Talk:Chicken/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Artifical Insemination of chickens

Has it ever been done before? is it legal? It's as legal as buttsex with a chicken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.113.205 (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Cluck

See Talk:Cluck. It shouldn't redirect here, it should instead describe the phonological sound humans make when clucking. See also Tut_tut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.170.118.11 (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Chickens in Greek religion

Chickens were definitely used for regular sacrifices in Greece, in particular to Aesculap (Asklepios). A rooster was considered the proper sign of gratitude for successful healing. Socrate's last words are reported to have been "We owe a rooster to Asklepios; see that this is done promptly" (according to Plato's account and probably meant to indicate that Socrate considered his death the healing of a long diease). --Sanctacaris 07:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Example is the Minotaur, a creature half-chicken and half-bull.--128.118.173.167 21:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I think you'll find that the Minotaur was half-man half-bull.

edit: oops, I misread your statement.

Religion of chickens

What do chickens believe in?

I am quite sure that most chickens are atheistic and become quite violent when engaged in matters relating to religious doctrine. One pecked me when I called it an anti-semite

Thank you for the warning regarding the hostility exhibited by chickens when they are offended by human utterances. Your post may save a life.Obbop 16:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Status

How can a domesticated form of a bird have a conservation status? Shouldn't it be Red Junglefowl that is marked as secure? jimfbleak 7 July 2005 06:09 (UTC)

I would say no since the Red Junglefowl is not the same as a domestic chicken. What you suggest would be like saying we should mark Homo erectus as secure since Man still survives today. SeaFox 20:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe in evolution, but there's hardly any outward difference between this Old English Game Bird (#1) (a chicken), and this Red Jungle Fowl (#2).

http://static.zsl.org/static/site/image-library/watermarked/032.jpg

http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/pictures/Red%20jungle%20fowl%20.JPG

(No, these aren't mine and as far as I know are under copyright, so don't use them in the article)

The Editor 2 18:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You are probably thinking of the conservation status given to certain breeds of livestock by organisations such as the ALBC (USA) or the RBST (UK). There are different classifications, given according to how rare the breed is.

Red jungle fowl and Domestic poultry are certainly able to interbreed and superficially do look very similar, however, similar reasoning may be used to support that dogs are wolves, etc. Their long domestication and close association with humans has altered their genome sufficiently to make them a subspecies of RJF. Also, there are certain phenotypic characteristics used to differentiate the two such as the presence of eclipse plumage and behavior of the chicks when alarm cries are given by the mother. http://www.cvpws.com/junglefowl2.html Wcbpolish (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Increased popularty as Pets

In the UK chickens have started to gain popularty as pets, behind this up-surge in popularty is the advent of the [eglu] it's kind of like the imac of the chicken world. The eglu has recived a resonable amount of press in the UK which has raised a lot of awareness of chickens as pet in the UK.

Does anyone know how many bones are in a chickens body?

Does anyone know what breed is depicted in the immage with the caption "A chicken at the 2005 Royal Melbourne Show"? I have a pet rooster, who i adore and have had for many years, who is very obviously the same breed as the one depicted. (for a long time I considdered him a rhode island red, but this picture calls my judgement into question) Paco 23:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

To what age do chickes live?

I'm surprised this rather basic information isn't in the article. Outside of the section on 'chickens as food', there doesn't appear to be anything about the life and death of chickens. -- Ec5618 22:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a no-kill flock (as pets and for eggs but not meat) and the lifespans of my birds have averaged 8-10 years. My oldest hen was 12 years old when she died of natural causes. I've had chickens for decades, probably a couple hundred birds in all. This is based only on personal experience, however, and I'm not an expert. Anyone else? Rooster613 19:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613

We have several flocks of chickens. I once had a rooster called Norman which lived until 11. Most of our chickens are killed at 5 years, however we have had a few that have lived until around 8 or 9. On experience only I would say they live the same period as whatRooster613 said. I will look it up on the internet though. Kyle sb 05:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Compare to the 42 to 49 days [1] that the modern meat typically gets to live. Femto 14:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Chickens can live as old as 25 years. I know someone who claims he has an older rooster. The reasons they don't typically live that long are that people fail to protect them from predators with proper housing and fencing, treat illnesses, injuries, and parasites, and keep hens in high egg production year-round. Without proper diet, hens reproductive tracts quickly give out as they get older. They need plenty of calcium supplements, and older hens benefit from a D3 supplement in their water, as well as other vitamins such as biotin, which can be obtained from placing Avian Super Pak vitamin supplment in their water a few days a week. Adding extra light to poultry during the short days of the year reliably produces reproductive cancer, the number one cause of death in "older" hens (2 to 3 years or so), according to the California state labs. Chickens need to be kept cool in the summer to prevent death, particularly during heat waves, and warm in the winter to prevent freezing combs and feet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.162.200 (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Binomial/trinomial name

Currently, Gallus gallus redirects to Red junglefowl, which claims that the domestic chicken is Gallus gallus domesticus. Should this article be changed to reflect that? —Keenan Pepper 03:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, in the absence of any response, I'm changing it. —Keenan Pepper 13:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Chicken Facts

chicken is what you call somneone who backs down without trying

Thats actually quite innacurate. I own quite a few chickens, and considder them to be intellegent in most respects. except for one: judging opponants. I (inadvertently) trained my pet rooster 'Odyssues' to attack my father's black cowboy-boots. even though my father, who is at least 10 times Odysseus's size, often violently kicks him away, Odysseus persists in his attacks. Odysseus's behavior has now begun to include attacking car tires. (Lately, i've had to be very cautious when driving out of my yard) These factors have led me to conclude one of two possabilities: 1: Chickens are either quite stupid (which i've already stated they're not) or 2: Chickens are some of the most suicidally brave animals in existence. Paco 23:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Broody

Where is the entire section on chickens going broody their incubation period and general mothering. Was it removed intentionally or lost in the never ending vandalism that occurs on this article? Kyle sb 16:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There definitely needs to be a section! Minglex 16:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I have re-added the Broody and mothering section which was 'lost' in these last few days. I can't see why anyone would want it removed and have to assume it was deleted by a vandal or accidentally. Kyle sb 16:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I find the statement that says, "Modern egg-laying breeds rarely go broody, and those that do often stop part-way through the incubation cycle." to be incorrect. I have had chickens for over 3 years. It's a small flock and I let them free-range, returning to the coop at sundown. My hens go broody several times per year and have hatched and raised young'uns who have, in turn, gone broody and hatched and raised young'uns. While I've had a couple of Cochins, the Rhode Island Reds and my Bantam have been excellent repeat moms and the Brown Leghorn hen has proved to be quite prolific.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.21.108 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 22 June 2007

To above poster: I think when they say Modern egg-laying breeds, they mean breeds like Pearl White Leghorns and the RedStars, which lay far more eggs per year than Cochins, Rhode Islands and Bantams- even more than Brown Leghorns, in fact. Breeds like the Pearl White Leghorn lay an egg a day, and in the 6 years I had them, never so much as played around the idea of going broody. Also, Cochins, Rhode Islands and Bantams are all well known for their excellent brooding and raising skills. I've had chickens for more than a decade, raised free range and organically. AMC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.71.22 (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject chickens?

Does a project for creating an improving articles on the many chicken breeds exist yet? Minglex 16:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There ought to be, especially since Wikipedia's coverage of chicken breeds is poor. Kyle sb 16:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject chickens would rock. Is there anyone out there who can actually make this a reality, or are three people just going to talk about it on the chat page?Chicken666 18:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

When chickens become broody, is it known for them to dig small pits in dust, which they will then sit/stand in and flap or move their wings, to cover themselves in dust. After this process, it could take them up to one week to start to lay. They will only lay in a comfortable place that they are used to, so for example their chicken house/hut with straw or hay in it.130.117.240.162 20:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Agricultural projects are rare at best. We are currently trying to stand up WikiProject Agriculture and have a provisional Project in userspace at User:Doug/WikiProject Agriculture. It's a very high level (many possible levels of children - few logical parents) project with an incredibly broad scope that would obviously include this topic. I suggest anyone interested join us and if we can get enough editors together we will work to create a Working Group for Poultry (Chicken is by far the most difficult article due to the ethical issues) to coordinate editorial efforts.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Chicken as pets.gif

In case nobody noticed, the picture of a woman holding a hen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chicken_as_pets.gif) is animated. Every couple of minutes or so the hen turns into a bucket of KFC. I find it hilarious, but that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia.

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. It sure does. Yikes. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish I had seen that... Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Loving"?

Re "Chickens can make loving and gentle companion animals": I have kept chickens for both food and companionship, and, while the birds can be sociable enough, I'm not sure one can honestly describe any chicken's behavior as "loving". Are fowl capable of love? Bchan 16:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

______________________________________________

That's kind of a philosophical question. Are you capable of loving? Can you prove it one way or the other? Since we can't ask chickens if they love, it would perhaps be more accurate to use the word "affectionate" in place of "loving". People who look at something as food are never going to want to believe it capable of love, in any case. 13:02, 17 November 2006 38.112.120.230 18:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Swimming?

Are chickens able to swim? :/ Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, no. And I own chickens. They have at least three factors going against them:

1. They can't float. (to my knowledge)
2. Then their many fluffy underfeathers get wet, and weighs them down even more. (no, their semi-water proof outer feathers won't protect them, since most likely they will flap trying to escape from the water, not to mention that they are just that, semi-waterproof.)
3. Their feet are not webbed, so they would flail around helplessly underwater.

None of the above is pretty.

The Editor 2 15:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I also have chickens and I have by all means seen them swim in a deep pool. I don't know for how long they could swim or if they could direct themselves, but a chicken, alive or dead, at least floats, and seems to keep its head up (the alive ones anyway). I was unable to find a citeable reference on the subject. --(This unsigned comment was left in the middle of my comment, but it is not mine. The Editor 2 17:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC) )

Thus meaning you can put them on an island somewhere for them to populate...Chicken Island! --TheJosh 10:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Just curious. What exactly does semi-waterproof imply? - 05:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Water resistant? 32.97.110.142 10:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Piepants\

* But only partially? - fiveless 15:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It would imply that they would stay mostly dry under their feathers with only a little water such as when it's raining but not when they get soaked ei. dinked in a pol of water 124.150.69.217 09:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In my experience chickens can swim. As a child i had pet chickens and i would often put them in my swimming pool. They did in fact float , they paddled in a similar fassion to a duck though didn't go very fast (most likely because they don't have webbed feet) but they were definately capable of swimming. Their feathers did get wet but this did not cause them any problems. Overall my chickens were quite content when swimming. 82.39.43.61 17:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Chicken Radio

Me thinks this segment may possibly be more accurate if titled "Chicken Ratio." But, what do I know. When I read the word 'chicken" I think of the trucker talk on CB radio wherein "choke your chicken" refers to a male manipulating his male member in an attempt to achieve some form of temporary physical pleasure. Obbop 17:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

when chickens are raised to lay eggs the male chicks are apparantly killed. I just wonder, does someone know what the ration of male chicks to female chicks is? I read on some sites that it is 1 male to 4 female and on another it is 1m to 9f. It would be good if the chicken page could contain some data on this.

thanks

Absolutely not! Assuming of course you meant before any chicks are killed. If a clutch of eggs is hatched naturally by a hen, or you do it in an incubator, it is about 50/50. The Editor 2 15:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

quite honestly, the reason people vandalize this page is because it's funny:) we should just keep erasing it and tough it out. Chicken666 13:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This won't help matters. Despite what Fictional Jimbo Wales says :-) --Richmeister 14:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This might be simultaneously the best and worst idea ever. [2] Gorman 14:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hilarity Ensues! -- wtfunkymonkey 15:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Best. Idea. Ever. Everyone knows about chickens! They can't swim, and aren't "loving," though. --Teknofatcat 9:37, 4 May 2007

Before the chicks are killed, there is a 50/50 hatch rate. There is no way to tell the gender of chicks before they hatch out. Indeed, some people make a living out of vent-sexing chicks at day old. However, unless you have these super-specialised skills, you need to wait until they are at least 8 weeks old, often longer before you can tell, as neither gender has any external sex organs.

Hatcheries and big, commercial farms employ vent sexers, and then they gas the males, at day-old. If you want a rooster for breeding (this is the only reason you need one - hens will lay without a rooster), then the normal ratio suggested is 8 - 12 hens per cock.

Well, could someone put something about the chicken raTio in the main article ie someone with some knowledge on the matter(ie not me)? Blacklobster

Chickenman is an example of chicken radio. *Dan T.* 18:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Chicken deceases, chickens as food.

If anyone has time, could they:

• Create articles for the deceases that are externally linked
• Find common names for deceases
• Create a list of chicken dishes that have deceased
• Link to that list in the chickens for food section

TheJosh 10:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Diseases, right? :/

It seems to me that most eaten chickens are deceased, if not diseased. Hopefully. — 66.195.210.123 02:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: Chickens as food - a lot of Chinese dishes server chicken cooked and chopped without removing the bones first - the slices (usually cut with a cleaver) are picked up and the meat removed from the bone with your mouth. Also they eat the feet quite often and sometimes serve the meat with the head somewhere on the plate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.182.43 (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

edit suggestions from anonymous users

Can someone revert this edit. Subsequent vandalism got reversed, but this one was forgotten. thanks. --84.172.176.156 16:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Is what he says true? That wikipedia editors are completely humorless about wikipedia? If so, can we edit that? --68.167.148.211 16:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Some are, I'm sure, but most are human beings. :P --Masamage 17:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can cite a reliable source for our being humorless, we will be honor-bound to include it. Also, Masamage, good call on the protect--I was about to do it myself after reading Ryan North's Livejournal. -- Merope 17:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, not ALL Wikipedia editors are completely humourless about Wikipedia! I said "many" when I *probably* should have said "just the stereotypical ones". ALSO: when I linked to this article it was already protected from before, so I didn't expect it would cause too much trouble. Sorry if it has been! -- Ryan

Look, everyone! It's Ryan North! And, dude, some of us do have a sense of humor. See, I can link to it and everything! -- Merope 18:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Daaaaamn! It's true! It's not even a red link either!

I guess IN MY DEFENSE I was only talking about many not having a sense of humour about Wikipedia, not in general? --Ryan

Thanks Merope, but I didn't protect it. ^_^ I'm not an admin, I just zoomed over here to check on it as soon as I read the comic.

Also, hi Ryan! I have an envelope with your handwriting on it. :) So...this probably won't be an enormous amount of trouble to take care of, but any time people vandalize it is going to take time and effort and attention to keep it under control. I'm hoping that the sense of humor most of your readers have is going to be combined with sufficient maturity that we don't have a problem here, but maybe next time your comic should get an 'M' rating just to be sure?

What do you mean that's not how the rating system works? --Masamage 19:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not have a sense of humor. I am an admin, and I like to block people and delete articles. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I did not know that my posting of what I considered to be useful information would be considered spam. After some consideration, I understand what could lead a person to that viewpoint. That in mind, it would probably be a good idea to remove my edit comment from the history, as well. No sense directing history-browsers to a site which incites Wikipedia vandalism. -Tsanth 17:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, many Wikipedia users still have a sense of humour and, what is worse, use it deliberately. This is why I recently set up the Wikipedia Fun Police, to help eliminate this problem once and for all. I encourage all true Wikipedians to help make this site a less fun place to be. --Grey Knight ⊖ 18:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The Problem is that they have no sense of humour and apparently an undying love and acceptance for pokemon. Which seems to be so odd. So much of wikipedia is obscurity being ridiculously well documented that you often wonder why detailed filings of celebrity masturbation aren't being kept. And while all that riff raff is being intensly speculated over, levity is despised to the utmost. I think wikipedia needs a serious look into the fact that it is a crowning achievment of humanity and should let itself be beautiful in ways that it is not prepared to be yet. The implications of this are obviously vague and the expectations even stranger. My best guess is that I am saying wiki should be "Yeastier" (Or Yeatsier?) One Love. Thechosenone021 20:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

CHAARRRRRRR!!! -- Charmander 20:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So... what's a "neak"? (see 'Chickens as food')

rofl, I read the latest dinosaur comic ([3]) and was wondering if the chicken article had been vandalized more often than usual today. Turns out it's even protected! Sonic3KMaster^(talk) 22:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It was already protected ,before Ryan posted that comic. That's one of the reasons he picked it. --Masamage 08:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Why the hell needs an article about chicken protection? Did any chicken-slandering occur? I oppose that! 194.95.63.241 14:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if this was possible. I know I'd rather have just one super vandalized page than hella minorly vandalized ones.Reignbow 23:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not Vandalism? TheJosh 09:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The irony involved would cause vandals' heads to explode. Gorman 10:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

According to official Wikipedia policy: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." The Every Topic Except Chicken proposal is quite obviously an attempt to increase the integrity of Wikipedia and thus should be allowed to commence. But the whole idea is based on vandalism and it isn't vandalism so it won't do any good and if it doesn't do any good it is vandalism but if it is vandalism it will do good but if it does good it isn't vandalism but... but... but...*explodes*Oman612 18:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

People don't follow the "don't vandalize" rule--why would they follow an "only vandalize a little" rule? If the goal is to break things, disrupt the flow of work, and get attention, an officially sanctioned junk-page would be totally ignored.

If you need proof, just look at WP:Sandbox. Yes, we already have a space for screwing around, and yet disruption still occurs everywhere else. There is no reason to take this joke seriously. It's funny, but it will never work. --Masamage 18:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The reason your sandbox isn't working is because it is cleaned every hour. Vandals vandalize because they want their work to last for a while. You have to trust in your principle. If something is extremely offensive someone will take it down, other then that a fun space that is not washed out so often is useful. And besides: who DOESN'T want to write a little quirk about chickens. Everybody has SOMETHING. Like chicken nuggets. I wasn't aware that chickens had nuggets!

So many vandals do their work by blanking everything everyone else has done that Hypothermia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia • Ten things you may not know about images on Wikipedia •Jump to: navigation, search Hypothermia Classification & external resources ICD-10 T68 ICD-9 780.9, 991.6 Hypothermia is a condition in which an organism's temperature drops below that required for normal metabolism and bodily functions. In warm-blooded animals, core body temperature is maintained near a constant level through biologic homeostasis. But when the body is exposed to cold its internal mechanisms may be unable to replenish the heat that is being lost to the organism's surroundings.

Hypothermia is the opposite of hyperthermia, the condition which causes heat exhaustion and heat stroke.

Contents [hide] 1 Stages in humans 2 Treatment 3 Prevention 4 Benefits 5 Medically induced 6 Paradoxical undressing 7 See also 8 References 9 External links

[edit] Stages in humans Normal body temperature in humans is 37°C (98.6°F)[citation needed]. Hypothermia can be divided in three stages of severity.

In stage 1, body temperature drops by 1-2°C below normal temperature (1.8-3.6°F). Mild to strong shivering occurs. The victim is unable to perform complex tasks with the hands; the hands become numb. Blood vessels in the outer extremities constrict, lessening heat loss to the outside air. Breathing becomes quick and shallow. Goose bumps form, raising body hair on end in an attempt to create an insulating layer of air around the body (limited use in humans due to lack of sufficient hair, but useful in other species). Often, a person will experience a warm sensation, as if they have recovered, but they are in fact heading into Stage 2. Another test to see if the person is entering stage 2 is if they are unable to touch their thumb with their little finger; this is the first stage of muscles not working.

In stage 2, body temperature drops by 2-4°C (3.6-7.2°F). Shivering becomes more violent. Muscle mis-coordination becomes apparent. Movements are slow and labored, accompanied by a stumbling pace and mild confusion, although the victim may appear alert. Surface blood vessels contract further as the body focuses its remaining resources on keeping the vital organs warm. The victim becomes pale. Lips, ears, fingers and toes may become blue.

In stage 3, body temperature drops below approximately 32°C (90°F). Shivering usually stops. Difficulty speaking, sluggish thinking, and amnesia start to appear; inability to use hands and stumbling are also usually present. Cellular metabolic processes shut down. Below 30°C (86°F) the exposed skin becomes blue and puffy, muscle coordination very poor, walking nearly impossible, and the victim exhibits incoherent/irrational behavior including terminal burrowing or even a stupor. Pulse and respiration rates decrease significantly but fast heart rates (ventricular tachycardia, atrial fibrillation) can occur. Major organs fail. Clinical death occurs. Because of decreased cellular activity in stage 3 hypothermia, the body will actually take longer to undergo brain death.

[edit] Treatment Treatment for hypothermia consists of drying, sheltering, and gradually warming the person. While blankets help a person retain body heat, they are not sufficient to treat hypothermia. In the field, a mildly hypothermic person can be effectively rewarmed through close body contact from a companion and by drinking warm, sweet liquids.

Moderate and severe cases of hypothermia require immediate evacuation and treatment in a hospital. In hospital, warming is accomplished by external techniques such as heated blankets for mild hypothermia and by more invasive techniques such as warm fluids injected in the veins or even lavage (washing) of the bladder, stomach, chest and abdominal cavities with warmed fluids for severely hypothermic patients.[citation needed] These patients are at high risk for arrhythmias (irregular heartbeats), and care must be taken to minimize jostling and other disturbances until they have been sufficiently warmed, as these arrhythmias are very difficult to treat while the victim is still cold.

An important tenet of treatment is that a person is not dead until they are warm and dead. Remarkable accounts of recovery after prolonged cardiac arrest have been reported in patients with hypothermia. This is presumably because the low temperature prevents some of the cellular damage that occurs when blood flow and oxygen are lost for an extended period of time.

[edit] Prevention Appropriate clothing helps to prevent hypothermia. Wearing cotton in cool weather is a particular hypothermia risk as it retains water, and water rapidly conducts heat away from the body. Even in dry weather, cotton clothing can become damp from perspiration, and chilly after the wearer stops exercising. Synthetic and wool fabrics provide far better insulation when wet and are quicker to dry. Some synthetic fabrics are designed to wick perspiration away from the body. In air, most heat (up to 40 percent) is lost through the head;[1] hypothermia can thus be most effectively prevented by covering the head.

Heat is lost much faster in water, hence the need for wetsuits or drysuits in cold-weather activities such as kayaking. Children can die of hypothermia in as little as two hours in water as warm as 16°C (61°F)[citation needed], typical of sea surface temperatures in temperate countries such as Great Britain in early summer.

Alcohol consumption prior to cold exposure may increase one's risk of becoming hypothermic. Alcohol acts as a vasodilator, increasing blood flow to the body's extremities, thereby increasing heat loss.[2] Ironically, this may cause the victim to feel warm while he or she is rapidly losing heat to the surrounding environment.

it wouldn't be that much of a difference. --Masamage 06:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that my insatiable lust for vandalism may have to be redirected to the chickpeas article instead. - Vandal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.242.14 (talk • contribs)

The Every Topic Except Chicken proposal may be an attempt to increase the integrity of Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean it succeeds in that regard. Were this topic unlocked, many individuals who up until today were not vandals would most likely vandalize this page (I know I would). Individuals who have vandalized in the past would probably not limit their vandalism to this page, because if their goal is for their work to be seen, they would head for an article not already being vandalized. And if their goal was to disrupt the learning of others, say, out of spite, they would head for an article that people could learn something from, not one that people know will not teach them anything, due to being filled with vandalism. Am I missing anything? 24.22.96.82 03:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds solid to me. --Masamage 03:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Protect or semi-protect from people not being a Digital Maoist

Is there a reason we're not semi-protecting this instead? Phil Sandifer 17:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It was getting heavily vandalized by registered users. --Masamage 18:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

YEs, this was a coordinated effort to vandalize. Users had no problem registering to do so. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It was linked from [4] which in turns links to a joke site, which makes fun of Wikipedia. -- Equinoxe 21:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protecting also stops newly-registered users. And it's not a coordinated effort, it's a joke on a webcomic. Phil Sandifer 19:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

And a web site. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Linked from the webcomic, and created as a back-up joke. Why don't we try semi, and see if it works. (By which I mean that I switched to semi, and we can re-protect if it continues as a big problem.) Phil Sandifer 21:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It was semiprotected at first, and that didn't work at all. But now that it's the next day, we'll see. Hopefully things will calm down. --Masamage 23:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Dinosaur Comics hasn't updated yet... probably once the T-Rex Chicken Solution To The Wikipedia Problem shifts off their front page, things will be more relaxed. --Grey Knight ⊖ 01:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.qwantz.com front page - updated! Now it can die peacefully in its sleep. --Grey Knight ⊖ 22:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• I can see a lot of this winding up on BJAODN. Sockatume 02:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please unlock this article! Illustrations are completly wrong!

Vast majority of chicken living today were born in industrial farms. Almost none looks like the photos showed in this article. I got some photos of how 99% chicken looks like today. Please let me update this article with those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.162.139.183 (talk • contribs)

Where are the images you had in mind? (And please remember to sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ .) JDoorjam Talk 01:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is locked because there of this site: Which basically tells everybody to vandal this page.

Please sign your posts. The page is only locked for anonymous and very new registered users. In order for images to be included in articles, they must first be uploaded. Where are the images you're referring to currently located? JDoorjam Talk 06:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

They're basically rectangular for greater space efficiency and don't actually have feathers. They definitely don't look like a differently-proportioned farm chicken. Sockatume 12:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You're slightly funny... D3matt 15:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Though Sockatume is unable to properly describe these chickens, he is essentially correct. Because they have been kept in small spaces their entire lives and are genetically modified to produce more meat, chickens are now very bulbous, and unable to walk in most cases. -Tombrend 02:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That's just a lie propagated by PETA. 24.33.129.162 22:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

I think that its weird, i read an article about the founder of wikipedia asking people to vandalize the chicken page, hoping it will keep them from vandalizing other pages, so when i get to the chicken page, it says that it has locked from editing because of recent vandalization.

Actually, that was Ryan North, putting his words in the mouth of Fictional Jimbo Wales. Fictional being the keyword. --Masamage 17:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And indeed the picture of Jimbo on the page in question has the word "Fictional" in large rainbow type over its head :-P --Grey Knight ⊖ 22:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh oh! looks like this one could carry on for a while... wikipedia chicken controversy (theregister.co.uk) Crimsone 19:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(Dinosaur Comics)

Some facts and factoids can be written in a humorous manner. It is rather sad that the old biddys will cluck their dissatisfaction at the cleverness some of the postings convey. Those old biddys can become as mad as a wet hen when their feathers are plucked. Personally, I really don't give a proverbial cluck what they think. Obbop

Here is my solution to the chicken vandalism: User:TheJosh/Chicken. Have fun! TheJosh 10:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I did my best to make your vandal wall entertaining, up to a certain point where I realized that I was wasting too much time and gave up. Thanks for the enjoyment!203.131.167.26 12:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we link to http://www.everytopicintheuniverseexceptchickens.com I mean it was a really coordinated effort :) ~JunkyardChiken

Nope, per WP:N. It didn't make much of a difference in the world. --Masamage 19:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This came up during the Colberrorism incident as well: we have to differentiate between things that affect the subject of an article, and things that affect the article itself. The chicken article is not about the article about chickens, it's about the chickens themselves. Because this assault (albeit a light-hearted one) was on a Wikipedia article, not on chickens, it's not related to the subject of the article. (It's also not terribly notable, undying love for Ryan North and Dinosaur Comics aside.) JDoorjam Talk 19:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Using Mr. North's idea wouldn't be a bad idea at all. It's too bad most of us on Wiki are too cool to sacrifice a single article for the betterment of them all. --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 04:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

recent vandalism

Hey, Ive noticed "your mom", on the cause of depresion cell. Revert it. --Walter Humala 21:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC) That edit might have come from a registered user.--Walter Humala 21:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, why didn't you remove it yourself instead of just marking it? --Masamage 01:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I would 've removed it, but I didnt have the word to replace it. --Walter Humala 03:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay. In the future, you can feel fine about just deleting stuff like that outright.^_^ Someone else can make the other fixes. --Masamage 04:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I fear the Vandal tribe that eminated from what is now the general area where Germany is located will press a lawsuit against all those using their name in a negative sense.Obbop 17:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Article name

Just thought I'd mention that neither the Chambers Dictionary nor the New SOED give a general bird of this species as a meaning of the word 'chicken' – only the young and the meat. The article should really be called 'Domestic fowl' or 'Common domestic fowl'. Grant 01:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems like the common name guideline would apply here. --Masamage 01:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't you expect the 'common' name to appear in a dictionary? Grant 02:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and it does in the three I just checked. On the other hand, I have no idea whether or not WP has any guidelines on how prestigious a dictionary we're supposed to be using; I've never heard of the ones you mention, but they seem important. Still, dictionary.com lists the bird under this name under several sources. --Masamage 02:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as likely to happen but I would support such a name change because;

• It would make this article seem more serious and may help reduce vandalism? I personally don't see what is so funny about the word chicken.
• Chicken is sometimes ambiguous for some people it refers to; 1. just hens, 2. the baby chicks, 3. the meat, or 4. the species Gallus Gallus domesticus in general. Kyle sb 09:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

History problem with dates

The guidelines say to add comments and suggestions at the bottom, and also refer to a "Post a comment" button... Confusing. However, the confusion that I wanted to comment on and ask for clarification of regards the history of chickens in the article. It says there were pictures of chickens in the 7th century BC in Rome, indicating an earlier introduction. It also says the bird probably originated in SE Asia and spread from there, but that's associated with a date of the 12th century AD. This is not making sense, though it might be that the 12th century thing is unrelated confusion and the chicken had actually been moving to the west long before that? Shanen 03:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

History: The Mystery of Araucanas

This article could use a section on Araucanas. They are a breed of chicken in South America (Chile), with apparent Pre-Columbian origins. They are quite mysterious. They lay blue eggs and lack tails. They are often cited as evidence of travel from Southeast Asia and South American in Pre-Columbian times.

Here's a site on them:
http://www.feathersite.com/Poultry/CGA/Arau/BRKAraucanas.html

I note that wikipedia already has an article on araucanas. Perhaps it should be merged into this article.

Interwiki request

Please add interwiki link for Serbian language Wikipedia. The link is:

[[sr:Кокошка]]

Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 19:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. By the way, congratulations on reaching 40,000 article over on srwiki, which has apparently been accomplished recently (based on the modified corner image.) Picaroon9288 02:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Places that DON'T have chicken

Do such places exist? I had an informal discussion with my brother once and after determining that even Russia could / should have chickens (we are not 100% sure but find the idea completely possible), we couldn't find a normally populated place that wouldn't have chickens.

Actually as I was typing this I was thinking that likely the arctic would not have chickens, and thus northern Russia also shouldn't have chickens. On a similar note the same with Antarctica.

Anywhere else? Piepants 10:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Piepants

I'm Impressed!

I'm impressed with this article -- seems quite complete! Yes, the tone could be improved in some sections, but the content/scope of material seems generally good. And I am envious -- what a wonderful big list of chicken breeds! Whenever I try to start something like that in an article, I get slapped down... Keep up the good work! 69.87.204.169 23:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Are people aware of this?

www.everytopicintheuniverseexceptchickens.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelritchie200 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes. See above. ^_^
andry 22:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-add Redirect

I want to re-add,

For the article on the human consumption of chicken, see Chicken (food).

or something similar at the top to this page, since, chicken has two direct meanings, the animal, and the food, and this is unrelated to the very long disambiguation page. Many other articles do this such as Russia comes to mind do this, with both a direct link to a page and a disambiguation. Epson291 21:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I am going to add it back, it's been a while. Epson291 10:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Beheading?

I've heard many times that chickens are able to survive a short time after their heads are chopped off, and will run or fly around before they die. Perhaps the article should say something about this? Why does it occur? How long do they typically live? (Yes, I read about Mike the Headless Chicken.)--Srleffler 06:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Chickens run around when they are beheaded because of nervous system impulses. Mike the Headless

chicken had part of his brain intact so he was technically 'alive' for all those years.

I'm no biologist so my wording may not be accurately used. 32.97.110.142 17:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Piepants

Growth hormones

It's even annoying to see that some people still believe that chickens are grown with the use of growth hormones. This is a myth! Even worse, those stating that such hormones are used in growing chickes are absolutly irresponsible by stating such things. Chickens are rised with no hormones. For those in doubt, look in the scientific (peer-reviewed journals) literature and you'll find NOTHING on the use of hormones to grow chickens. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.66.1.5 (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

{{editprotected}} I request that this be edited due to the following statements found on the USDA website regarding hormones and antibiotics. While I posted this under hormones, antibiotics are also affected. http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Chicken_Food_Safety_Focus/index.asp Hormones & Antibiotics No hormones are used in the raising of chickens.

Antibiotics may be given to prevent disease and increase feed efficiency. A "withdrawal" period is required from the time antibiotics are administered before the bird can be slaughtered. This ensures that no residues are present in the bird's system. FSIS randomly samples poultry at slaughter and tests for residues. Data from this monitoring program have shown a very low percentage of residue violations.

I added a link from an Australian site (I don't have any clue as to other countries and adding hormones) but if required, I can find more information. As to why people think hormones are added, I can totally see why. I work in a supermarket and the double chicken breasts are anywhere from 400grams to 900grams. The largest double breast I sold was 1.032kg! That's some huge chicken. Naysie 06:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection

there have been more than a dozen recent major vandalisms of this page, by several repeat offenders. I move to protect. VanTucky 01:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was protected before. Anyways, it does need protection against guests at least. 24.37.160.221 17:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 17:40, 24 Februrary 2007 (UTC)

Pls revert vandalism in "going broody" section. ringm 03:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

WHY ARE PEPOLE VANDLISING A PAGE ABOUT CHICKENS?Themasterofwiki 17:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• I know! It's almost as if there is a comic inciting people to vandalise the article! It's not as if there are several explanations or links to any such articles RIGHT ON THIS VERY PAGE.

• • It's just to helt wikipedia out: [5]

E coli references

There's no reference for the 99% statistic given. I did find this study that suggests the figure is actually closer to 10% —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rjnienaber (talk • contribs) 09:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Slang words

Is Australia the only country that uses the word "chook" for a chicken? If there are other slang words for chicken, do you think there should be a section for this? Naysie 06:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Chickens and styrofoam!?

"chickens will eat styrofoam like candy." - http://www.google.com/search?q=chickens%20eat%20styrofoam

why? and is this bad? what if they're a safe clean way of disposing of styrofoam? mine will eat as much as possible and go ravenous for it. i never see styrofoam in their poops or find the eggs taste bad, I guess it isnt all that poisonous, we expected a few to die the next day or something... they still love styrofoam and still make eggs. --x1987x^(talk) 03:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It is bad because some people actually don't want their Styrofoam things peaked to pieces. The little buggers ...~AFA ^{Imagine I swore.} 22:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Evolution of chicken

There's no section on the evolution of the chicken. Surely something can be said, referring to the proposed descent from dinosaurs for all birds. There's also this story 172.215.8.178 11:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I had to laugh at the phrase "some folks say chickens could be descended from dinosaurs." who wrote this article, George W Bush? Totally POV and condescending wording there. It was a scientific study. At least use the word "claim."

Looking at the evolution from dinosaurs, it would not be relevant as all this information is in the birds article, it would be relevant to write about evolution within the bird group.BioStu 18:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

All the news article is reporting in terms of science was that studies show chickens and dinosaurs share similar proteins, and by extension, genes. Fine. No surprise. Doesn't mean one is descended from the other, and in fact biology (post-Cladistics, anyway) doesn't normally make claims about ancestry-descent, but rather how close (or otherwise) groups are related relative to other groups. Hence humans and chimps aren't one descended from the other, but they are both more closely related to each other than either is to, say, gibbons. Anyway, this is the danger of non-expert Wiki editors quoting from non-scientific newspaper reports written by more non-experts about a highly complex scientific field that takes scientists years to learn about before they can contribute. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 22:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Revision

I've done lots of copy editing, moving, and so forth. I've formalized nearly all of the wording (unless I missed something), so I removed that tag. I also removed the citation tag, since it was no longer true. Certain claims certainly do need to be cited, but the article as a whole has more than a few sources. I fixed the pet section, which read like a care manual.

I think that some of these images are not helpful, and might need to be culled. Also, the history and religion sections are enormous and probably ought to be split into new articles. It would probably be well to go over the article again to delete unnecessary material in all the sections.

Feedback is welcome.--Vlmastra 03:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Free Range Yolk vs. Battery Yolk

What is the utility of having a free range yolk in a container with a battery yolk? I see they are different shades of orange/yellow, but I don't know if this is important or not, or what I'm supposed to be taking away from it. - MSTCrow 00:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It shows how the varied diet produces a richer (and possibly more nutritious) but less uniform egg. Also, not sure if this is in the article, but free-range eggs have much tougher shells as well. In other words, free-range eggs are better for you (or at least more natural). Compare it to the usefullness of seeing a wild salmon's dark pink flesh and a farmed salmon's (that hasn't been injected with dye) white flesh. Most anyone who didn't grow up eating factory eggs their whole life like most Westerners is a little unnerved by the look of a battery hen's egg yolk. VanTucky 00:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but there's absolutely no reference to the picture in the article. It's just floating there. If you do feel the need to include it, then put it in a section about farming practices. I'm all for animal welfare, but in my experience it is very difficult to prove that free range is actually better for you, so be stringent with your sources if you do claim this. GM Pink Elephant —Preceding comment was added at 22:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The "Humane Treatment" section

My problem with this section is that it appears to be attempting to advocate some sort of middle way position. I'm not sure that's the idea of this article. To take, for example. PETA as an example of a group not happy with chicken farming is like using the NAZIs to define right-of-centre politics. There are plenty of groups who aren't opposed to farming but are opposed to some/all practises involved in intensive farming. Groups such as Compassion In World Farming and the RSPCA and chefs like Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall. Many stores (in the UK at least) sell poultry that has been farmed in some more humane way, with the retailers aiming to serve the desire among shoppers for humanely produced meat. So it's not just PETA wanting to ban chicken farming altogether!

To take another example, the author of this section seems to be trying to balance any pain involved in de-beaking against the benefits of the birds not harming one another. That's certainly an argument, but I'm not convinced we should be making it here. Better to reference verifiable sources on either side of the argument, plus any scientific studies attempting to quantify the benefits against harm.

I'm not wild about using the phrase "backed up the UDSA's Extension Program". At the very least, this implies the USDA has 'science on its side' which isn't really true at all. There are plenty of scientists who study bird behaviour who aren't in the least happy with battery farming. The USDA, like any other government department, has its own agenda and is lobbied by any number of agri-business groups. So they're hardly impartial scientists. Besides, it isn't up to Wikipedia to favour certain points of view where consensus doesn't exist in the real world, whether we're talking the industry or animal science.

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 18:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


Indeed, this whole section, which first attempts to invalidate ethical concerns by drawing attention to the fact that certain of those with such concerns are oppossed to animal husbandry altogether, and then proceeds to list and argue against a (by no means exhaustive) list of ethical arguments, has the form of an argument for intensive farming. Comments like that on the USDA only serve to make this matter plainer. This is a pamphleteer's argument, and has no place in an encyclopaedia. cmsg

I agree with you both that this section is far more POV than it should be. It seems odd that the Animal Welfare section would include info like chickens are slaughtered when they are young and tender. I've heard that they are manipulated to grow big fast to be more profitable, which would be a legit animal welfare concern if it adversely affects their movement or health. I'll look into some ways to make this more NPOV and have it stay on topic, and find references - and bring that back to the discussion page before posting. Bob98133 14:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, RobertPlamondon, if you're linking to a Wiki article that defines broiler chicken as "young and tender" then also putting it in the humane treatment section of this article doesn't make any sense. I agree the link is good, but not repeating the definition in another section - that's the point of linking. I'll change that back unless you have some reasonable explanation of why it should stay. Thanks Bob98133 19:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea! Done. I've been beefing up the secondary articles (like Broiler) with more accurate/complete definitions and history, with the idea of slimming down the now-redundant parts of the main Chicken article, but I'm doing it in fits and starts and I'm not tearing down the redundant content in Chicken as fast as I should. RobertPlamondon 04:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Is there still an effort to reduce the POV here? The entire "Issues_with_mass_production" section is very POV and many of these concerns are shared with many other domestic animals (Cattle and Domestic pig in particular) but are not written about at length in those articles. Before I go about trying to do a re-write I'd like to get some idea what may be in progress off the page and where folks think we might take this to better it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There are significant issues with mass production (factory farming) of chickens and it needs to be addressed; but that section is definitely in need of a rewrite. Some experts believe that the H5N1 pandemic threat was essentially caused by China's industrial agriculture poultry vaccine use and practices. Also, mechanized chicken farming has progressed much further in the direction of scientific/mechanized/industrial/automated practises than for most other farm animals, so as such it has been used as an example of what to do and what not to do by both people against some of those practices and for some of those practices. WAS 4.250 19:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Chickens in popular culture

If you care about the Chickens in popular culture article, and want a place to put such material, then voice an opinion over at the discussion for that articles deletion, here. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 17:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Animal advocates

- Animal welfare is the concern for the welfare of animals, animal rights is the belief that animal have rights. I advocate that instead of using 'those concern with animal welfare oppose factory farming', we should just use 'animal advocates' are against, and than state the different motivations. Animal welfare and animal rights are very different things, and at times, the causes contradicts. Example, PETA advocates the right of animals to be free from human control, this includes, care for, which falls under welfare. PETA believes that we have no right to manage animals, whereas with welfare, the viewpoint is that we have responsibilites to go with our management of animals. [11:47am EST, July 21, 2007]

It seems fairly clear. In the humane treatment section it says "animal welfare advocates" which is sort of what you're saying. I'm not sure I understand your reference to PETA. They say they are an animal rights group, which might mean we have no right to manage animals, but they are equally clear about responsibility to avoid suffering with animals who are being managed. If you look at the KFC page, it looks like they are fighting for improved conditions, or better welfare, for KFC chickens, not just that KFC shouldn't use them. Bob98133 12:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well here we are, in spite of the different philosophy, the actual blurring of the lines by groups in real life? When does the advocation for animal welfare cross into animal rights? (or when the argument for the later violates the former, as in the case of those who advocated for that German polar cub's death. The one clear thing about any advocation for animals, be it, "don't eat them", or, "farm humanely, hunt moderately", is that, it's advocation for animals. So I think the article would be better, if through out, we just use 'animal advocates', unless we are dealing with something that's specifically animal rights, like PETA (which concerns itself with improving the lives of animals because they advocate that animal have rights, and ultimately believes that we shouldn't use them), and something that's just animal welfare, like, a chicken farmer who advocates free ranging chicken? 10:29 EST, August 3rd, 2007

Wikipedia should not frame issues with industrial farming as pro versus con or this side says this and that side says that. The are many separate issues and a variety of ever changing practices. H5N1 has caused numerous changes in poultry raising practices. The experts are advocating a change from old style industrial farming to a gradual change to sustainable farming. Only people who don't base their opinion on evidence never change their opinion. Animal activists are only too eager to paint it as people who care about animals against people who don't care about animals. There are not two sides and one issue. Many opinions. Many issues. Many facts. WAS 4.250 19:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Battery"?

The term "battery" appears in two photo captions, but that is it. The article does not explain what a "battery egg" is. Confusing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.251.230.56 (talk) 23:17:53, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Battery eggs are eggs from battery chickens on battery chicken farms raised in battery cages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WAS 4.250 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:DBN, the above comment is correct, the article uses the word "battery" only once in the text, as "battery hen". It could certainly use some clarification--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit protection

I want to edit this page. "protected"?? What kind of bullshit is this? "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" my ass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.48.241 (talk) 07:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If the article wasn't a repeated target for vandals, it wouldn't be protected. But it is. Once you create a user account (which is free) and then make some constructive edits elsewhere, you'll be able to make constructive edits here, too. Cheers, Neale Monks 08:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Four days? I guess this article will have to go without my constructive edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.146.203 (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is Ryan North, the great Canadian comedian who made this page such a big vandal target. His ideas are comical, but are they also not reasonable. Take a look at this page.

Chicken playing the piano

Under the topic of "humane treatment," there is a "citation needed" regarding chickens playing the piano. I offer this link as proof that chickens can indeed play the piano: [6] 75.61.182.230 08:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Jim Walker

Appears to be a blog, which is not generally allowed as a reference, see WP:V--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Needs more information on courting

I was down in the pub the other night, when I had a furious row over rooster dongs. I say roosters have to have dongs, they said they couldn't, it was pretty bad. Anyway, I looked it up on wikipedia, and, well, do roosters have dongs? It says something about "mounting the hen", which implies dongs, but has anyone ever actually SEEN a rooster dong? Nah, I didn't think so. More pics! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.215.227 (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want a pic of that, you're out of luck... Like most male birds, they do not have one. They have a cloaca, similar to that of the female – a single all-purpose opening. Mating is done by pressing the two together. Some male birds do have such an organ – waterfowl, and ratites (ostriches etc). You're right, this does need to go in somewhere, & it's not easy to find at the moment. (Snakes and lizards have two...)--Richard New Forest 22:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fix interwiki it

it:Gallo (animale) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.11.15.110 (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)