Vegan diet for chickens - is it unhealthy?

[BlindLemonChicken]

Chickens are not vegans or even vegetarians.

I am not at all sure you can convince this person of anything. As my grandmother told me, you cannot argue with an idiot. Just curious. Why do you think the chicken is Cornish X and Leghorn? That doesn't make any sense to me.

If someone wants to be a vegan fine, but don't pawn off that diet on other critters. To those that go on how healthful and natural a vegan diet is, it may be of interest of them to know that not a single primate in the wild subsists on a purely vegan diet. Not one. Chimpanzees even hunt and kill other animals for food.

I like that you mention this about primates. I know a lot of vegans. I'm a vegan chef. Not a vegan... I cook for vegans....and I know very few that prattle on about the benefits of a vegan diet with any real conviction. It seems more of a supplemental argument for not wanting to hurt animals, which is the main reason I hear for people "going vegan". Which is fine of course. Until you lock a chicken in your bathroom for its own good (I'm exaggerating-i have no clue where indoors this chicken lives-maybe I missed it)

 

[Egg Blues]

Religion doesn’t belong here, especially when you don’t know what you’re talking about. First, the intent behind killing something is what counts, so you’re wrong. Second, many Buddhists will eat meat as long as they didn’t kill it. Buddha did so.

I'm fairly new here, but in time, perhaps, folk will learn that I generally have good support for the statements I make. And this is no exception. I live among Buddhists, and have lived among them in multiple parts of the world. Buddhist restaurants in Taiwan, for example, serve a completely vegan menu. Buddhists in much of Southeast Asia will eat meat, as you say, excusing themselves in saying that the Chinese butcher already killed it--might as well eat it! Even the monks will eat meat in this part of the world because a Buddhist precept states that, since all desire is bad, and to have a favorite food or food preference would be to have desire, they must eat whatever is set before them with neither enjoyment nor distaste. Since the mother knows her monk-son likes to eat chicken, she places it in his bowl during his morning alms rounds. He must eat it! Technically, though, this is not true Buddhism, and is sometimes called "folk Buddhism." A true Buddhist should be vegetarian. Siddhartha Gautama ("Buddha") did not start the Buddhist religion. It was started by his followers after he died. He himself did eat meat, as you have said, and he died several days after eating infected pork.

My Buddhist relatives will fan their hand or blow at the mosquito that is on their arm, to chase it away without killing it. I have witnessed this. Clapping at a mosquito may draw eyes around here. I am not Buddhist, and will happily kill them. My relatives are presumably glad that I did so!

Finally, the fact is the animal is not being provided it’s basic needs. Chickens flock for a reason. They hunt bugs and small rodents for a reason. It would have been out of its misery if the thieves had just left it alone.

I didn't understand the "stole" statement to be actual theft, but used euphemistically. I could be wrong, in this, but the description was certainly not so clear as to remain unambiguous. As for the "flock" rationale, of chickens being social creatures and no one should keep just one, as it would be lonely in isolation, what happens if an owner loses all but one to, say, a dog attack? Should the owner suddenly be reported for having only one? (Reminds me of the Uno game, where, if but one card remains, one must self-declare the fact to avoid being penalized by the other players.)

So theft and animal abuse, two checks against them, wish I had their address so I could report them myself.

I'm glad you don't have their address. Government overreach, nosy neighbors, and a "report everything" attitude add up to situations like that encountered and remarked upon HERE.

I appreciate that you are playing devil's advocate

No, I am certainly not playing devil's advocate. Read the above responses to IgorsMistress to learn more.

 

[Suzz]

I think the best way to educate this well meaning but clueless person (when it comes to chickens) is to read this thread it is very informative if you could get him to,I’ve learned stuff myself

 

[BlindLemonChicken]

I'm fairly new here, but in time, perhaps, folk will learn that I generally have good support for the statements I make. And this is no exception. I live among Buddhists, and have lived among them in multiple parts of the world. Buddhist restaurants in Taiwan, for example, serve a completely vegan menu. Buddhists in much of Southeast Asia will eat meat, as you say, excusing themselves in saying that the Chinese butcher already killed it--might as well eat it! Even the monks will eat meat in this part of the world because a Buddhist precept states that, since all desire is bad, and to have a favorite food or food preference would be to have desire, they must eat whatever is set before them with neither enjoyment nor distaste. Since the mother knows her monk-son likes to eat chicken, she places it in his bowl during his morning alms rounds. He must eat it! Technically, though, this is not true Buddhism, and is sometimes called "folk Buddhism." A true Buddhist should be vegetarian. Siddhartha Gautama ("Buddha") did not start the Buddhist religion. It was started by his followers after he died. He himself did eat meat, as you have said, and he died several days after eating infected pork.

My Buddhist relatives will fan their hand or blow at the mosquito that is on their arm, to chase it away without killing it. I have witnessed this. Clapping at a mosquito may draw eyes around here. I am not Buddhist, and will happily kill them. My relatives are presumably glad that I did so!

I didn't understand the "stole" statement to be actual theft, but used euphemistically. I could be wrong, in this, but the description was certainly not so clear as to remain unambiguous. As for the "flock" rationale, of chickens being social creatures and no one should keep just one, as it would be lonely in isolation, what happens if an owner loses all but one to, say, a dog attack? Should the owner suddenly be reported for having only one? (Reminds me of the Uno game, where, if but one card remains, one must self-declare the fact to avoid being penalized by the other players.)

I'm glad you don't have their address. Government overreach, nosy neighbors, and a "report everything" attitude add up to situations like that encountered and remarked upon HERE.

No, I am certainly not playing devil's advocate. Read the above responses to IgorsMistress to learn more.

I see. Your arguments are of that tone, which I think is important for a healthy discussion. It is important to take into account the subjective nature of what constitutes neglect or abuse since we are all pretty much agreed that this falls into that category but the person who owns the chicken would most likely disagree with us and they aren't here to defend themselves. It is important to consider what their intentions might be. My husband is Buddhist and he eats meat but acknowledges that if he were being true to the precepts of Buddhism he would not. But by the same token, Buddhists shouldn't be having sex without the consideration that it could bring another being into the world. And that is certainly not a concept most modern Americans live by lol. My point is we need to keep in mind that this person can't let us know what they're thinking with their indoor vegan chicken

 

[Suzz]

Bye the way OFWolvesAndHen love the name I’m a major Metallica fan myself

 

[Allsfairinloveandbugs]

This thread grabbed my attention and held it straight through until the very last post.

What's the big deal? It's just a chicken whose destiny is to be killed by a human. Call it a temporary reprieve.

Even though the hen that is the subject of this thread likely can't be helped, there is nonetheless a wealth of nutrition knowledge posted here. That is the "magic" of these type threads; they live on and provide many benefits to future readers seeking information.

Someone may have already said this but I didn't feel like reading 6 pages of comments. Lol.

As stated above, the posts you missed are well worth reading for those who may have an interest in the topic!

I see you are in England.
Here is the Animal Welfare Act.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/contents
Looks okay doesn't it?
Try and get any of it enforced for a chicken.
I've met a couple of the "inspectors". The pair I met couldn't tell a chicken from a duck and wouldn't know enough about a chicken should they recognise it to know if it was at deaths door, or about to do the happy dance.

The OP doesn't give their location, but if they are in the U.S., chickens are even worse off here than in England. Chickens are excluded from protection under the various federal animal welfare acts, although some state laws may offer minimal protections. (But not much.)

I found this to be one of the most interesting and informative threads I've read in a while, even though some comments were fact-checked, not everyone agreed, and some opinions became heated. I have nothing factually to contribute to the discussion; was just a fly on the wall that "listened" with great interest while trying to take it all in. Good job y'all!

 

[BelovedBirds]

I see you are in England.
Here is the Animal Welfare Act.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/contents
Looks okay doesn't it?
Try and get any of it enforced for a chicken.
I've met a couple of the "inspectors". The pair I met couldn't tell a chicken from a duck and wouldn't know enough about a chicken should they recognise it to know if it was at deaths door, or about to do the happy dance.

Incompetence, for sure. The UK isn't so great at enforcing rules equally either, they help dogs and cats before they help livestock. But the same rules apply. And it's very clear that this hen is neglected, based on what we know.

 

[BelovedBirds]

I like that you mention this about primates. I know a lot of vegans. I'm a vegan chef. Not a vegan... I cook for vegans....and I know very few that prattle on about the benefits of a vegan diet with any real conviction. It seems more of a supplemental argument for not wanting to hurt animals, which is the main reason I hear for people "going vegan". Which is fine of course. Until you lock a chicken in your bathroom for its own good (I'm exaggerating-i have no clue where indoors this chicken lives-maybe I missed it)

There are three common reasons for going vegan, one is to do with the climate and saving the planet, one is purely to do with health, and one is to do with animal welfare.
More often than not these three reasons overlap. So of course some people will argue health benefits when raising awareness about animals- because that's not only part of their view but is also the most common argument fired at them.
Some vegans really care about supplementing their diet and living in good health, others are "junkfood" vegans. Same goes for non vegan, some people just dont care and eat enough variety to stay alive, and some care and make sure they're getting all they need. You certainly can't judge the entire group based on a junk food vegan who cares minimally about their health or who has a weaker argument about it.
As you say, it's not an issue until crazy stunts are pulled which affect said animals. As I've said before and will say again, many vegans don't know the first thing on caring for animals. They love them and stand against abuse, but give them a chicken or a goat or a cow, they won't know what to do with them.
And neglect can still occur, it has nothing to do with veganism, rather the inability to research. A common fault regardless of a person's diet.

 

[Egg Blues]

There are three common reasons for going vegan, one is to do with the climate and saving the planet, one is purely to do with health, and one is to do with animal welfare.
More often than not these three reasons overlap. So of course some people will argue health benefits when raising awareness about animals- because that's not only part of their view but is also the most common argument fired at them.
Some vegans really care about supplementing their diet and living in good health, others are "junkfood" vegans. Same goes for non vegan, some people just dont care and eat enough variety to stay alive, and some care and make sure they're getting all they need. You certainly can't judge the entire group based on a junk food vegan who cares minimally about their health or who has a weaker argument about it.
As you say, it's not an issue until crazy stunts are pulled which affect said animals. As I've said before and will say again, many vegans don't know the first thing on caring for animals. They love them and stand against abuse, but give them a chicken or a goat or a cow, they won't know what to do with them.
And neglect can still occur, it has nothing to do with veganism, rather the inability to research. A common fault regardless of a person's diet.

Most vegans I know actually have superior diets--not junk food, but organic, whole and raw foods. Those who are conscientious enough to limit their diets to a purely plant-based regimen will generally be those who also do not smoke, drink, etc. for health reasons. It's too bad that what seems the ideal just isn't. If only they would add some milk, cream, or eggs to their dietary, they would be far better off. There are some, doubtless, who think if they can just say they are vegan, they can eat whatever else they want (donuts, candy, etc.). But among my vegan acquaintances, this type is rare. That is why the results of the large dietary studies have been so surprising: it is counterintuitive to think that vegans would have the same rate of mortality as the typical meat-eaters do. Supplementing with cyanocobalamin and/or B12 of some other form does not seem adequate to change this trend for reasons we do not yet understand fully, as many processed foods add B12 now, and vegans often take supplements as well. Vegans in general may be more guilty of having a false intuition than a lack of knowledge, though certainly the former is partly a result of the latter--though the latter could be broadly applicable to even the doctors and scientists who are still learning about B12.

 

[BelovedBirds]

Most vegans I know actually have superior diets--not junk food, but organic, whole and raw foods. Those who are conscientious enough to limit their diets to a purely plant-based regimen will generally be those who also do not smoke, drink, etc. for health reasons. It's too bad that what seems the ideal just isn't. If only they would add some milk, cream, or eggs to their dietary, they would be far better off. There are some, doubtless, who think if they can just say they are vegan, they can eat whatever else they want (donuts, candy, etc.). But among my vegan acquaintances, this type is rare. That is why the results of the large dietary studies have been so surprising: it is counterintuitive to think that vegans would have the same rate of mortality as the typical meat-eaters do. Supplementing with cyanocobalamin and/or B12 of some other form does not seem adequate to change this trend for reasons we do not yet understand fully, as many processed foods add B12 now, and vegans often take supplements as well. Vegans in general may be more guilty of having a false intuition than a lack of knowledge, though certainly the former is partly a result of the latter--though the latter could be broadly applicable to even the doctors and scientists who are still learning about B12.

sorry but dairy, eggs etc are not all that healthy to the human body. Dairy especially is just not natural for us. Sure they contain some important nutrients, but they can be replaced by plant based alternatives which are generally more natural and more easily digested.
If you really want to try and accuse vegan diets of all this, you should actually reply to @Amfh
instead of claiming falsehoods and half truths before running away.