←back to thread

310 points greenie_beans | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
qq99 ◴[] No.43111299[source]
As someone who once built a large coop [1] then just bought a pre-built shed for the 2nd coop, it's definitely _not_ the _monetary_ solution. You will probably lose money overall for quite some time. I'm still probably underwater.

BUT, there are definite upsides:

- Chickens are very sweet animals, and are quite intelligent. You will grow to love all the silly things they do. You can pet them, they are super soft, and can become quite tame. They can purr.

- I'm told the eggs taste way better, I don't really notice it because I really only eat my own eggs, but perhaps I just got used to them

- It's fantastic to get ~8 free eggs per day (from 13, 3 are not laying this winter)

- Morally/ethically, it seems like the best way to eat eggs if you're caring for them in a loving manner (compare to factory farms)

Consider the downsides:

- You may have to euthanize a chicken, likely by hand (literally) via cervical dislocation. It still ranks among the worst things I've ever had to do in my life. Imagine euthanizing your dog or cat by hand...

- Predators, foxes and hawks, you need defenses

- Veterinary services can be harder to find. Most vets don't want to deal with chickens. However, it also tends to be cheaper than a vet for a dog/cat.

- Your wife may one day want a chicken to live inside the house. You may one day agree to this, and then miss it when the chicken is living outside the house again...

- If you really like eating chicken, you may end up finding it difficult to eat them again in the future after you develop a bond with them.

I think there are more upsides than downsides, but you should think about these downsides before taking the plunge. Don't let it dissuade you. Overall, they have enriched our lives immensely and I would recommend it to others!

1: https://www.anthonycameron.com/projects/cameron-acreage-chic...

replies(54): >>43112058 #>>43112148 #>>43112152 #>>43112271 #>>43112279 #>>43112364 #>>43112438 #>>43112533 #>>43112681 #>>43112832 #>>43112959 #>>43113182 #>>43113393 #>>43113675 #>>43113739 #>>43113780 #>>43113961 #>>43114166 #>>43114184 #>>43114262 #>>43114274 #>>43114277 #>>43114390 #>>43114406 #>>43114485 #>>43114599 #>>43114625 #>>43114955 #>>43115004 #>>43115217 #>>43115442 #>>43115586 #>>43115776 #>>43116129 #>>43116391 #>>43116509 #>>43116522 #>>43116776 #>>43116906 #>>43117144 #>>43117221 #>>43117724 #>>43117897 #>>43118022 #>>43118330 #>>43118511 #>>43118698 #>>43118705 #>>43118975 #>>43119664 #>>43120000 #>>43120271 #>>43120839 #>>43123147 #
pulkitsh1234 ◴[] No.43112152[source]
> If you really like eating chicken, you may end up finding it difficult to eat them again in the future after you develop a bond with them.

I used the believe the same, but as I found out on HN, there are a lot of people who won't bat an eye killing animals raised on their own land. Maybe they just never develop a bond with these animals.

But then the question should be is it just the "bond" which is holding someone back from killing animals? Why can't we just not kill without relying on bonds?

replies(12): >>43112346 #>>43112408 #>>43112409 #>>43112548 #>>43112759 #>>43112869 #>>43113554 #>>43113664 #>>43113714 #>>43114176 #>>43114627 #>>43115088 #
burnished ◴[] No.43112548[source]
Past generations of my family used to name animals that they raised for meat after dishes they could end up in. There are practices people can engage in to distance themselves from the animals they interact with.

But also some people who raise animald for meat hire a person to collect them for slaughter in part because of the emotional toll involved.

As to your last question.. I think you might be confused? People don't like to kill in general. Go outside and ask people how they felt getting their first kill on a hunt as a kid, you're going to realize that a unifying element is learning to deal with harming another animal.

Bonus: being vegetarian doesn't exclude you from the necessity of killing in order to live. You're just killing forms of life that you emphasize with less, which is very reasonable and rational but also not materially different.

replies(4): >>43112871 #>>43113003 #>>43113195 #>>43113875 #
mattlutze ◴[] No.43113003[source]
Harvesting crops is materially different from slaughtering animals, and calorie for calorie, plant-based nutrition involves less termination of life than getting calories from animals (if you're grouping insects and non-animal life into the "forms of life" being killed).

If people don't like killing in general, or killing animals more specifically, they can live a wonderfully health(y|ier) life by going plant-based, be responsible for less killing, and today do it without having to give up the textures and experiences they've be conditioned on.

It's difficult in 2025 to conclude that a person who doesn't choose to eat this way is particularly opposed to killing, in the way that you propose.

replies(2): >>43113637 #>>43113862 #
vinhcognito ◴[] No.43113862{3}[source]
Less termination of life based on numbers or some version of (sentience * number of individuals)? I find it hard to believe the sheer number of individual insects killed during harvest could match the killing of one cow, calorie for calorie.

Also, what if we increase the calories of the animal we choose to slaughter, say we start raising massive whale-sized animals instead, would that tip the scales?

replies(2): >>43114761 #>>43119065 #
1. zargon ◴[] No.43119065{4}[source]
It takes 20 to 40 plant calories to raise one calorie of beef. So slaughtering a cow kills 20 to 40 times the number of lives as eating plants directly.
replies(1): >>43120762 #
2. burnished ◴[] No.43120762[source]
Number of calories !== number of lives
replies(1): >>43122418 #
3. zargon ◴[] No.43122418[source]
If anything, I would expect the number of insects, small mammals, etc. killed by harvesting animal feed to be higher than that of harvesting crops grown for people, on a caloric basis.