Out of curiosity, can you provide any research on why you stated that nature intended them to lay only 15 eggs a year? I'm not trying to start any arguments, I'm simply stating facts based from a biological and historical viewpoint. If that were true, Poultry would not exist. Poultry are prey animals and prey animals breed rapidly to make up for the fact that they're actively being hunted by bigger animals. Very, very few prey animals live to what would be considered middle age.That's why rabbits and mice breed so quick. I've read books from 200, 400, and more years ago and they mention the productivity of hens being about 2-3 times a week. Eggs are also culturally significant and the only regular source of protein most cultures had, I have had Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, Asian and European recipes from thousands of years ago that feature eggs since eggs were in abundance. How far back do we have to go to get the mythical 15 eggs a year "the way nature intended"?
That's also a lousy qualifier for this particular argument.
If we did things "the way nature intended", that would mean violent, painful and slow death
would be apart of every day life.
Watch a show on lions, you'll notice that more often than not, when they finally get a zebra to the ground and start eating, he's still alive and will be until the blood loss or shock do their part.
The circle of life and all that, for something to live, something must die.
'As nature intended' would be letting disease, complication and injury to go untreated in our families and animals.
Nobody would have secure coops or runs and nature would run it's course on our flocks and and worrying about reproduction issues or life spans would be moot.
'Mother Nature' shouldn't be pictured as a beautiful, goddess covered in flowers, but as a wizened crone, dressed in skins and bones and dripping blood.
You treat your hens the way you see fit, I know you'll give them the best care, but you might want to change your argument to you simply don't want them to lay eggs to avoid reproduction issues, since the others are unfounded.
I had two 9 year old Hens, one still layed once or twice a week, the other never layed a day in her life, both were healthy (except for the shrunken comb on 'Slacky McHennerson') and probably would have lived much longer except for the coyotes. Reproduction issues can cut a hens life short but most are treatable and not laying doesn't mean a longer life.
That's also a lousy qualifier for this particular argument.
If we did things "the way nature intended", that would mean violent, painful and slow death
would be apart of every day life.
Watch a show on lions, you'll notice that more often than not, when they finally get a zebra to the ground and start eating, he's still alive and will be until the blood loss or shock do their part.
The circle of life and all that, for something to live, something must die.
'As nature intended' would be letting disease, complication and injury to go untreated in our families and animals.
Nobody would have secure coops or runs and nature would run it's course on our flocks and and worrying about reproduction issues or life spans would be moot.
'Mother Nature' shouldn't be pictured as a beautiful, goddess covered in flowers, but as a wizened crone, dressed in skins and bones and dripping blood.
You treat your hens the way you see fit, I know you'll give them the best care, but you might want to change your argument to you simply don't want them to lay eggs to avoid reproduction issues, since the others are unfounded.
I had two 9 year old Hens, one still layed once or twice a week, the other never layed a day in her life, both were healthy (except for the shrunken comb on 'Slacky McHennerson') and probably would have lived much longer except for the coyotes. Reproduction issues can cut a hens life short but most are treatable and not laying doesn't mean a longer life.