They're usually shredded alive almost immediately because they're seen as "waste" since they don't lay eggs
For some more context:
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
545 points (100.0% liked)
196
16460 readers
2113 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Never understood this. Why not raise the roosters for their meat and feathers and leave the hens for laying eggs?
I presume, like everything else wrong with Capitalism, it comes down to cost. It's more cost efficient somehow. I don't understand the details, because I'm not a chicken farmer, but I have been in the capitalism machine for a long, long time, and I'd bet a shitton of tax payer money that it's purely down to cost.
If it saves $0.02 per chicken, they'll gladly poison the rivers, oceans, lakes, etc. with refuse and baby chick corpses.
In this case it's because if you raised them no-one would want to buy them. The egg laying breeds are a lot tougher and have a lot less meet than the ones bred for meat. They also cost more per amount of meat in the end.
The simple fact is that people don't want to buy that, so it'd just be wasteful to grow them out.
Right. So cost savings.
Not mostly, mostly consumer preferences. You wouldn't be able to sell them and it'd just be wasteful