Factory "Farm" Culled Chick Rescue and Recovery

[DrinkTheRainbow]

Quote:
Nope,

it bother me too!!!!

X2

 

[duckinnut]

Quote:
Lets me be the first to say that your wisdom vastly out weighs your age. Your parents must be very proud and also great teachers.

 

[turtlebird]

Quote:
Nope,

it bother me too!!!!

X2

I read this as the 'experiment' part was only performed on the deceased birds.
THanks, Dennisfear, for taking these birds in, and giving them a chance. You will find the people here at BYC to be very knowlegable about the ins and outs of raising chickens, chicken breeding, behavior, history of, government regulations regarding chickens, ...well, anything chicken! You will find many answers here and explore different perspectives also.
It sounds as though this is your first exposure to the modifications that humans have made in chicken economics. It is a bit of a shocker, especially when experienced first hand.
I am a third year chicken owner and have raised Cornish Cross meat birds alongside my traditional laying breeds - the first on one side of the coop, the latter on the other. I often find myself standing right in the middle of the coop, absolutely dumbfounded at the differences and ethical issues that accompany the development of the cornish cross. Nonetheless, my birds are treated with dignity and respect and fed the best our family can afford. Even if the ethics that produced this unsustainable bird are questionable, people who raise their own can make a little bit of a difference by raising these birds with a little bit of love.
If they are cornish X, they can be raise a little slower with restricted feeding programs. Maybe since you are taking in the culls, they run on the small side anyway? Maybe they would have less of a tendency for heart troubles.
Perhaps you could post a pic so we can help you identify if you are indeed dealing with Cornish Cross?

 

[dennisfear]

I was experimenting only on the dead ones. The live ones would only have been caponized after I knew how to sex chicks and do the surgery with minimal trauma. This was clear in my post I think. Does that get me off the Dr. Mengala hook? Frankly, I think I am owed a couple of apologies.

It seems only Turtlebird suggests a productive use for these culls, but one that still offers only a short life of rapid growth as meat birds, unless these culls are generally smaller and less likely to have heart problems. Do Capons have heart problems even though they grow larger in the longer run? Would caponizing actually improve the life-span of the culled roosters?

Fred, I sit humbly chastized. However, I do not have the same faith as you that every assurance of food safety and quality made by the Gov is accurate and universally enforced. Check out the following article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=soybean-fertility-hormone-isoflavones-genistein.

Quoting from the article in Scientific American: "New studies suggest that eating large amounts of soy's estrogen-mimicking compounds might reduce fertility in women, trigger early puberty and disrupt development of fetuses and children.' The article is from 2009. The response from a spokesperson for the infant formula industry is typical denial. Would you expect any less from the poultry industry or its government defenders when it comes to soy in chicken feed, when the same ilk is perfectly happy to have it fed to our babies?

And what about the hormonal effects of soy on meat birds and the humans who eat them? I suppose I sound like I'm looking for conspiracies. Not exactly. I think Agribusiness just uses the soy because it works. They don't know why and don't care. They also care about as much about the health consequences for humans as they do for the quality of life for their birds. You should see the working conditions of itinerant "chicken-catchers".

Fred, from the US Gov quote you provided: Part of the poultry industry's increase in productiveness has largely been attributed to the efficiency of conversion of feed to gain -or- egg production. This increased efficiency can be largely attributed to imp'rovements in genetics and nutrition." [bold italics mine.]

Please note the qualifiers "Part" and "largely". Combine these two and you are left with a very vague statement. It's an old trick. What is exactly being said here? Is the "part" the Gov mentions something like 90%, or 10%? "Largely", at least, must mean something over 50%. When you combine the two qualifiers the statement loses all its meaning. I expect the other reasons for the increase in productivity are things we might less want to hear about, like antibiotics or the incineration of otherwise healthy living birds who happen not to fit the corporate mold. Not to mention the fairly recent introduction of soy protein to feed.

Turtlebird said, "It sounds as though this is your first exposure to the modifications that humans have made in chicken economics." While I am fairly new to raising chickens on the homestead, I have had sufficient direct and anecdotal experience with factory farms, going back more than 40 years, to know a little of what I am talking about on that score. What the Government and the poultry industry say is going on there is not necessarily the only source of information that should be considered. Those who do the work on the farms don't always have the technical knowledge or facts straight, but they know what they know.

I'll check the threads on Cornish X on the homestead for help, but I still maintain the whole dynamic cannot be reduced simply to a genetic cross. From Wikipedia: "Meat-type chickens currently grow to market weight in six to seven weeks whereas only fifty years ago it took three times as long. This is due to genetic selection and nutritional modifications (and not the use of growth hormones, which are illegal for use in poultry in the US and many other countries).' It seems to me that this conclusion is simplistic, and that the evolution of modern factory broiler production has involved an integrated back-and-forth between feed additives/adjustments and genetics, and that this breed might (I said might!) specifically respond to the hormonal effects of soy protein, progressively increased in animal feed over the same period.

I suppose I'll just keep acquiring culled birds, and yes, experimenting.

 

[Pele]

Quote:
I hate to say it, but your post was not in the slightest bit clear that you were not experimenting on live animals. I was so horrified when I read your post that I couldn't even think of a response that wasn't inappropriate, and didn't post.

That being said, 'experimentation' is a dirty word on any forum that has a lot of animal lovers. It evokes images of dying animals strapped down to a table. From your clarifying post, I am getting more of the feeling that you are training yourself on how to perform a surgical proceedure with the aim of increasing the lifespan of the male Cornish Crisses. Thank every god out there that you are training yourself on dead animals. I'm deeply deeply relieved to learn this.

With all of that out of the way, I think what you are doing is a good thing, since the chicks would have just experienced a terrible death without intervention. Thank you so very much for clarifying on your original post, a little of my faith in humanity is restored.

 

[speckledhen]

I was experimenting only on the dead ones. The live ones would only have been caponized after I knew how to sex chicks and do the surgery with minimal trauma. This was clear in my post I think. Does that get me off the Dr. Mengala hook? Frankly, I think I am owed a couple of apologies.

Frankly, since you are brand new here, I'm not quite sure you are all that familiar with our demographic on BYC. After all, this is Backyard Chickens and when someone says they are "experimenting" on animals, that elicits a rather gut reaction, especially when the intent is not all that clear whether you mean only dead ones or live ones. Perhaps, you might want to re-read your future posts to make very sure that you are coming across crystal clear. Just so you know, again, being brand new here, comments like the last one in the quote above tend to send a thread south quickly.

 

[Wildflower_VA]

This is due to genetic selection and nutritional modifications (and not the use of growth hormones, which are illegal for use in poultry in the US and many other countries).' It seems to me that this conclusion is simplistic, and that the evolution of modern factory broiler production has involved an integrated back-and-forth between feed additives/adjustments and genetics, and that this breed might (I said might!) specifically respond to the hormonal effects of soy protein, progressively increased in animal feed over the same period.

Myself, and many on this forum and many in a poultry club to which I belong, ONLY feed organic, soy-free, non-GMO chicken feed from Countryside Organics to our hens and meat birds, and the Cornish crosses are ready to butcher in 6 to 8 weeks, just like those that pay half as much for commercial feed based on soy protein. Because we practice restricting feed to 12 hours on, 12 hours off and free-range the meat birds, they don't have the heart problems as bad, and have less leg problems than the confinement houses do, but they still grow exceptionally fast and you have to butcher them at least by 12 weeks. Even the Freedom Rangers meat birds are ready to butcher at 9 to 12 weeks, and that is with feeding organic, soy-free broiler feed.

Actually, feeding the organic feed from Countryside which contains icelandic kelp, flax and other organic nutrients causes them to lay a couple of weeks sooner and mature faster than feed containing soy protein. Organic field peas are much better nutritionally than soy.

I agree with you about soy, thus I don't go anywhere near it if I can help, but the growth factor in meat birds is based on genetics and not soy, because soy has never passed the beaks of any of my chickens and never will as long as Countryside is located 15 miles from me.​

 

[dennisfear]

I have re-read my original post, and do find it unclear as to "experimentation", however I also believe online forums, here and elsewhere, should be regarded as conversation, not publication. This means to me that first, anything a person says should be regarded as tentative and not the last word, as though we were talking over a cup of coffee or a beer, and the poster should be given the benefit of the doubt. Second, to me this also means that a poster should be able to state opinions or impressions based on experience or study which may or may not be fully researched and referenced, without being shot down and condescended to. I also can see that for some reason this is unlikely to happen any time soon, anywhere. We will just have to live with the misunderstandings, premature conclusions and unfortunate negativity until we understand each other better.

Roughly ten years ago I had a long conversation over several meetings with a local broiler house manager who was also well educated in the science of animal husbandry and raised his own organic meat and poultry. He had experimented with the birds he was provided, and with the feed as well on his own birds and the industry provided birds. It was his belief that while hormones were technically not allowed in the feed, somehow the company was getting around that restriction because the behavior and development of his birds indicated to him some sort of hormonal influence (young hens trying to crow, etc.). Perhaps what he observed was simply an affect of soy interacting with other feed additives that may have been altered since that time.

As a child and teenager (60's and early '70's), I lived near laying houses in Florida, and spent time inside these houses with one old man who managed the houses, who hated his job because of the cruelty, and I had numerous friends who worked in layer or broiler houses. Every so often, once or twice a year, mountains of spent layers would be burned in the open, the smell of burning feathers traveling for miles. I heard indirectly from a holocaust survivor that the smell was similar to you-know-what. I'm afraid I have a hatred for these factory farms that at times becomes irrational.

Rescuing culled broiler birds is far from a pleasant endeavor. Frankly I hate having this level of intimate contact with the broiler houses. It's traumatic for me, and I already have PTSD. I am a so-far cancer survivor, and my attitude toward death is probably a bit different from most. I have come to regard quality of life as more important than quantity, and project that onto the birds, wisely or not.

Initially, I went to my friend (not the one mentioned above) for culls expecting them all to be dead. I had thought culling only involved picking up the dead birds. I was surprised (pleasantly at first) to find some of the birds alive and capable of survival if well treated. Having learned what I have from this site so far, I really don't want to go back for more culls until I am better prepared to care for the living ones, and better able to make respectful use of the dead ones. And what do I do with the deformed ones that can't even stand or walk?

Those left alive are stocky like some sort of flightless bird, and so far all that have died appear to have sort of deformity or behavioral abnormality which interferes with feeding and foraging. These variations from the norm have not been allowed for so far in my care of them, which is why I don't want to go back for more just yet, if ever. My other birds will have nothing to do with them, and vice versa, so they are more vulnerable to predators. One seems to have disappeared in this way. They will need separate accommodations, I think.

A tentative plan is to harvest earthworms to provide animal, rather than purely vegetable, protein to the young birds. Naturally, the birds go nuts for them, and it so happens earthworms are an extremely good source of Omega-3 fatty acids. Hopefully this would influence the beneficial oil content of the resulting meat and make the whole project worthwhile. Omega-3s fed to traumatized birds (as in traumatized humans like myself) should also aid in their physical and psychological recovery.

I'm thinking this thread should come to an end soon and its content be redirected elsewhere. I could use a suggestion or two as to where.

 

[dianaross77]

It sounds like you came across some of the same confusion a lot of us did when we first heard the word "cull." I, and many people new to chicken terminology, thought it meant the birds were dispatched. But as you've seen, it simply means to remove unwanted birds from a flock. Sometimes that means death, sometimes the birds are sold or given away. Unfortunately, you are seeing the worst of the worst birds this establishment has to offer. That is why they are being culled. Even people who breed chickens responsibly will have some who are born with a deformity or develop one later. It just happens. That being said, I am saddened by much of what I hear, see, and find out about the commercial egg-laying and meat industry. You'll find that is why most of us raise our own poultry. Business is just that, business. They are in it to make money and care very little for the welfare of the animals. You can only do what you can do. And even if you only make a difference in the life of a handful of these birds, it's still a difference. I think you're wise to seek out more information to better prepare yourself to help them. My only suggestion, as I am new to this, would be to do as much research as you can about the different reasons the broiler house has for culling and try to save the birds that have the best chance of survival. Good luck to you. You're a brave soul. Most of us don't have the stomach for it.

 

[Judy]

If you are still interested in caponizing, it is discussed at length in our meat birds section, which of course is the best forum in our community for discussing eating our own birds. You would no doubt find a lot more information on the genetics of the Cornish X there, as well. From what I understand of this (which is very little,) there is more to it than crossing two breeds; there are patents and industrial secrets involved.

Another reason to consider at least having separate accommodations available, if you do decide to rescue more birds, is the quarantine issue, which on BYC is probably discussed mostly in the emergencies section. The issue of what to do with defective chicks, such as splayed leg or cross beak, is also explored here. Obviously, culling (usually dispatching) is the solution for some if not many, but there is a good deal of information on here about trying to give these chicks a life. With splayed leg, for example, I have read that a simple Bandaid to hold the legs in correct position for a few days may be all that is needed.

Perhaps it would be helpful for you to spend some time becoming familiar with a few of our individual forums such as meat birds, and post as needed about specific issues. A thread about your philosophy and general concept / plan is not going to be the best place to discuss, for example, splayed leg.

As for the tone on BYC, I will simply comment that we work hard to keep it friendly and helpful, and appreciate our members letting us know when this is perhaps violated, with the report button. Perhaps you will find this helpful / informative: https://www.backyardchickens.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=182235

I wish you well.