Talk:Poultry farming

Add Practical Details

As all the rest of Wikipedia articles, this is just general descriptive and unprofessional knowledge, which doesn't benefit anybody in really farming poultry. Please add that kind of details. Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC) grrrrrrrr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.90.107 (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Describe how it is done. Too much about the existence of controversy, not enough about what is controversial

There is a lot about how industrial farming is bad.

Describe how it is done. Too much about the existence of controvery, not enough about what is controversial. What are the size of the cages? What is in the feed? Compare maturation rates of caged and free range birds. Data is more persuasive than angst. More pictures.

Compare the chemistry of free range and caged eggs.

All things I would be interested in knowing. More interested than in the existence of potential controversy maybe. Sermon over. Get to work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.122.238 (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Info about standardization

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+chicken+feed+standard&btnG=Search --222.67.209.100 (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+chicken+egg+standard&btnG=Search --222.67.209.100 (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+hen+egg+standard&btnG=Search --222.67.209.100 (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=ISO+6887&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en --222.67.209.100 (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

more review is needed for ISO 6887--222.67.209.100 (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+ISO+21527&btnG=Search obsoleted for ISO 21527 http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=38275 --222.67.209.100 (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+ISO+16472&btnG=Search Review....???--222.67.209.100 (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Review...??? http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+ISO+6497&btnG=Search --222.67.209.100 (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

so are these http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+ISO+5061&btnG=Search --222.67.209.100 (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+ISO+5506&btnG=Search --222.67.209.100 (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+ISO+5510&btnG=Search --222.67.209.100 (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+ISO+5984&btnG=Search --222.67.209.100 (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+ISO+5985&btnG=Search --222.67.209.100 (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Enough is enough and I leave others who are interested to audit the rest http://www.iso.org/iso/products/standards/catalogue_ics_browse.htm?ICS1=65&ICS2=120& --222.67.209.100 (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do let me know if there are other search engines than google providing the above infos which are different to the ones from google--222.67.209.100 (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

controversy

at least half the article is devoted to the controversy section. there is a subsection titled "destructive practices that pose serious risk to humans". there are weasel words and uncited paragraphs. Asdf98761 (talk) 06:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Even the parts that aren't in the controversy section are extremely biased. This article should be about the process, not the controversies. There's enough there for a separate article. LRT24 (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

speaking of controversy, it could (should?) be mentioned that some governments oppress their citizens with laws banning the production of basic farm goods at home. children studying about our nature should learn how much power corporations can exert. hiding this information is tantamount to being accomplices in their acts.

for example: (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/03/quackdown-pennsylvania-town-fines-man-for-pet-ducks/?intcmp=obnetwork) according to this fox news article circa 2013, delmont, pennsylvania apparently imposes a $500 per day fine for raising poultry at home because "The municipal law also bans “poultry,”". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.162.151.83 (talk • contribs)

That should probably go in the article urban chicken. Dream Focus 23:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

updated numbers from Consumer Reports

In the "E. coli" section, the article currently reads: According to Consumer Reports, "1.1 million or more Americans [are] sickened each year by undercooked, tainted chicken."

A 2010 article at Consumer Reports has different information. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2010/january/food/chicken-safety/overview/chicken-safety-ov.htm Each year, salmonella and campylobacter from chicken and other food sources infect 3.4 million Americans, send 25,500 to hospitals, and kill about 500, according to estimates by the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Out of the tainted meat that affects 3.4 million Americans, most of it from chickens, isn't it? The government itself should list stats year by year of each infection caused by each type of food. Dream Focus 01:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

'Intelligence' section

What is the purpose of the 'Intelligence' section? This information is about hens, the organisms, rather than poultry farming. It is misleading to equate intelligence with deserving humane treatment. The section should be removed. DrChrissy (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

details in World Chicken Population

The latest addition to the World Chicken Population uses the phrase 'factory farms'...do these include battery cages, free-range, barns, furnished cages? The expression is so vague it is meaningless. In addition, this information is from a publication in 2009 and so is possibly 4-5 years old. In the EU, battery cages are now banned (from today Jan 1st) so I suspect this information is very misleading. DrChrissy (talk) 13:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Changes in headings

I'm not sure the recent changes in the levels of the headings are correct. The changes make all the 'issues' relate only to broilers, and this is not correct. Having said this, I believe this entire articles needs a heavy edit as it discusses issues which are historical as if they are still problems. DrChrissy (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Addition regarding fertilised eggs

An editor recently added "An egg meant for eating purpose is not fertilized egg so there is no possibility of obtaining a chick from it.Such eggs are called table eggs." Unfortunately, this is not entirely true. Occasionally a cockerel is mistakenly placed in a cage or flock of laying hens. The birds mate and the female lays a fertilsed egg. This can be seen as a small red dot or smear in the yolk of table eggs...this is the very beginnings of an embryo. The editor may wish to reword the addition.DrChrissy (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

How would you accidentally do that? Any chicken farmer knows the difference between a rooster and a hen surely. Most eggs come from battery hens, and I know they sort them at hatching by gender, and kill off the excess males by tossing them into a grinder. Dream Focus 18:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

As you say, sexing of chickens is usually done at one day of age. It can be a highly skilled practice and occasionally there are mistakes and a male is not identified. If he subsequently goes into battery cages he will only mate with those 4-5 hens in the cage so the farmer might not be too worried about removing the male. In free range systems, a male is sometimes run with the females as it is thought to calm them. In flocks of several thousand birds, a few fertilised eggs is not a problem, especially if they are collected several times each day as this means the egg will be younger on the shelf and the red streak will not develop.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Red spots are not a sign of a fertilized egg, a very subtle white-ish bullseye is. If you don't believe me, look at the photos in the book, A Chick Hatches, by Wexler. Believe me, the males mature and start crowing before the females start laying. Although I'm not a fan of industrial ag, no large scale farmer with half a brain cell would mistake a mature rooster for a hen. Nor would he want to feed a rooster that isn't going to lay any eggs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.152.103 (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

We may not understand how it happens - but it does. See [[1]]__DrChrissy (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete Kuroiler hens

I propose that the section on Kuroiler hens is deleted from this article. This article is about poultry farming, not poultry breeds. I suggest that the section is re-written as a stub, perhaps similar to another Indian hen, the Kadaknath.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

India has the 5th highest number of chickens in the world, and this is the dominant species there. They mention broilers also in the article. How people raise chickens, and what the dominant type is, is relevant. Dream Focus 18:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to a 'mention' of Kuroiler hens, but a whole section seems excessive for the Poultry farming page. Of course this could be balanced if we were to include similar sections on the egg-layer and broiler hybrids used in other countries, but I feel this would add to the confusion that already exists in this article. Looking at List of chicken breeds shows some very good articles for India e.g. Asil (chicken). I think it would be tidiest to have detailed information on the Kuroiler in a seperate article and links to this in Poultry farming__DrChrissy (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

History?

It would be good to have a section on the history of this topic. I came here looking for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyfv (talk • contribs) 03:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Title photo

I'm concerned about the title photograph for "battery cage" (the one depicting a Brazilian operation in 2007). It appears to me that this is a staged photograph from an industry or pro-industry source. If you do an image search for battery cages, you will notice that almost all the images are markedly different from this one. Specifically, this image shows a well-lit facility, which is not standard practice, and the place is cleaner than any facility I have ever seen. The birds are all picture-perfect, with none having any missing feathers at all, which seems to indicate they have been selected for their appearance. Ideally we should use images which are neither provided by pro-industry nor pro-animal-welfare sources, but this is difficult because almost every source has a position; even newspaper articles invariably lean one way or the other, and are likely to use images from the side they support. I tried to select an alternative image which shows typical conditions and is not visually offensive. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I totally agree with you about the sanitisation of images of battery cages. I have spent many hours working in battery sheds in my career of improving animal welfare. The one thing that photos of battery cages do not convey is the smell! The photo you are repeatedly deletinY is a good image of banks of cages. Yes it is well lit and normal circumstances are under 10 lux, but if you took a photo under normal battery cage light, it would be totally dark! This would not inform the reader. Yes, they appear to be new birds in the cages but I left your image showing older birds in the article rather than deleting it, and their are other images in the article that show the extent of feather pecking and abrasion. Please try to work WITH other editors rather than against them. And please raise this type of discussion before entering into edit warring.__DrChrissy (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed the new photo where the reasoning for including it or replacing a previous one was that the original was not "typical." At Wikipedia, we need reliable sources to describe things (WP:RS). If staging was a problem in a particular photo, we'd need a reliable source saying so. That keeps Wikipedia from being a wild west and would prevent perhaps the flip side of the concern here and say the new photo is simply staged from folks wanting battery cages to appear worse than they are. Sammy1339, your description of why you selected the specific image is what we could call original research, and while meaning well, isn't something we're allowed to do here. Especially in a contentious issue, we should be reaching for our best potential sources, but in this case we are talking about a primary source. From WP:PRIMARY: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Unless we have a reliable secondary source commenting on the image, we're really not in a position to start talking about what is typical.

I can see two main approaches right now that satisfy our sourcing and NPOV policies. One would be to remove both images and wait for finding a reliable secondary source. The other would be remove both but find a new image without birds in the cages to remove the question of how healthy or ragged the birds look and stick with the main topic of describing what the cage is while again waiting to find a reliable secondary source. That's if we really want to push the issue of what is typical here though. Those are probably the best approaches if we want to steer clear of source and undue weight issues, but sticking with the original image doesn't seem like a horrible stopgap in the meantime since it wasn't implying what the norm was. Either way, avoiding original research is key here, so any preference on the first two things I listed? Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC

Thank you Kingofaces43 for that measured and sensible approach. When I re-introduced the original image and retained the new image on Battery cage, I gave captions to both images along the lines you have suggested. For information, I wave worked with caged layers for over 24 years and in my opinion there would be no such thing as a "typical" cage. This is obviously original research, but it may prevent someone spending hours looking for an image that does not exist.__DrChrissy (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Working in extension, I completely understand that there isn't something we can easily call typical for a farm, especially when dealing with pictures. There's always tons of variation between farms, times, etc. I'll admit there isn't really any great way that I can see either to tackle Sammy's concern as putting in a picture where the birds look shabbier can also appear to be against NPOV without a source to ground us. I tried glancing through some academic reviews to see if any good pictures come up, but no luck there. As you said, I think we'll be without a source unless someone really goes searching, so if we're just sticking to examples only and keeping the pictures not too far one way or the other we should be ok. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if my actions seemed a little aggressive. I've had bad experiences with taking things to discussion and watching nothing happen for a very long time, so I've sort of learned to just make the changes that seem appropriate, but in retrospect I should have taken this to the talk page on the second edit instead of the third. @Kingofaces43: I think you misunderstand the passage you quoted from WP:PRIMARY - it applies to interpretation in the text of the article. Images themselves do not have to have secondary sources discussing them at all. If the title image for "battery cage" showed dead birds, or ones with their necks wrapped around the bars, I doubt anyone would ask for a source indicating that was not NPOV. And of course animal welfare groups have produced many such images. We can use common sense here. @DrChrissy: While there may not be such a thing as a "typical" cage, I think this image is atypical in the sense that you would be very surprised if you walked into a facility that had been open for more than a week and found it looking like that. Even though it accurately shows some features as you note, I think it's likely to be misleading to readers for reasons I mentioned above. I would not take issue with this so much if the caption included explanations like "the facility would normally operate in darkness and has been lit for the photograph," and "these hens are newly arrived; older hens are likely to have missing feathers due to abrasion and pecking." There's also no mention of waste disposal in the article and if I continue in this vein it begins to sound very ugly and the POV issues multiply. Besides, all these statements then have to be sourced. I think a simpler and better solution is just not to use what you seem to acknowledge is a whitewashed image. I'm not crazy about the two-photo solution, which seems to say "this is what new chickens look like ... and this is what they look like after six months" or "some operations are nice like this one ... and some are ugly like this bad one" or "this is what egg producers want you to see ... and this is what really goes on" - all of those smack of WP:SYNTH. So, my preference would be to use one reasonable, realistic image. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Others might be happy to add their two cents, if you want. Consider posting the images in question here and a teeny caption indicating which is which. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• widths="300px"
• 
  Image 1 - the one DrChrissy prefers
• 
  Image 2 - the one Sammy1339 prefers

I just added them above. Now we can see what we're talking about. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I've read the above, and both images seem problematic. Image 1 is probably not typical. Image 2 hardly has a chicken in it. We have Media related to Battery cages at Wikimedia Commons. Any middle-ground images there? At Flickr? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We must remember here that the primary objective is to inform the reader. The vast, vast majority of readers will not have been in a battery shed. So, a picture that is most informative, even though it may be "staged", should be preferred. I am sure there are hundreds of photos that are staged to inform the reader (have a look at almost any article on a breed of dog, strain of hen, etc). @Sammy1339, I share your obvious animal (hen) welfare concerns - In my real life, I was highly active in the research which led to the banning of battery cages in the EU. I have learnt on Wikipedia that raisning animal welfare issues needs to be done with care - easing the reader into the issue slowly and without causing shock. Otherwise the article becomes contentious and is often highly "watered down". In my opinion, I think a photo of a typical battery cage WOULD have a dead hen trampled into the mesh and I would post it into an article, however, I know from experience that a photo such as that would almost certainly be removed. The current article already has a photo of an ex-caged hen with abraded plumage and a pale comb. It also has a photo of a bank of dimly lit cages further down the article. Have you seen these?__DrChrissy (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Good points. Yes, I have seen the other images, and those bring a measure of balance to the article. So, how about image 1 with a caption stating that the conditions vary widely, or something like that? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I would be fine with this. How about something like "Caged laying hens in battery cages (Note: light intensity has been temporarily increased to allow the photo to be taken)." Although the birds do appear to have recently been placed in the cages, it would be conjecture to state this. I think that a statement/s regarding great variation in e.g. construction material, size, number of hens, egg collection method, manure collection method, light intensity, temperature, humidity, etc, is best handled in the text.__DrChrissy (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I would not like to see a statement like "conditions vary" as that sounds like OR. I still have to reiterate my concern about this photo: I doubt that the conditions it depicts fall within the variation. @DrChrissy: If I understand you correctly you are saying that you want to keep this image because more accurate depictions lead to articles effectively being censored? That sounds pretty bad.

As for my affiliation, it's not like I belong to an animal group. I really don't like seeing articles dominated by corporate or other types of spin, and I found the idyllic images of farms in intensive animal farming to be prime examples of this - the one showing a building far in the distance with a tree in the foreground is an especially transparent example of a POV image. I thought this one of the chickens was the worst, though, particularly because it directly supports a popular fantasy of happy, healthy livestock, and wherever you stand on animal welfare Wikipedia should not be in the business of supporting fantasies that support business. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I am certainly not in the business of censorship. I repeat, my own personal choice would be to show an image containing dead hens being trampled into the mesh, however, I know that the WP community would object to this. That would be their consorship, not mine, Please remember that I have not deleted your images, I have simply moved them and edited captions. I have also pointed out to you that there are other images in the article highlighting the concerns you raise. I don't see how you can say that the image I support is out the range of variation. It appears to be a commercial shed that has recently been stocked, not a cage unit put together for the purposes of the photo. Yes, it is early in the production cycle and it looks clean and the birds look healthy, but it is still a commercial unit and those conditions existed at the time of the photo. Using your argument, if you are to take a photo at the very end of the laying cycle, this is just as out of the range of variation. The purpose of the article is to educate the reader and I still feel this image is the best one I have seen so far to do this.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

So are you saying that image 1 is actually what it looks like at the beginning of the cycle and with the lights turned up higher than normal? If so, and considering this image is disputed, then why not add that info into the caption. Sure, it would be preferable in the prose, but this would help to balance the image. Maybe a reasonable compromise. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I have just edited the caption (and the one of the hen). I stopped short of saying that the birds have only just been placed in the cages as this would be conjecture on my part. It is possible (but very unlikely) that the birds remained in good condition throughout lay and the farmer kept the shed very clean.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Note to Sammy1339 I have just looked at the image you mention in Intensive animal farming and I agree with you in some respects. I have deleted it on the grounds that it is not related to the article.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• You misunderstand: I'm not accusing you of censorship, but if you're saying that valid information cannot be included in the article because other editors will remove it, that sounds like an issue that merits discussion. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the misunderstanding. Yes, censorship occurs on here (for one discussion about this see Dissection). Some images are perceived as unsuitable for viewing on here for a wide variety of reasonable and unreasonable (my opinion) reasons. This is a much larger issue than just related to this article and similar ones, so here might not be the best place to raise you concerns as it will not be seen be many editors. Try one of the more general discussion pages.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

A couple comments since a bit of conversation occurred since I last managed to get online. Right now, I am ok with the current version of the page [2], but still pretty iffy on the captioning aspect or trying to attribute what conditions we are seeing. We should have sources commenting on these pictures and conditions of the environment or birds. Contrary to Sammy1339's comment above, images are not exempt from our sourcing policies:

• "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well." WP:DUE
• "Image captions should be referenced as appropriate just like any other part of the article." WP:WHYCITE
• "(Wikipedia) content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." WP:VERIFY

Considering the amount of discussion here, this is not content we can chalk up to general knowledge and instead need a source. I know that can be a pain for adding what seems like important information (I run into it in my expertise areas too where I can't cite myself), but verifiability is one of our core policies that helps us straighten out any weight issues. I don't like to overly cite policy, but in my experience it makes editing contentious topic articles much easier in the long run by sticking to the book. Normally, if we can't find a source for specific content, then that content isn't included (sources identify weight and grounds for inclusion). That also helps us separate content in the article from fringe theories, propaganda, etc. The simplest option now still seems to be going with an empty cage to show what the cage is, while waiting for a suitable source on the image question for gauging how a bird should be shown. I'm not sure how we'd satisfy our sourcing and weight standards otherwise. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Image 1 really shows the subject, but not how it always appears, right? Do we agree that image 1 is how the subject may typically appear at the beginning of the cycle, and that toward the end of the cycle, the condition of the birds and facility would appear degraded? If so, then why not add the image with a caption saying so. Why would a source be needed to support such a caption? It would be like having a rare image of a bunny in the rain. The subject is still the bunny, so the image is acceptable, but the caption would need to point out that the fur would appear different if the bunny were dry. We would not need a source for such a caption. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This topic is a little different, because the state of the birds over time and the conditions they are in is not something that falls under general knowledge or something obvious from the picture. Once you step outside of what is directly describable in the picture by anyone without expertise on the topic, you fall into original research territory. Kingofaces43 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm, that's a pretty good point. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I can easily find robust sources that state light intensity is often/usually below 10 lux in these battery cage units. For information, at this intensity, humans can just about read the headlines on a newspaper held at arms length. However, what I cannot do is verify that the lights have been turned up for the photo - surely only the photographer can do this, even though it is obvious it has been done. This is potentially getting a bit daft because if a photographer has used a flash gun, we do not usually ask that this is stated in a caption. How many thousands of articles on WP contain images of nocturnal or deep-sea animals where a flash gun has clearly been used.

I can also easily find robust sources on the feather damage and general poor condition of hens at the end of lay, but these would not be representative of hens mid-way through lay. It is not possible to tell from the image of the hen at which age she was removed from the cages, but the caption could include a reference that caged hens at the end of lay often have feather damage and pale combs.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

With the intricacy you're describing for a photo, it seems like we're going beyond what a photo is typically good for in an article. That information seems great to have in the body of the article, but a picture is meant to be a snapshot in time, whereas you're describing a lot of time dependent things. Again, great to describe that process with reliable sources in the text itself, but doing that with pictures gets tricky even with good sources in hand for other articles. A picture may not be the best way to go on this specific topic. I'd personally prefer to see birds in the cages myself (picture 1 does a good job on showing general the setup), but the condition question over time raises the issue of proper attribution to reliable sources again. We're getting into territory where we really need a reliable source describing a picture directly. We're relying either too much on our own experience or conjecture otherwise.

So, the lighting question seems simple. It's already addressed briefly in the article, although I'd remove conjecture from the caption from words like probably and just say something akin to, "Lighting is typically lower during usage [lux reference]" with that understanding being implied that the high lighting isn't normal, and just leave it at that. Just an example of birds in the cages, and nothing about bird condition (which can be addressed in text rather easily). If we want to have actual images of bird condition, we're going to need to reach for strong reliable sources with those images to make sure we're sticking to proper weight. It may not be the most likeable plan of attack, but I believe it is at least trying to address all the concerns that have been brought up here. Any thoughts? Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this and I will make edits to reflect this. I think it is time to hear again from Sammy1339 who raised the initial concerns.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of Anna's suggestion that "image 1 is how the subject may typically appear at the beginning of the cycle." Actually, looking around the internet, I'm struck that images of hens don't vary all that much between different sources. Compare the hens in this source from the Humane Society: [3], which is against battery cages, to the image in this source from the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association: [4] (scroll down to page 50 in the pdf.) You can look up other sources and you'll find that while they vary a little bit (e.g. you're unlikely to find dead hens in pro-industry sources) for the most part they look about the same. None of the images I've managed to find look quite as pretty as the one in question. So, why the insistence on this particular image? --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I am lost as to why this has become such an issue. Image 1 above shows clearly several banks of battery cages (the reason they were given this name) and gives the reader an impression of the scale of number of cages and number of birds and the confined conditions. Other suggested images, and other images already contained in the article, show conditions for individual cages. There is room for both types of image. I have no idea why Image 1 should be called "pretty" - in my own opinion, the image shows hundreds of hens being incarcerated in one of the cruelest agricultural systems humans have ever developed and I am glad that the EU has banned such systems.__DrChrissy (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. Right now we don't have any reliable sources indicating the current image or ones that look like it have undue weight in any particular direction. Until we get a reliable source indicating the image should be changed, Sammy1339's concerns are sounding more and more like they are based in original research. Again, well intentioned, but we need reliable sources summarizing whatever the concern is so we can judge how to weight things. A source like the HSUS would generally not be a reliable source in this article aside from brief mention on their opinion, but not for assertions of fact. Our job here would not be to look up multiple sources and weigh them (as editors we can't sort out fringe from the norm), but to have a qualified source do that for us already. Until then, I'm not sure we have any avenue to address Sammy's concerns. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hello. I found out this photo is definitely biased. Please translate the text from the source article and see for yourself: https://www.flickr.com/photos/agriculturasp/5811710792/

As you see, this photo is from an advertisement of a chicken feed product that boosts egg production. I have moved the photo so it is not the main photo. --LL221W (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Definite bias. Deleting photo and replacing with another one.--LL221W (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no clear indication of bias here. Please read the comments on original research above. If we want to select pictures based on how bad/good the birds look, we need actual sources to weigh in on such pictures rather than us as editors doing it. There's not really a way to move forward on this question without that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Altering the antibiotic opening line's pharsing

The antibiotic section begins with this sentence: "Antibiotics have been used on poultry in large quantities since the 1940s, when it was found that the byproducts of antibiotic production, fed because the antibiotic-producing mold had a high level of vitamin B12 after the antibiotics were removed, produced higher growth than could be accounted for by the vitamin B12 alone. Eventually it was discovered that the trace amounts of antibiotics remaining in the byproducts accounted for this growth". Despite being relatively intelligent and having a good grasp of the English language, I had to read it several times before I actually understood what exactly the line is trying to say. If anyone could take a moment - Please consider altering the way it is phrased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.160.223 (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

revert explanation

Concerning my revert [5], that link said its reference was from the government website at http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm The only thing about poultry also mentioned other things also thought. And it said: Butchers and other meat, poultry, and fish processing workers

Total employed 302 thousand workers, Women employed 25.7%, Black or African American 22.4%, Asian 8.0%, Hispanic or Latino 35.4%.

So you can't say its mostly women, since clearly only 25.7% were women. I also see no reason why you should mention the color of the workers. Is that relevant? Minorities have worse educational opportunities so dominate a lot of crappy jobs, including crop picking and construction. Dream Focus 02:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

You reverted an edit that added new information, and placed the section you question under the subheading. Thus, your reversion kept the information and data in question.Readdavi (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

No, the bad reference was removed and the incorrect information. As for your new information, it shouldn't be in the Muscular Disorder subsection, so I moved it elsewhere. [6] Dream Focus 20:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Expanding on worker health and safety

Hello,

My edit was removed for being off topic [7], but I respectfully disagree with that notion. I was adding relevant new content about poultry workers' health and saftey onto the existing content about poultry workers' health and safety. What do you all think? Is it on topic? Is it completely off topic? Should I alter part of it and make a new edit?

I’m willing to reach a compromise if needed, but I do wish to add most (if not all) of my material back. RockingGeo (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Chicken coop into Poultry farming

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

No substantial content in the page, minimal sourcing, doesn't seem enough to justify a stand-alone page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

No one responded. 49.149.124.235 (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• weak Support actually (could go either way on this really) - though latter article is bigger than I expected. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support: Despite having looked after chickens in a backyard coop in a bygone era. I am constantly amazed as to why such stubs were created, and the endless pointless effort of editing that they have generated. DMBanks1 (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support: Yes, it should be merged into poultry framing.--Geysirhead (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Commons category

@Mike Peel: I think this edit is obviously incorrect. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Invasive Spices: Is it? The first sentence of this article reads "Poultry farming is the form of animal husbandry" - so is commons:Category:Poultry farming or commons:Category:Poultry husbandry" correct? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think they are synonymous and so should both be here but certainly I wouldn't move away from the same string Poultry farming to something different. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • OK, raised for discussion on Commons at commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/11/Category:Poultry husbandry, with a suggestion that we merge them. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• OK Invasive Spices (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

How Temperature affects the reproduction in livestock/Chicken

Temperature/Climate effects on chicken 102.89.32.49 (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)