this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
514 points (95.1% liked)

196

15675 readers
4208 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

They're usually shredded alive almost immediately because they're seen as "waste" since they don't lay eggs

For some more context:

Why the egg industry 'shreds' baby chicks alive (NSFL)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago (9 children)

Never understood this. Why not raise the roosters for their meat and feathers and leave the hens for laying eggs?

[–] Tyfud 16 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I presume, like everything else wrong with Capitalism, it comes down to cost. It's more cost efficient somehow. I don't understand the details, because I'm not a chicken farmer, but I have been in the capitalism machine for a long, long time, and I'd bet a shitton of tax payer money that it's purely down to cost.

If it saves $0.02 per chicken, they'll gladly poison the rivers, oceans, lakes, etc. with refuse and baby chick corpses.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (3 children)

In this case it's because if you raised them no-one would want to buy them. The egg laying breeds are a lot tougher and have a lot less meet than the ones bred for meat. They also cost more per amount of meat in the end.

The simple fact is that people don't want to buy that, so it'd just be wasteful to grow them out.

[–] Tyfud 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Not mostly, mostly consumer preferences. You wouldn't be able to sell them and it'd just be wasteful

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)