Many oppinions here. Commercial agriculture has allowed the United States to feed the world. Are the animals happy in this environment? I'm not sure. Most people that post here keep their chickens in some kind of coop - or cage. Are the chickens in the big coop more happy than the small. I'm not sure. I have 50 Rhode Island Reds that free range. In my oppinion real free range. They have two 10 x 12 ft shelters, 37 acres to roam, 20 nest box holes, year round green grass ( I over seed with winter rye and clover). Are they happier than your chickens? I'm not sure. Many that post here have chickens in the city. No roosters. Are the hens less happy with no sex? In my oppinion they are less happy, but then I'm not sure. From experience, my chickens still eat a lot of feed. Can they exist without it or has selective breeding removed their real survival skills? If you breed to the Standard of Perfection (totally appearance) and ignore these survival skills are you cruel? Are you cruel with no roosters? Are you cruel if your chickens are on dirt? Are you cruel if your coop is smaller than "Joe's"? Are you cruel if you buy your beef at the store? Ever seen a feed lot? I raise my own beef. Totally on grass. Am I better than you because of this? Absolutely Not!! My observation. Chickens seem happy with feed and water. Denying it is without debate cruel. Cage, no cage, grass, no grass, wire, no wire, etc.are mostly oppinions.
,
Chickens (or any animal, for that matter) don't view sex the way we do. It isn't for fun... it's simply a necessity for life. There is absolutely nothing inhumane about not having a rooster around.
I understand the gist of what you're saying, but I'd argue that small chicken tractors (which seems to be the target of your post with the focus on city chickens) where the chickens can be on the grass, forage for seeds/insects, scratch around, take dirt baths, and then go roost at night, are kept a lot more humanely than a chicken that stands on metal all day, never sees the sun or eats anything but pelleted food and has virtually no room to move around.
I personally don't believe in overly anthropomorphizing animals. Yes, I'm sure the chicken that lives in a cage its whole life is "content" in its own chicken way because it knows nothing else and let's be honest, as much as we love them, they're dumb as rocks. But I do believe anyone who wants to own animals, be they pets or livestock, has an ethical obligation to keep them in the most humane conditions possible.
Since I am a realist, I realize that the commercial operations you mentioned that "feed the world" have little choice in how they keep their millions of chickens if they want to keep operating on the same large scale. However, virtually any other farmer does have a choice. Most people agree the conditions factory battery chickens live in is disgusting and unnatural. Even a chicken kept in a small cage-sized pen on grass is more natural than one living in an indoor cage and that's all there is to it.
You mention having cows and the OP mentions having sheep. I'm sure it would be possible to pen up a cow or sheep in a building with a concrete floor so that it can't go more than 3 feet in any direction. If it has access to food and water, it has no room to complain, right? Just because chickens are easier to cage than a cow doesn't make it any more natural. And the vast, vast majority of farmers, both hobbyists and professionals, that I know of strive for organic, natural farming, not "practical" but dirty commercial conditions. Again, if all you want is commercial conditions, why bother farming yourself at all? Why bother going to all that work and expense to feed your family the same quality stuff you can buy at the store? And if you're in it for the money, where's your market niche if what you have to offer is no different from grocery store eggs and meat?
