How many hens can fit in this coop?

[AuntiePatriciaUSA]

How many hens do you think could comfortably be housed at the Sunny Side Up Coop? The coop is about 6.5x4, but it is very tall. For reference I am standing in front of the coop and I am 5'5" (This was before we moved the coop and added the run). There are 4 roosting bars at different heights inside. It is insulated. The run is 21x10. I currently have 6 hens (the inside photo of the coop was taken before the roos found a new home). With the typical 4 sq. ft. per bird, I would be at about 7. I am wondering if with the height of the coop and the space in the run if I could go over 7, and if so, by how much while making sure the ladies are comfortable

If you don't expect them to live in it, but just sleep in it and live in the run, then I'd think with 4 roosting bars, you could have at least two or three hens per roosting bar. They don't require a lot of room to sleep; they like to snuggle up - at least mine did. They DO like to stretch their legs outside, tho... will they be able to roam beyond the run?
13 days until chicken hatching day!!!

 

[Karlkurla Chooks]

Why do people include photos of other people in photographs but put emojis or scribbles over the faces? If you don't want the person identified, then don't put that photo up on the Internet...

 

[NatJ]

Why do people include photos of other people in photographs but put emojis or scribbles over the faces? If you don't want the person identified, then don't put that photo up on the Internet...

In this particular case, the first post does say:

For reference I am standing in front of the coop and I am 5'5"

So the text in that same post with the photo includes the answer to most of your questions.

This is a photo of the person who made the post (not "other people").
And they chose that photo on purpose to help show the size of the coop (size being very relevant to the questions they are asking.)

 

[Karlkurla Chooks]

In this particular case, the first post does say:

So the text in that same post with the photo includes the answer to most of your questions.

This is a photo of the person who made the post (not "other people").
And they chose that photo on purpose to help show the size of the coop (size being very relevant to the questions they are asking.)

Yes ok. I just find it strange to censor the identity in such a way if it is to be posted online.

 

[NatJ]

Yes ok. I just find it strange to censor the identity in such a way if it is to be posted online.

Most of the time when I see something like that, there is a reason to post that particular photo, but that reason does not need the person to be recognizable. Examples include the one in this thread (person for scale) or ones where a chicken is held by someone (either the chicken won't stay put for a picture, or the question is about a chicken that has died and no other photo is available.) In other places, I've seen pictures of clothing with the face censored out, if the clothing is the important part (they bought or made something they want to discuss.)

I've just accepted that it's something people do, for reasons that make sense to them, and some of the time I can see reasons that make sense to me too. Other times, I figure it's just what they want to do

 

[Mother of Chaos]

Yes ok. I just find it strange to censor the identity in such a way if it is to be posted online.

Maybe it hasn't hit Australia yet (lucky you, if so), but there are more than a few weirdos out there that stalk people they've seen online. If the person with the image has posted elsewhere, it doesn't take that long for someone in Mom's basement to use an image search to find more images and possibly then identify them, and then move on to online harassment. Get a life, but I guess this is their life.

 

[Karlkurla Chooks]

Most of the time when I see something like that, there is a reason to post that particular photo, but that reason does not need the person to be recognizable. Examples include the one in this thread (person for scale) or ones where a chicken is held by someone (either the chicken won't stay put for a picture, or the question is about a chicken that has died and no other photo is available.) In other places, I've seen pictures of clothing with the face censored out, if the clothing is the important part (they bought or made something they want to discuss.)

I've just accepted that it's something people do, for reasons that make sense to them, and some of the time I can see reasons that make sense to me too. Other times, I figure it's just what they want to do

Ok, thanks.


My apologies if I seemed harsh. I am all for maintaining privacy.
I just feel that by omitting oneself from a picture removes any chance of revealing the identity. Censoring one's or another's face with whatever method feels like it just draws attention to the person, despite concealing the identity.

 

[jmercer1981]

I would say 6-8 as a rough guess.

 

[Karlkurla Chooks]

Maybe it hasn't hit Australia yet (lucky you, if so), but there are more than a few weirdos out there that stalk people they've seen online. If the person with the image has posted elsewhere, it doesn't take that long for someone in Mom's basement to use an image search to find more images and possibly then identify them, and then move on to online harassment. Get a life, but I guess this is their life.

As stated earlier I apologise if I came across as harsh.


I recall as an adolescent child, seeing a strange adult lying in the grass adjacent to a school sports field, watching the kids play through a telephoto lens. It felt and looked suspicious. I was in a car with my family stopped at a red light.

A true paedophile will unfortunately access children and pictures of children without resorting to obtaining innocent pictures from the Internet.


I do understand about protecting one's or a child's identity online.
I have seen some photos of chickens on social media and I think it is really nice when people feature their children with the chickens. I appreciate the innocence of it and it is good to see children learning about and caring for animals, which is a good thing in the world.
I personally am not comfortable featuring myself or people related to me in my chicken pictures, but I respect others who do.


However I feel that by deliberately censoring one's face with any kind of emoji image or a scribble etc., it just draws attention to the person. That in itself can compel some crazy person on the Internet to stalk and harass that person, or people related to the person. They can get carried away at trying to unveil the identity of the censored faces, and eventually with enough stalking will track them down. Then who knows what could happen.

If the identity of the parent of a censored child is shown in the photo, then by proxy the child is identified anyway. It's all in vain.

There are also methods unknown to me where if an image has been censored by a digital filter or an emoji, then said layered image can be removed with photo editing software, therefore revealing the identity of the person. It is easier to just not show the person's face at all in a picture that is posted on the Internet.

 

[Mother of Chaos]

As stated earlier I apologise if I came across as harsh.


I recall as an adolescent child, seeing a strange adult lying in the grass adjacent to a school sports field, watching the kids play through a telephoto lens. It felt and looked suspicious. I was in a car with my family stopped at a red light.

A true paedophile will unfortunately access children and pictures of children without resorting to obtaining innocent pictures from the Internet.


I do understand about protecting one's or a child's identity online.
I have seen some photos of chickens on social media and I think it is really nice when people feature their children with the chickens. I appreciate the innocence of it and it is good to see children learning about and caring for animals, which is a good thing in the world.
I personally am not comfortable featuring myself or people related to me in my chicken pictures, but I respect others who do.


However I feel that by deliberately censoring one's face with any kind of emoji image or a scribble etc., it just draws attention to the person. That in itself can compel some crazy person on the Internet to stalk and harass that person, or people related to the person. They can get carried away at trying to unveil the identity of the censored faces, and eventually with enough stalking will track them down. Then who knows what could happen.

If the identity of the parent of a censored child is shown in the photo, then by proxy the child is identified anyway. It's all in vain.

There are also methods unknown to me where if an image has been censored by a digital filter or an emoji, then said layered image can be removed with photo editing software, therefore revealing the identity of the person. It is easier to just not show the person's face at all in a picture that is posted on the Internet.

Understood. Sometimes it's hard to crop out a person's face and still keep the intended subject, I guess. And that's true in some areas about removing attempted blocks in some cases, at least back when I was trying to share a document at work with identifiable patient ID. (Co-workers also had access to patient IDs, but they had no need to see this particular one.) I found that the block could be removed on just a Word doc and so forth, but that screen-shotting it and then copy/pasting that worked.

Of course, someone's probably trying to find a way around that now too... And to think that people used to be concerned about small-town gossip! Now we get to worry about finding our face photoshopped onto a porn model and published.