Fluffy Butt Acres: Stories of our flock

[Scrambles83]

Out of the nine hens I’ve had, only two have ever roosted and one of them has decided she prefers not to roost. You may come across a later post showing that I moved the roost higher, but I’m limited to how high I can get it as it’s a prefab. I do actually block off the nests with cardboard, which forces them to sleep in the main bit as a) the nesting box lids were getting mouldy, b) the main bit has a higher roof and a window for ventilation and c) it keeps the nests cleaner for longer.

Edit: forgot to answer your last questions; they may learn if you keep moving them after dark, or they may choose to ignore your wishes and continue to bed in the nest.

I did see that later post, yes. I’m up to page 210 of nearly 3000 been lots of interesting stories, info and beautiful photos though, I’m enjoying reading it all.
Thanks so much for answering always good to know that it’s not only your chooks that act the way they do, that you’re doing anything ‘wrong’, it’s just their individual preferences

 

[RoyalChick]

I love the way we bookend the week with Mugs Monday and Fluffy Butt Friday!

Honestly that, and @Grammy60 wishing us a good day (and naming the day), is increasingly the only way I know what day of the week it actually is!

 

[Shadrach]

Technically Kingdom Animalia>Phylum Chordata> Class Aves


They are definitely animals. Maybe you are speaking colloquially, or behaviorally from experience, because technically they are Kingdom Animalia > Phylum Chordata > Class Aves
Should I go hide now too?

It’s an interesting debate, but probably not one for these forums.
Collins English dictionary gives this as first definition.
An animal is a living creature such as a dog, lion, or rabbit, rather than a bird, fish, insect, or human being.

We are already in trouble. Why aren’t humans listed as animals? You can see where this argument leads. Not a debate for this forum certainly.

If one kept only fish and in casual conversation mentioned to someone you had to go home to feed the animals you may get some odd looks and a comment such as I thought you only kept fish.

On the Ministry Of Agriculture forms here you are asked what animals you keep. Bees and fowl, which we keep are not listed in the animal section. So, here and in many other places, insects are not generally classified as animals. You would not should you only keep bees, say you had to return home to feed the animals.

So, at best, animals is then left as a very loose description of all living creatures except strangely humans. Back to that tricky subject again.

So, my view is, given what we know about evolution, we either include all creatures as animals, including humans, or we use another word, or be species specific.

It gets more complicated. Our classification of species is still largely Darwinian. No doubt he was a clever man but we have, or at least science has, moved on and our knowledge increased.

Chickens get referred to as birds. But, if the theory is correct and chickens were in fact a type of dinosaur which had small arms that later developed into wings and given most would acknowledge chickens have never flown like most other creatures we classify as birds, then it’s hard to see how the classification as bird is reasonable.

So, if chickens are birds then animal doesn’t seem correct. If they were dinosaurs, then they are animals and not birds.


Here in Spain and in the UK chickens are classified as fowl. Fowl is used to distinguish a number of species from birds. Perhaps this is the best compromise.

 

[RoyalChick]

It’s an interesting debate, but probably not one for these forums.
Collins English dictionary gives this as first definition.
An animal is a living creature such as a dog, lion, or rabbit, rather than a bird, fish, insect, or human being.

We are already in trouble. Why aren’t humans listed as animals? You can see where this argument leads. Not a debate for this forum certainly.

If one kept only fish and in casual conversation mentioned to someone you had to go home to feed the animals you may get some odd looks and a comment such as I thought you only kept fish.

On the Ministry Of Agriculture forms here you are asked what animals you keep. Bees and fowl, which we keep are not listed in the animal section. So, here and in many other places, insects are not generally classified as animals. You would not should you only keep bees, say you had to return home to feed the animals.

So, at best, animals is then left as a very loose description of all living creatures except strangely humans. Back to that tricky subject again.

So, my view is, given what we know about evolution, we either include all creatures as animals, including humans, or we use another word, or be species specific.

It gets more complicated. Our classification of species is still largely Darwinian. No doubt he was a clever man but we have, or at least science has, moved on and our knowledge increased.

Chickens get referred to as birds. But, if the theory is correct and chickens were in fact a type of dinosaur which had small arms that later developed into wings and given most would acknowledge chickens have never flown like most other creatures we classify as birds, then it’s hard to see how the classification as bird is reasonable.

So, if chickens are birds then animal doesn’t seem correct. If they were dinosaurs, then they are animals and not birds.


Here in Spain and in the UK chickens are classified as fowl. Fowl is used to distinguish a number of species from birds. Perhaps this is the best compromise.

I must say I am with @ChicoryBlue on this one. There really isn't any debate in my mind that both people and chickens are animals. I forget all the other kingdoms but they are things like Plants and Fungi.
If a bunch of Agricultural bureaucrats can't be bothered to learn Linnaean taxonomy then they should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[Shadrach]

Please elaborate. You are saying, not a "flock of chickens", it should be a "tribe of chickens". Please explain how you see the difference between a tribe and a flock. I am willing to correct my lazy language and utilize correct terms provided you can make a solid case. I believe that you likely know better than most "experts" and so I am willing to listen.

Would you apply the word flock to a group of humans?
The studies I would like to link to are on another hard drive which I can’t access at the moment. I will dig them up though when I’ve got the hard drive back.

However, if you do a search on the internet you can find a few studies of jungle fowl behaviour and domestic chickens that have since become feral populations.
https://academic.oup.com/beheco/article/28/3/760/3057961

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_junglefowl

In brief, jungle fowl and feral chickens create a social structure much like humans. There is usually a senior male and a hen, sometimes two and up to a certain age, their offspring.

They live in small related family groups. In the jungles, each group has a defined territory which the cocks defend from other males. This is not flock creature behaviour.

There are a number of people here on BYC that have seen feral flocks, sourland who is observant has mentioned seeing small groups or tribes when visiting Hawaii. Others have mentioned the same including my daughter.

It’s a matter of reading what studies there are and making comparisons.

There is a vast amount of misinformation about chickens that gets repeated over and over again until it becomes an incorrect fact.

Let me illustrate this with a few examples.

The egg song which you have written about. People still call the escort call the egg song.
Chickens bath in dust to remove parasites. Even the wiki puts this one to rest
Hens stop laying eggs because they’re moulting. An old wives tale that still rattles around this forums and others as fact.
The correct ratio of roosters to hens is ten to one. It’s complete nonsense and the chickens ancestors usually had a one to one relationship.
Chickens can’t see in the dark. This isn’t true; they can see, but like many creatures they don’t see as well in the dark as they do in daylight.
Aggressive roosters produce aggressive cockerels. There is so much evidence that this isn’t true just on these forums that no more is needed.
Giving chicken cold water helps keep them cool. Basic biology shows this is wrong. It may help with a water based sweat system by providing moisture for the sweat glands to excrete but chickens don’t have sweat glands.

I could go on for quite a while…..


From my observations here, and all the various picture and posts I’ve made it should be apparent that I have groups, mainly related, each having their own territory. This is born out by a very few others here on BYC who keep free range chickens. Even with some of the more observant back yard keepers it is apparent that similar looking chickens, or related chickens tend to group together, much like humans.

It is true you can force every race and type into an enclosed space and in general everyone will rub along. Give chickens and humans the freedom to choose who they live with and where and you get groups with common cultural, common looks, or common family joining together.

It may well be an unpopular view but the evidence is there.

None of the above means these groups or tribes cannot and do not cooperate for the common good.
What it does mean is chickens left to their own devises are tribal creatures and not flock creatures.

 

[Shadrach]

I must say I am with @ChicoryBlue on this one. There really isn't any debate in my mind that both people and chickens are animals. I forget all the other kingdoms but they are things like Plants and Fungi.
If a bunch of Agricultural bureaucrats can't be bothered to learn Linnaean taxonomy then they should be ashamed of themselves.

I wouldn't argue with you if you include all creatures, including humans under the broad banner of animals. Unfortunatley we don't.

 

[RoyalChick]

I wouldn't argue with you if you include all creatures, including humans under the broad banner of animals. Unfortunatley we don't.

But we most certainly do!

Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Mammalia
Order:	Primates
Suborder:	Haplorhini
Infraorder:	Simiiformes
Family:	Hominidae
Subfamily:	Homininae
Tribe:	Hominini
Genus:	Homo
Type species: Homo sapiens

Sound familiar? That is you and me! And all the Agricultural bureaucrats. Though I can imagine some of those bureaucrats might be in the Phylum Mollusca and Class Gastropoda which includes a bewildering array of slugs!

 

[RoyalChick]

Chicken Tax

 

[Shadrach]

But we most certainly do!

Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Mammalia
Order:	Primates
Suborder:	Haplorhini
Infraorder:	Simiiformes
Family:	Hominidae
Subfamily:	Homininae
Tribe:	Hominini
Genus:	Homo
Type species: Homo sapiens

Sound familiar? That is you and me! And all the Agricultural bureaucrats. Though I can imagine some of those bureaucrats might be in the Phylum Mollusca and Class Gastropoda which includes a bewildering array of slugs!

But we don't. Have a look at the broad dictonary definitions. Many, not all, seperate humans from animals.
If you dig into the science then yes, humans get classified as an animal but in common usage the word animal does not include humans.

 

[LozzyR]

Ok, so on MJ's thread, Bob asked to see a picture of me in mediaeval garb. This post is rather long so I've plonked it on Bob's thread, as he asked (plus I got myself confused as to which thread I should be on!) Anyway, mediaeval SCA photos from eons ago (ACM may be willing to share a couple too!). One of them is rather obviously "buxom"; I will hide it under a spoiler. I've included some general ones so that you get the idea. (I've scanned them in so the quality isn't necessarily that great). I sewed most of my costumes myself.

Some of (a very young) me:

Spoiler: Warning - buxomness ahead! :)

And of course, the obligatory chicken tax.