every family adopted at least 2 chickens, combined their food waste & yard waste into a compost pile, and let chickens feed themselves from it, the industrial egg industry could be put out of business. Immediately.
But you’re a vegan, you don’t eat eggs. Fair enough. Provide them to an omnivore friend or neighbor who agrees not to buy any eggs from the store. They save money, you save hens from battery cages, and you convince an omnivore that vegans are pleasant, reasonable people. And it costs you no money– the birds feed themselves on your compost & whatever they can find in the yard. And you end up with rich, fertile compost with which to grow vegan food.
Hi Mountain, just a couple questions that arose for me when I read your comment: What happens to the roosters who aren’t allowed in most American neighborhoods? What happens to the hens when they stop producing eggs? If they wouldn’t slaughter their hens, families would have to wait until the birds die naturally until they can get more chickens (and therefore more eggs). Not all hens reliably produce an egg or so a day; what happens to the hens who aren’t productive enough to meet a family’s demand? What happens when people move and can’t take their chickens with them or decide they can’t take care of them for any other reason? Will we need to construct additional sections in already-overflowing animal shelters for discarded hens?
What roosters? Of those 250 million hens living in battery cages, none are roosters. I said if every family “adopted” at least 2 hens, not bred some more.
As for the roosters who aren’t allowed in most American neighborhoods, why aren’t you working to change those laws? You have a much better chance of changing those laws than you do of outlawing animal farming.
Generally, hens don’t just suddenly stop laying eggs. They lay most during their first 18 months or so (at which point, factory farms kill them), but they continue to lay at a lesser rate, frequently throughout their entire lives.
A family that wants more eggs has many ethical options. They could hit up their vegan neighbors, or any other neighbor who doesn’t eat eggs. They could likely support 5-6 chickens just with their own food waste. They could find outside sources of food waste, like markets and restaurants. They could get more land. There are just as many hens in this scenario as there are now, they would just live much better lives– and no land would be used to grow crops for chicken feed, so there’d be more land to grow food for humans.
If a family moves, why couldn’t they take their chickens with them? If every family in America has chickens, they should be welcome in whatever neighborhood the family is moving to. If, for whatever reason, they can’t keep the chickens anymore, all their neighbors keep chickens– they should be able to find someone willing to add to their flock.
No need to construct new sections in animal shelters. Think of all the vacant land sitting around, growing weeds. Chickens would be happy to take care of those weeds for us. Think of all the food waste & yard waste going to landfills. Chickens would be happy to turn that into compost for us. Think of all the money & fossil fuel being spent to mow lawns & clear brush & spray chemicals on weeds. Chickens would be happy to save us from the paradigm we’ve trapped ourselves in; we just have to save them from the cages we’ve trapped them in.
I volunteer for Animal Place in Northern California, a farm animal sanctuary and vegan advocacy group. I help clean the barns and stalls, feed the animals and socialize them. We rescue many “spent” egg laying chickens and adopt them out, but it’s not so easy. Keeping chickens in a proper manner is a lot of work and one must have space and shelter. Besides, it’s not at all practical in most urban environments.
In your world, what happens once all the battery caged chickens are adopted out and die of old age? Where are the people who want their eggs to go then?
We’ve adopted 13 chickens, but they’ve been from backyard chicken keepers, not from industrial egg farms– so they haven’t been debeaked or had their wings clipped. Which is good, because they really need both to live in freedom. Once industry has mutilated them, they are much more dependent, and I would imagine much more difficult to care for.
What happens once all the battery caged chickens die of old age? Well, as you know, roosters have a way of making sure the flock will sustain itself. But in a theoretical world, let the line of industrial birds die out. If people still want eggs, they can get them from heirloom chickens, who are much better suited for living in free conditions.
I disagree that chickens are impractical in urban areas, but I suppose you’re entitled to your own opinion. It’s just that cities are loaded with resources for chickens. And chickens evolved in jungles, which are the natural version of densely-populated urban space (there’s a reason cities are often referred to as “jungles”). As opposed to pasture, whose wide open spaces are the natural equivalent of lightly-populated rural areas.
I’m in agreement with some of your concepts. However, the reality of having backyard chickens is much more complicated. My brother started with three rescued chickens and now has dozens due to a stray rooster from a neighbor and the inability (lack of time and will power) to find all the fertilized eggs the chickens were laying. You’d have to keep your chickens in a pen or hutch unless you want them running off or getting eaten by predators. (And now we’re talking keeping them in a cage of sorts, albeit better than a battery one.) You could clip their wings and leave them out in the day, put them away at night, but this is no guarantee that something won’t happen to them and it’s a lot of work. Now my brother has more roosters than chickens. They fight and they are noisy and they poop everywhere. My brother and his wife talk constantly about killing and eating some of the roosters, but so far haven’t had the nerve to do it, thankfully. I personally dread this spring when the inevitable cycle of birthing more hens and roosters comes around.
In addition, many towns and cities have laws against backyard chickens and/or restrictions on roosters. Animal keeping is much harder in practice than it is in theory.
It’s my understanding that it is important to let the chicken eat the unfertilized egg so she can regain the nutrients she lost in laying the egg.
I’ve always thought it was the shell, but yes.
The entire egg has nutrients a hen can benefit from, but the calcium in the shell is typically most needed. If a chicken needs supplemental calcium, though, it’s a strong sign that her environment is insufficient– usually because she’s caged in one way or another, but sometimes because she has a mud or concrete yard. If her environment has a reasonable amount of green plants (even a nice patch of weeds will do), she’ll get all the calcium she needs without eating her own egg shells.
I don’t find this to be a “great piece by Bruce Friedrich”. The title states that “The Cruelest of All Factory Farm Products: Eggs From Caged Hens”, yet Farm Sanctuary endorses the HSUS/UEP enriched cage pact. When the deal was first announced in 2011, Friedrich himself referred to it as “A Groundbreaking Victory for Hens”:
http://farmsanctuary.typepad.com/making_hay/2011/07/a-groundbreaking-victory-for-hens.html
[interesting side note, after just checking the link a few minutes ago to make sure it still worked, I noticed that the original title has been mysteriously changed to now say “opportunity” in place of “victory”, likely – as in the case with his involvement with the pro-animal-use group “Farm Forward” -- after much criticism from the AR community].
Of course, a cage is a cage is a cage, and “enriched” cages are neither a victory nor an opportunity for hens; rather, if implemented, what they would provide is a handy “opportunity” for the groups endorsing them to declare another new “victory” for themselves.
The Friedrich piece from today seems to conveniently ignore the fact that the cages that he, Farm Sanctuary, and few other well known welfare advocates and groups are currently endorsing ARE in fact cages and can hardly be considered much of an improvement over the cages currently in use. Here is what Jo-Anne MacArthur (We Animals) recently posted: “A Look Inside a Farm With Enriched Cages”
http://weanimals.org/blog.php?entry=181
It is a great disservice to the animals when a farmed animal sanctuary promotes anything less than veganism, and it becomes particularly troublesome when the largest, most well-funded one in the country is the primary culprit to be doing so. Because of their daily direct contact with farmed animals, sanctuaries are in a unique position to educate the public about farmed animal sentience and their desire to live full, peaceful lives, and to reinforce the fact that we humans have NO need and NO right to use and abuse other animals for our own selfish purposes. Farm Sanctuary sends out a steady stream of mixed signals and diluted messages, which makes it that much harder for sanctuaries who DO stay true to the “animals are not ours to use” message – such as VINE Sanctuary, Animal Place, UPC, Peaceful Prairie, Woodstock, Poplar Spring — to counter the damage that Farm Sanctuary creates by not staying true to promoting veganism.
But don’t we use animals all the time, whether we intend to or not, every time we eat? As Mountain, a frequent commenter will tell you, we require worms, insects, and other animals to prep our soil so we can grow our veggies. We’re goners without other animals to “use.”
I have the utmost respect for VINE et al. But I would never present them as organizations that “counter the damage” of Farm Sanctuary. Fact is nobody has a rubric to measure success or failure in the animal advocacy business.
It’s all personal speculation. That’s why I’ll never fundamentally dismiss any organization seeking to improve the lives of animals.
There is no such thing as perfection or purity, and I’ve never met a vegan who has actually suggested such a thing. But there certainly is a difference between inadvertent harm, and promoting direct harm. A perfect example of this was brought up in a prior comment within this thread that referred to Farm Sanctuary’s Bruce Friedrich’s participation with Farm Forward. Last Spring, Farm Forward helped to directly aid with the expansion of a turkey/chicken ranch in conjunction with the ASPCA.
Another example: just last week Farm Sanctuary was encouraging its supporters to buy a new Martha Stewart cookbook because it has “meatless” recipes (although the book purportedly has recipes that contain chicken stock, and if so, it’s not even “meatless”). What is not mentioned in the FS endorsement is that the cookbook is literally filled with recipes containing endless amounts of dairy products and eggs.
The FS endorsement is certainly not doing anything to improve the lives hens and “dairy” cows. To the contrary, the message to the average reader is that it’s quite okay to consume eggs and dairy, otherwise FS wouldn’t be promoting the book. Stewart obviously wrote the book to tap into a new source of income for herself. This article from a few short weeks ago shows just how much respect for farmed animals she truly DOESN’T possess:
http://www.examiner.com/article/martha-stewart-was-sick-with-salmonella-infection-from-handling-turkeys
I don’t know of any other farmed animal sanctuary who would promote such a cookbook. And no sanctuaries other than Farm Sanctuary signed on in support of the HSUS/UEP enriched caged Bill. To the contrary, several have spoken out vehemently against any type of cages.
These are just a few examples of what I was referring to in terms of other sanctuaries having to counter the damage when another sanctuary strays off course from the “animals are not ours to use” message.
Apologies if an almost duplicate reply to this ends up posting. I am trying to reconstruct my original reply that I’m pretty sure did not go through.
There is no such thing as perfection or purity or cruelty-free, and I’ve never met a vegan who has actually suggested such a thing. But surely there is a difference between inadvertent harm and direct harm — otherwise what is the point of havng a vegan/AR movement in the first place? A perfect example of direct harm was brought up in a prior comment within this thread that referred to Bruce Friedrich’s involvement with Farm Forward. Last Spring, Farm Forward directly aided in the expansion of a so-called “humane” turkey/chicken ranch in conjunction with the ASPCA.
Another example: just last week Farm Sanctuary was encouraging its supporters to buy a new Martha Stewart cookbook because it has “meatless” recipes (although it purportedly has recipes that contain chicken stock, so it’s not even “meatless”). What is not mentioned in the FS endorsement is that the cookbook is literally filled throughout with recipes containing dairy products and eggs. The FS endorsement is certainly not doing anything to improve the lives of hens and “dairy” cows. Stewart obviously wrote the book to tap into a new source of income, and this recent article/photo indicates just how much respect for farmed animals she DOESN’T possess:
http://www.examiner.com/article/martha-stewart-was-sick-with-salmonella-infection-from-handling-turkeys
I’m not aware of any other farmed animal sanctuary that would promote such a cookbook. Additionally, no sanctuaries other than Farm Sanctuary signed on in support of the HSUS/UEP enriched caged Bill. These are just a few examples of what I was referring to in terms of other sanctuaries having to counter the damage when another sanctuary veers off course from presenting a strong, consistent, united “animals are not ours to use” vegan message.
You summed it up so well, James, by stating that: “While it’s critical to draw attention to the inherent atrocities of factory farming, it’s equally critical to stress that the popular alternatives to this sinister form of agricultural production are also deeply flawed.” Unlike other farmed animal sanctuaries, Farm Sanctuary has dropped the ball on the latter by spending its time focusing solely on the evils of factory farming, rather than on the evils of ALL animal farming.
‘Another example: just last week Farm Sanctuary was encouraging its supporters to buy a new Martha Stewart cookbook because it has “meatless” recipes (although it purportedly has recipes that contain chicken stock, so it’s not even “meatless”). ‘
For the life of me, I can’t find this anywhere on Farm Sanctuary’s website. Nor can I find it from a Google search. Can you link me to where FS advocates for MS’s book?
I did find where Martha Stewart dedicated a whole show to veganism and had Gene Baur as a guest to advocate for a vegan diet and talk about the Sanctuary. But nothing about FS promoting her book.
The endorsement showed up on the the Farm Sanctuary Facebook page last Thursday. That’s also where I saw the comment from someone alleging that some of the “meatless” recipes call for chicken stock. I scanned a large number of the main course recipes and a few of the desserts, and the vast majority of them call for eggs and/or dairy. Stewart seems to be relying heavily on cheese as a substitute for meat in this book.
You’re really overstating this thing. One post on a Facebook page letting people know that Martha Stewart published a book titled “Meatless” that contains vegetarian meals in addition to vegan meals, is hardly reason for such vilification.
So, you are defending a farmed animal sanctuary for promoting a celebrity who makes a darn good living cooking the flesh, eggs, and mammary secretions of tortured animals. Do you really think that a cook who “handled” so many turkey carcasses this past Thanksgiving that she contracted salmonella poisoning is a good role model for a sanctuary to endorse? Let her promote her own book. Shouldn’t sanctuaries stick to promoting the many excellent vegan cookbooks out there? Chicken stock is not vegetarian, and this book is hardly a good example of vegan meals.
I am not overstating anything. The message that FS is sending by singling out this book for a “shout out” is that eggs and dairy consumption are much more acceptable and tolerable than meat consumption, which in terms of cruelty, couldn’t be further from the truth. The recent FS/Steve-O video sent out the same exact message. It focused on meat, at the expense of the victims of the egg and dairy industries.
For information & photos on alternatives to battery cages, please see:
http://www.upc-online.org/freerange.html
Yes, there are many that look like your link. But before I was vegan (just vegetarian) I lived in Auburn, Al for a short time. I got eggs from this guy. Went to his farm on many occasions. He breeds his own animals, no debeaking, animals run free in day, and babies aren’t taken from mothers. However, yes he does slaughter (does his own). But I see this farm as a far cry from factory farming and, while I don’t advocate any animal farming, I have to believe that this is a better step forward than nothing.
https://www.facebook.com/LedbetterAcres/photos_stream
I won’t begrudge Bruce Friedrich his “victory” or “opportunity” or whatever he ends up calling it. Any improvement, no matter how miniscule, is better than nothing. I don’t think anyone can argue against that.
The real issue is this. As vegans, we believe that we must, as far as possible and practicable, exclude all forms of exploitation. So how should we focus our time and energy to achieve this? With a bazillion single-issue campaigns? Or with a straight-forward message of vegan education?
both
I’m with Lori — I keep a very close eye on Farm Sanctuary’s activities and I’ve not seen any kind of endorsement for Martha Stewart’s new book. You may not agree with FS’s approach, but Bruce and Gene have explained their stance numerous times regarding supporting welfare measures while still advocating veganism.
There is more than one way to advocate and probably none of them is perfect, but Gene and Bruce and the whole organization do a lot of good in many different ways. I really hate the divisiveness in this movement; I find it unproductive and it bothers me intensely to see so much criticism lobbed at an organization that’s done so much good.
Agreed Debra. Thanks for your voice.
Ditto – I’ve heard hundreds of stories of transformation – No two were ever the same. Everyone’s journey is a different path – Let’s not ever put a boulder in the way of a single one of them.
As long as welfarism remains the status quo, it will continue to be challenged. These debates will not end until we live in a predominantly vegan society , so non-abolitionists should get used to hearing them ad nauseum for however many years or decades it takes to achieve a vegan society.
What you are getting confused is that most of us, and the organizations being vilified, are abolitionists. We just also happen to believe that every step we can take in the meantime to alleviate suffering is worthwhile. I don’t think labeling people who all want the same thing in the end is helpful. And your opinion about the “welfarists’” strategies are just that: an opinion.
That’s probably true. However, I’d like to clearly state that I am not a “non-abolitionist.” Nor am I a “welfarist.” Every so-called welfarist I know is an abolitionist at heart, but the wholesale change of abolition is not going to happen overnight, and in the meantime, animals are suffering by the billions *right now*. So while it pains me to applaud incremental change and welfare improvements, at the same time I have to feel some relief at any improvement in the animals’ lives. I have to. Anything that lessens their suffering is a step, and one day all the tiny little steps will add up to cover a great distance. I can’t in good conscience say “No, leave things exactly as they are until the great revolution sweeps the earth.” That doesn’t work for me and I don’t believe it’s the best thing for the animals.
I think most rational people feel this way, Debra. It’s just that the ones who like to attack are quite vocal.
In response to Denis Martinez (whose comment, oddly, I now don’t see here — it arrived in my email): Thank you for defining the term “mixed message” for me. I’m actually already familiar with it. I don’t know where you got the second paragraph of the quote from, but it seems your quibble is with Gene Baur, not with me.
Debra,
My reply to you appears below your comment above (http://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=2963#comment-16763)
The second quote from Gene Bauer is from a 2011 interview which appears here: http://bit.ly/13w29VU
Taken with his quote you referenced today would qualify as a mixed message on veganism. Yes, I definitely have an issue with Bauer’s advocacy, but you stated that there was nothing mixed about his message. I disagree.
Denis, Bauer is out there every day saving farm animals, advocating for them, and promoting veganism. I’m proud of the work of Farm Sanctuary and Bruce and Gene.
So tell me, what do you do for animals on a daily basis? Do you have a rescue organization? Do you volunteer at one? I’m just curious how someone so sanctimonious about people who are dedicating their lives to improving the lot of animals spends his time?
Oh, you want to play that game, huh? I’ll have to satisfy your standard of activism to be able to have the standing to be critical of Farm Sanctuary? Sorry, Lori… not playing your game. Nice try at counter-framing, though. Most would have just ignored the substance of the argument and claimed that I engaged in a personal attack or vilified a group. Oh wait, you did that too. http://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=2963#comment-16789 http://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=2963#comment-16788
Fact is, I don’t have to be a full-time paid advocate for animals, a 20 year vegan, a longtime activist or anything else to have the ability to question an inconsistent message when I hear it. Why are we not confronting the real issue, united and with one voice telling the truth that veganism is the way to end animal suffering? The problem is that animals are being raised for food, that is the problem, not how they are being raised. Why are these “animal advocates” not promoting the consumer choice that they themselves have made, as ethical consumers?
Advocating for cage-free over battery cages, as Farm Sanctuary does, does nothing to challenge the view of animals as things to be used, abused, and consumed.
So in other words, Bruce Friedrich is doing a lot more for animals than you are.
How do you you that Bruce Friedrich does more for animals than Denis, and what does it matter? Confirmation bias? For all we know he could be doing more than Friedrich, but that is not the point. The point is that no one needs to fulfill a certain criteria to be able to raise a question or to comment here. I happen to work at a college on environmental and sustainability issues, and do vegan advocacy when I can. Does that preclude me from publicly stating that I’d prefer Farm Sanctuary to make a clear statement on veganism or not advocate welfare reform?
Nicely said, Bea.
Exactly. We’re ALL abolitionists; we just differ in our approach.
We all know that the new so-called enriched housing falls far, far short of anything remotely desireable for the chickens. Free-range is a joke and while the “enriched” housing may sound pretty good on paper to the average person, those of us who know and share the truth behind it are hard-pressed to take any comfort on behalf of the animals. But as I’ve said, it is a step, and a sure sign that our collective work is raising public awareness and having an effect. We know we can’t rest when sows are out of gestation crates and chickens are out of battery cages. But every step is important. Mark my words, one day they will add up.
You are correct to point out that “enriched” and “cage-free” systems fall far short of anything desirable for chickens. It is torture, plain and simple. Where I believe your premise falls apart is on the notion that incremental welfare improvements will lead to the abolition of animals as property. There is simply no basis for this. We’ve had animal welfare efforts for almost 200 years and where has it gotten us? Globally, more animals are being exploited now than at any point in history. That’s hardly an endorsement of a regulatory approach. Most reforms are minor at best, not ever likely to be enforced, and will simply increase efficiency and provide economic benefits to exploiters.
Another problem with welfare improvements is that the public is not being untrained from thinking that animals are objects to be bought, sold, used and consumed. Instead, consumers are picking up packages of sausages, cartons of eggs, jugs of milk which proudly declare to them that the methods used are ethical, fair, and humane.
“There is simply no basis for this.”
Full civil rights for African-Americans were achieved through incremental improvements. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves in states that were in rebellion, but slavery still existed in the five slave states that weren’t in rebellion. The Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery, but Jim Crow took its place in the south, and de facto segregation reigned throughout the rest of the U.S. The armed forces were desegregated shortly after World War 2, and the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were passed in the 1960s. The economic gap shrank & interracial marriage became common over the next few decades. And then, we elected an African-American president.
That’s the basis for believing in incremental improvements. It’s worked in other social movements. Will it work in this one? I don’t know, but it’s a reasonable belief.
Would you agree that the situation has gotten a lot worse for animals over the past two hundred years and not better? Therefore, these incremental improvements have really been a case of continuously taking two steps back and one step forward. While showcasing just that forward step in order to hoodwink us.
Sorry, but I refuse to be hoodwinked any more.
I’ve never found this line of argumentation convincing. I say this for a simple reason: you can’t prove it. The forces of history in favor of animal production and consumption have been unstoppable. There is no way to measure to what extent pro-welfare reforms have moderated/lessened the rate of increase in the consumption of animal products. Without that information you cannot evaluate the overall historical impact of pro-welfare measures on consumer thought and behavior. I agree with you 99 % of the time, Sailish, but I have to disagree (respectfully) on this one.
JM
James, my point was not about whether welfare reform decreases/increases animal consumption for, as you say and I agree, it is impossible to deduce. My point was that the cruelties inflicted on animals have been steadily getting worse on the whole. We take two steps back in terms of animal cruelty and then grudgingly yield one step forward as a result of welfare campaigns. For instance, we’re discussing battery cages, but battery cages were not part of our great grandparents tools for raising chickens. They somehow come into being and when they came into being, this increase in cruelty was not stopped in its tracks. Now, because the introduction of battery cages was not stopped, we are supposed to feel good that the battery cages have become “enriched” cages, but the net effect is still an increase in animal cruelty perpetrated towards chickens. This is the two steps back, one step forward hoodwinking that the industry is perpetrating on us.
Regarding you January 17, 2013 at 11:56 post. You said: “My point was that the cruelties inflicted on animals have been steadily getting worse on the whole.”
But that is just not the case. Many things have gotten much better. And the ways in which they have gotten worse can usually be attributed to the increase in technology and corporate ag greed and their domination in politics and farm policy, and not because of the animal rights’ movement.
I believe overall people are much more attuned and sympathetic to animals in general.
Bear bating, bull bating, trapping and causing mass extinction of species, such as the buffalo, were common practices in the past two hundred years. Dogs were routinely shot when they outlived their purposes. Men were considered heroes and virile for going out on African hunts and killing elephants and other wildlife. Horses were used without a thought in Wars by the hundreds of thousands, Not to mention worked to death on farms and pulling carriages.
The fact that our grandparents didn’t have battery cages is by no means an indication that they had more feelings for animals. It was a practicality of rural living. They had no compunction about wringing a chicken’s neck or send out their own children to wring a chicken’s neck or chopping off its head. While the killing was on a smaller scale says more about economics and rural living than it does about animal welfare activism.
If you think things were better for animals a hundred or two hundred years ago, I suggest you do some historical reading of normal people’s lives and their hobbies and habits. While it’s true that the advent of factory farming has increased animal suffering on a huge scale, this is largely, as I said before, the result of increased technology, corporatization, and the result of the population moving to urban centers. If you look at the past ten years, animal rights activists have had an impact on factory farming (as have the locavores) and we are seeing it start to erode. More people are becoming vegans and vegetarians and more people are questioning their food sources.
Excellent points, Lori, and I agree with you completely. Thank you for raising them.
Lori,
As you admit, the advent of factory farming and technology vastly increased animal suffering which welfare reformers have been battling back.
Two steps back, one step forward.
Meanwhile, even as welfare reformers have been making an impact on factory farming in some countries, factory farms and technology are being increasingly deployed in other countries where the demand for animal products is escalating.
PS: I grew up in a rice farm in India 50 years ago and I assure you that the cows were milked by hand and not subjected to 30-second mechanical milk-suckers, the calves were always allowed to drink milk from the mother cow before she was milked for humans, etc.
In India, we have most certainly ratcheted up the cruelty since then.
I think it’s safe to say things are worse for cows, pigs, chickens, and fish than they were 200 years ago. I also think it’s safe to say things are better for dogs, cats, and horses than they were 200 years. For the rest, I really have no idea.
Even accepting arguendo your claim that things are worse for animals than they were 200 years ago, I don’t see how you can blame that on welfare reform efforts. There are a lot more vegans and vegetarians than there were 200 years, but that hasn’t stopped the cruelty inflicted on animals. Does that mean people should abandon veganism, as you argue they should abandon efforts at improvements in welfare?
Mountain, for the rest, tigers in the wild have dwindled from 100,000 in 1900 to around 2000 today. That is a catastrophe. Likewise, almost every wild species is experiencing an apocalypse.
I’m not blaming welfare reform efforts for things being worse for animals from 200 years ago. Let me be very clear that I’m squarely blaming the animal agriculture industry for the plight of animals, including tigers, lions, elephants and other wild animals. This industry has been busy turning the entire biomass of the planet into profit-yielding cows, pigs, chicken and fish, while employing technology to ratchet up (and down) the torture on these enslaved animals. I’m only pleading with the welfare reformers not to dance with the industry types in these two-step back, one-step forward rhythms.
I’m proposing a welfare reform that doesn’t involve any collaboration with industry: raise chickens using only your own food waste & whatever they can forage for themselves in your yard. In exchange for a commitment not to buy any store-bought eggs, provide them for free to an omni friend, neighbor, or family member.
This dramatically improves the lives of chickens. If enough people do this, it dramatically decreases the demand for industrial eggs, whether battery-cage, cage-free, or “free-range.” It dramatically decreases the amount of arable land used to grow crops to feed animals. It dramatically decreases the amount of waste going into landfills. If everyone in the United States did this, it would produce more eggs than the egg industry produces today– put the egg industry out of business.
And, it creates positive connections between vegans and the rest of the population. It gives omnis a reason to think of vegans as generous, kind, pleasant– instead of shrill or scolding. Even though it’s an easy decision for an omni to make (free high-quality eggs instead of paying for low-quality eggs), it requires an ethical commitment (I won’t buy eggs from the store). I can’t promise it will lead to a huge new wave of vegans, but it will get people to take a first step down an ethical path.
First of all most of the vegans I know are generous, kind and pleasant. Second, vegans would no longer actually be vegans if they were to exploit chickens for their eggs. Third and hypothetically speaking, if I had chickens, I would want to ensure that they got the best possible care. This would mean good housing, good food and veterinary care. Personally, I could never afford, nor would I have the time to raise chickens. So many complicated solutions when the best one is the simplest and the healthiest and that, of course, is to not eat eggs at all.
First, I’m not suggesting that vegans are anything but generous, kind, and pleasant. But, I think you can admit that not every non-vegan realizes this. My proposal would open many non-vegan eyes to the generosity, kindness, and pleasantness of vegans.
Second, I’m not proposing to exploit chickens for their eggs. I’m proposing to rescue chickens from industrial settings (whether battery-cage, cage-free, or “free-range”) and move them to a setting that’s at least as good as pets of vegans get– maybe better, since it’s more practical to leave chickens free in the yard all day than it is to leave a dog.
Third, whatever housing, food,and veterinary care you could provide would be better than what they would get at an egg farm. For housing, all they need is your yard (even a small yard), and your house or garage at night. If you’re a thoughtful vegan who eats lots of nutrient-dense food, your food waste will be plentiful, and will be much better for the chickens than the average family’s food waste. If you can afford veterinary care, that’s great. But if you can’t, the chickens will still get far better care from a vegan doing her best than they would from a farm.
Of course you could afford to raise chickens. As I’ve explained, all it costs is the initial adoption fee and the cost of some container to keep them from soiling your house at night. And you probably have the time. All you need to do is let them out in the morning, and let them in at night. If you get home after dark, or (god forbid) leave for work before sunrise, you actually may not have the time. Or, you may just need the help of a friend or neighbor.
It really isn’t complicated. And, it works best if you don’t eat eggs– that way, the eggs the chickens lay can divert an egg-eater from supporting the exploitation of chickens on a farm.
Too many people are already raising “backyard chickens” without putting sufficient thought into it. Most people think it’s a cool idea and have no clue what they’re getting themselves into. Some important points to consider before “rescuing” factory-farmed hens:
Chickens, like anyone, occasionally get sick. They’re prone to a variety of viruses and other illnesses. Your local urban vet is probably not well versed in them. In fact, she may very well not even see chickens in her practice.
You will likely get your first chicks from a hatchery. By some estimates, sexing errors occur 25% to 50% of the time. What if you wind up with a rooster or two? Roosters are not legal in the city and there are no plans to allow them, so what will you do with them?
How will you heat your henhouse in the winter? Do you have the time and inclination to clean it every day, ensuring that the hens have fresh straw and clean water?
Who will look after your chickens if you go away on holiday?
How will you protect your chickens from predators? If you’re one of the people who thinks we have a problem with coyotes and raccoons in the city now, wait till you’ve got chickens in your backyard.
The average lifespan of a chicken is seven to 10 years, though they can certainly live longer. However, hens lay eggs only until they’re anywhere between about two and five, with ever-decreasing frequency. What will you do with your hens when they are no longer “productive”? Will they become someone else’s problem (a shelter, a sanctuary, or simply left somewhere out in the country to fend for themselves), or will we be talking about amateur backyard slaughtering too?
And how do you propose that we vegans spring these hens from factory farms?
I’m sorry, I know your intentions are good, but this is not a practical solution.
There’s a confusing question up there about getting hens from a hatchery — I apologize. I was quoting from my own blog and neglected to remove that bit.
Debra, thank you for taking the time to respond to my proposal.
Chickens do get sick, whether they are in a factory farm or in your home. Because conditions in your home are so much better than at a factory farm, a chicken in your home will get sick much less often. When a chicken gets sick at a factory farm, they don’t get vet care– they get killed or neglected until they die. Even if you can’t afford vet care, a chicken is much better off in your home than at a factory farm.
The rooster question doesn’t really apply to adopting chickens (not baby chicks), but the zoning laws are murderous & should be changed. They lead directly to the death of thousands (maybe millions) of roosters every year.
Many parts of the country won’t need to heat a henhouse in the winter. For those that do, keeping the chickens in the house or the garage means no extra heating is required. If someone has a separate henhouse in a painfully cold part of the country, good insulation and composting bedding should do the trick.
Who looks after the chickens when one goes away on holiday? The same neighbor or friend who would look after a dog or cat while one is away. You build community by trading favors.
How to protect from predators: have a good fence & let them come in at night. That should take care of 95% of predation. Add in a well-socialized dog to share the yard with them during the day, and you’ve taken care of over 99% of predation problems. As for the occasional loss that happens anyway, that’s life. You don’t have to be perfect, you just have to be better than a factory farm.
Industrial egg farms get rid of chickens when they are 2 years old (or younger) because their egg production no longer matches the cost of feeding them. But the chickens don’t suddenly stop laying eggs–they just become less frequent (but larger) with age. And since you are feeding them with your own food waste, the cost of feed is zero. So there is never a financial reason to get rid of a chicken as she becomes less “productive.” She will still provide companionship and soil fertility just as well as when she was young, and she still won’t cost you anything.
As for how vegans can get these hens, there are lots of chickens in animal shelters, and animal sanctuaries rescue industrial chickens all the time. Show me a world in which there aren’t chickens looking for a home, and I’ll show you a much better world than the one we have now.
That said, egg farms sell millions of “spent” hens (again, 2 years old and under) to the USDA because they can’t find buyers. Some farms just gas their chickens, rather than look for a buyer. If a sanctuary or animal-rescue organization wanted to coordinate it, an egg farm would likely give away all the “spent” hens for whom homes could be found.
Thank you for acknowledging my good intentions, but the plan is good, too. These are real, concrete steps people can take that will save the lives of chickens today. Long-term, this is a much more realistic way to bring down the egg industry than to try to convince everyone to stop eating eggs. If you care more about saving animals than about trying to change people, this is how you do it.
[...] Now-a-days, livestock are kept in pins where they can barely move; they’re fed genetically modified corn and soy products (sometimes even the leftover icky stuff from slaughter…i.e., Wilbur’s uncle); they’re injected with hormones and antibiotics which screw with their natural biological processes; and they don’t even have access to sunlight. Now. I’m no vegetarian…but that’s just awful. We humans are mostly herbivorous, but we do need our meat. Sometimes. We’re also the dominant species on Earth, which can be sad at times(especially when things like Honey-Boo-Boo and Rick Santorum exist). That means that we pretty much are responsible for bringing animals into the world just to eat them. Source: http://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=2963 [...]