Battery hens are 'healthier' than free range, apparently

Nellie · Post by **Nellie** » 15 Jan 2009, 15:52

Battery hens are 'healthier' than free range, apparently. Well, according to an article in today's Daily Mail they are.

Here's the full story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... range.html

Do you agree?

Babycakes · Post by **Babycakes** » 15 Jan 2009, 16:00

I'm sure we would all technically be "healthier" if we lived in tiny boxes that were sterile, with no chance of contamination fromt he outside world, no chance of coming to harm because we can't actually move far enough to even fall over, fed a precise balance of nutrients in pellet form for our optimum wellbeing, pumped full of all sorts of dr-ugs, supplements vaccinations...but would we be leading a better life?? No, I think not. Life is for living, risk and all - for us and all other animals.

Babycakes · Post by **Babycakes** » 15 Jan 2009, 16:20

Jen,
I have a LOT to say on the sterile children issue, but wont because this part of the forum is public!!

kate egg · Post by **kate egg** » 15 Jan 2009, 18:41

The headline was dramatic, but when you read further it explained that the tests were done on sites that had only recently gone free range and were still learing the ropes. The experienced farms weren't taken into account.

Although with my experiences this week of Duffy being ill, I know for sure if she had been in a commercial free range operation she would have definitely been a goner. There's no way a business no matter how caring could spend so much time on a non-viable chicken.

At the end of the day these farms need to make a profit, they aren't there for the fun of it, if they don't make money they go bust and all the chickens would be for the chop. Therefore they cannot afford to be sentimental about poorly chickens. +cry+

Sorry I think I went a bit )ot:

there

Post by **wendy** » 15 Jan 2009, 18:43

This has been bandied around before, a loads of Bu*****t I am afraid.
They may be physically better as they are protected from germs, but look what they are doing to these birds mentally and the toll that takes on their bodies. If I kept my chickens like that I would be up before the beak.
I have just heard of an ex battery girl being put to sleep because she was riddled with cancer. What worries me was only a few months ago all her cage mates ended up in baby food, chicken nuggets, chicken pies, stock cubes, soup. Fate decided that she was rescued. Where would she be now if she hadn't been rescued, as they only found the problem by x-ray. Still it doesn't matter it is only the children of the poor that eat this cheap badly produced food.
Sorry on my soapbox again....all children deserve decent food.
Wendy

bluebell · Post by **bluebell** » 15 Jan 2009, 18:49

Well said, Wendy (applause!!!) )t'

Sunny B · Post by **Sunny B** » 17 Jan 2009, 10:42

Yes, I agree with all of you.

Healthy does not neccessarily mean happy.

echelon · Post by **echelon** » 17 Jan 2009, 11:07

That is totally ridiculous.

Health cannot simply be measured in terms of lack of infection or disease. The concept of health incorporates both social and emotional/psychological wellbeing as well as the physical. In order for a person/animal to be deemed healthy, they must be able to function in all three ways in order to thrive. You wouldn't take a human infant from birth and care for it by keeping it in a sterile environment away from others and without any interaction at all.

Free range hens reflect the more natural environment that birds normally live in and this natural environment involves hazards such as infection and fighting with each other - birds are notoriously aggressive, it's part of their natural behaviour in order to keep the flock in order otherwise chaos would ensue.

This human obsession with sterility, cleanliness and fear of infection is ridiculous - if humans want to eat meat then they must realise that infection is part of the deal - our ancestors survived on chicken that wasn't sterile and so can we as long as reasonable precautions are taken and people don't take unnecessary risks such as not storing meat properly and undercooking it. Unfortunately, people in this day and age have about as many brain cells as a carrot and can't be trusted to know how to cook meat properly - it's Darwinian as far as I'm concerned - let the thickos poison themselves and weed themselves out of the gene pool!!!

People also dislike paying the true cost of a free range chicken - which is usually several Â£s more than a standard chicken - so, let them eat something else instead - why should these poor animals be so cheap? They're worth whatever it costs to breed/raise them and if people don't like it then tough.

Battery cages are evil and these eggs should no longer be sold. Even the so-called 'enriched' cages are a load of crap!

kate egg · Post by **kate egg** » 17 Jan 2009, 15:57

Seen in todays paper that Sainsbloggs are completely withdrawing caged eggs from ealry Feb and wil only sell free range. They are working to have all their ready made produce free of battery eggs too but this is a few years off yet.

Post by **wendy** » 17 Jan 2009, 16:15

Yes they are joining M arks and S parks, Son of Morris and Op-Co
May take some time for T esco to follow suit. But it is just a drip before the deluge and then they will have to follow where others lead.
Wendy

Nellie · Post by **Nellie** » 17 Jan 2009, 19:31

In case anyone wants to read the article, the link to it is here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... cages.html

bookbinder · Post by **bookbinder** » 19 Jan 2009, 17:32

Just had to buy sonme eggs ..Yorkshire pudding withdrawl...10 hens no eggs!!!!!

Bought some in Tesco that are free range but various sizes....? so cheaper than specific sized eggs. Have to say they did all look a similar size..hmmmmm not sure what I think about this Â£2.00 for 15.

Does anybody know anything that would make me think these are not a wise choice? Have to see they made ok puddings...nothing like the real thing, but ok!