[hootbootscoot]

The point I got from the OP was that traditional culture was low-carbon from day 0, and that at least Britain's climate change minister was jetting about an AWFUL lot, and there are plenty of jet-setters pushing a vegan diet upon the world when home-kept chickens are obviously a net plus, both in terms of food waste (accounts for a significant carbon and other pollution footprint, as we pay to produce it) and in terms of proteins that don't require killing your chickens over (eggs). Contrast that with having a cat or dog (look at amount of animals slaughtered for pet foods)

I agree that our systems need revamping in a large-scale way, particularly agriculture, as you imply.

[dwighttk]

You gotta kill some chickens if you want eggs.

[skinkestek]

The only way you comment makes sense to me is if you talk about male chickens and even then it is not necessary:

When keeping chickens at home like GP suggest you can keep the around and it would still be a net plus in the carbon calculations since you are just using food that would have been thrown away otherwise.

That sides, unless we are going to bring veganism into this there is no reason to do that.

[umanwizard]

Why?

[dwighttk]

Male chickens and female chickens too old to lay…

[skinkestek]

Again, if you feed them from food scraps you can keep them alive as long as you fancy or until they die from old age and still be carbon negative compared to throwing the food to waste.

It is just a choice. If you are OK with keeping livestock but don't want to kill animals, keep them around.

If reducing CO2 emissions is more important, kill off male chickens as well as old ones and instead keep more of the productive ones and share some eggs (and some knowledge - if possible) with friends.

[PretzelPirate]

Unless you use artificial insemination to only produce hens, you’ll run into a problem. You will end up with many roosters who won’t produce eggs and you have to feed and care for them as well. Unless you have a gigantic yard or want wild roosters everywhere, you’ll end up killing a lot of them.

The hens you’ll have will produce eggs, but maybe only one a day and they’ll skip laying quite often. You can avoid that if you get modern hens who were selectively bred to lay excess eggs, but they will require more food than “table scraps” (they really need calcium supplements) and their bodies will be destroyed within two years. At that point you either kill them or let them suffer - neither us a good outcome for them.

There are plenty of scalable alternatives to raising chickens for their eggs. Plant-based options do require mono cropping, but it can feed the world and kill fewer animals.

[skinkestek]

> Unless you have a gigantic yard or want wild roosters everywhere, you’ll end up killing a lot of them.

Exactly what I tried to say above.

It is a choice: you can keep them and as long as you feed them mostly with grass and kitchen scraps you still reduce environmental impact by not consuming eggs from grain-fed chicken - even when you feed some roosters.

Choose a quiet breed though or be prepared to make some significant peace offerings towards your neighbors if you want to keep every rooster around until they die from old age ;-)

Personally I'd rather (rot13, blunt speak): pubc fbzr puvpxra arpxf. V terj hc ba n snez naq juvyr V qba'g gbyrengr navzny nohfr gurve yvirf nera'g fnperq gb zr. V jnag gurz gb yvir unccl yvirf jura va zl phfgbql naq n fjvsg, harkcrpgrq naq cnvayrff qrngu nsgrejneqf.