A veterinarian employed by the poultry industry will probably put a positive spin on the industry that writes his checks.

Bias is inevitable but it's still just plain ignorant to assume that just because someone works for an industry means they believe it's all hugs and kisses. The veterinarian was honest. She did not say all blossomy wonderful things. And who's more qualified? A random journalist who knows nothing about the industry and knows no reasonings for things? Who's less biased? PETA? I'm sorry, I'd rather take the statement of an expert than an ignorant "researcher" (who only looks at the abnormal 'bad' chicken houses and reads articles from PETA.)

Hmmm...see I have problems with "Averages"
On average Vermonters are less obese than the average American but that does not mean most Vermonters are not obese. </I>

That is an entirely different comparison relating to a sliding-scale body condition. I'm talking about a product with which there are concrete sales numbers for. And whenI say "average" I mean "almost every single one". When an industry member says "almost everyone has houses this size, although some places have bigger", I'm inclined to believe them.


Why do the beaks have to be cut off then? Oh right. Stress

The beaks are not cut off chickens in industry standard broiler houses. Period. End. If they did, the chickens couldn't, you know, EAT. Which is kind of crucial towards the whole growing thing.

Btw, if you have ever had a cat declawed you have absolutely zero room to talk about beaks being cut off anyways.

Maybe not, but have they been genetically altered to grow larger breasts? (the breast being the more preferred part of the chicken)

Yes, they have been bred to grow faster and for more meat (you can't really breed for just larger breasts. I mean you can, but it's very difficult and it's more profitable to just breed for more meat overall). But it's by entirely natural means and thus has nothing to do with steroid concerns.

If you're so concerned about breeding for extreme characteristics, I hope you've never coo'd at a dachshund or a Persian, or a pug, or a tea cup poodle or a Manx cat or a miniature pig or any of the hundreds of other domestic species that have been bred for extreme characteristics or bred in such numbers for popularity reasons that they develop health issues. If you approve of these, then you're just being a hypocrite about the birds. Or is it not okay because they're breeding animals to feed people?


That would be because they grow so rapidly that their bones are not developed well enough to support them. Because hundreds of millions of chickens die every year before reaching slaughter weight at 6 weeks of age, the industry is hoping that by slowing the growth and with the increase of vit.D/Calcium they will be able to extend the life and economic value of more chickens.

Did I say that wasn't the case? So wait, let me get this straight, you're criticizing the industry for trying to correct something so the chickens are healthier? Wow, catch 22 for the industry.




I had an uncle who worked in a chicken possessing plant/slaughter house for six months until he couldn't take in any longer. I suggest you do the same.

Uhm, well, one I don't work at a slaughter house. Two, I'm not talking about processing plants or slaughter houses. Those would be nasty and gorey enough for anyone to get sick of no matter how pristinely humane they were. Unless they find a way for cotton candy and rainbows to kill animals. I'm talking about broiler farms which grow the chickens. Way to provide a completely moot and irrelevant anecdote.