This is an odd argument. I'd bet the environmental impact of a battery farm chicken is less than a free-roaming chicken, in terms of hectares of land use, feed (less energy expended from movement), water use.
So if you are vegetarian for environmental reasons and had to eat a chicken, you should go with the battery-farmed one.
You would go with the (arguably mythical) happy chicken if you were vegetarian for moral reasons.
Arguing that the impact of free roaming chickens is higher than a battery farm tells me you haven't seen one or the other. Roaming chicken have a positive impact in the environment by spreading their manure over the land (where does this negative impact for anything that moves and eats comes from?) whereas chicken batteries stink for miles and produce a huge amount of sludge that contains heavy metals that is hard to process.
It really isn't. They have ethical problems with factory farming. They eat a specific diet to reduce environmental impact. There is nothing contradictory in those statements.
My takeaway was that it would only increase the environmental impact if their actual diet stays the same, in other words they ate the same # of chickens but only from free-range, local farms.
Given the same amount of money, I'm assuming they mean buy less chicken (but from non-factory sources) and spend the remainder on other foods with less environmental impact.
It's actually ecologically and ethically better to have "barn" chickens, which live in massive steel sheds on trays with roosting boxes and perches about 50cm high, miles and miles of racking.
They're free to move about at least in their "bay" and have the company of other hens that can wander about too. Sure, they don't get the marketing feelgood "sun on their backs and wind in their feathers", but they also don't get raptors, foxes, or rats.
You can get rescue hens and they're just about savvy enough to figure out - after you've lost one or two - that predators are a thing, and you'll get an egg every couple of days per hen. They'll eat all the bugs in your garden (and most of the herbs, and the tops of your carrots) and shit everywhere.
Free range chicken exist (or sometimes a slightly less free version of this, let's not split hairs). Their meat and eggs are more expensive. I don't know if they are economically feasible large scale though.
Because this is HN, where someone is sure to nitpick and/or take my next statement to logical extremes, I must be very careful about how I word this. I will regret it, but here I go:
I like eating chicken. I know lots of tasty recipes. I understand this involves killing the animal. Yes, I don't do it myself, but I could if I wanted -- I'm not squeamish. But factory chicken make me uneasy, it seems well past the inhumane line, almost like an extermination camp for chicken. I think free range chicken are happier, for whatever degree of "happiness" their tiny bird brains can understand. I like thinking that the chicken I eat lived a happy if short life trampling on actual grass and all that "breeze in their feathers" stuff. Yes, in the end it still involves killing them, but I think it's way better.
Your statement makes perfect sense to me. I think the folks who believe that quality of life is meaningless for non-human animals are the crazy ones. I don't know how someone could spend any amount of time with animals, wild or domestic, and not realize that many have a great depth of experience and emotion.
Indeed if they had a happy life where they did not need to suppress their instincts too much (roaming, scratching the ground, picking with their becks for tiny life in the soil) and getting killed in an instance, why would you feel bad about the killing&eating parts?
Killing a chicken is hard, I have done that many times and I it never get easier. After all it is a living thing and you feel it is distressed, angry and in fear. I know people that are impervious to that but I am not and understand why you would feel bad about eating animals.
I don't have a good answer for how I feel about killing and animals that were raised to have a good life. I get away with not having an answer to this question and defaulting to vegetarianism in two ways:
1) If I avoid all meat I cannot be held ethically accountable for it's provenance when, for example, a company's marketing department lies to you or the FDA does not sufficiently protect certain terms of art like "free range" which imply a lack of cruelty that wouldn't pass muster if I saw the treatment with my own eyes
2) If I am vegetarian, I will support vegetarian options, and I create support for companies and businesses that are unambiguously dedicated to reducing cruelty/suffering
Personally vegetarian for the same reason. Obviously I'd encourage people to be vegetarian if they can, but choosing options that avoid cruelty at personal expense or inconvenience is laudable.
it’s not useless, it’s just not that conclusive. Im pretty confident in saying a significant majority of animals raised for slaughter worldwide are done so in conditions commonly described as “factory farms”. We can quibble about the definitions all we want, but this is the dominant mode of raising animals for slaughter, that is clear to me
There is no reason at all to believe that the dozens of definitions that study used for "factory farm" fits the few ones stated on that wikipedia link. And there is no overwhelming problem that applies to all of the few definitions on your wikipedia link either.
As your wikipedia link shows, people commonly describe as "factory farm" anything from places where animals go indoor in the winter all the way to places where the animals have no space to move. Or places that create a lot of sessile animals are placed. Or places where animals are gathered to eat. Or places engineered to be comfortable for animals that don't move a lot.
And that is only if you stay within the reasonable people. Almost everybody with an impulsion to talk about this subject uses unreasonable definitions. How is a single name that applies to all that still meaningful?
Fine, let’s say “factory farming” is not a useful term. Do you have any suggestions for how we should talk about / classify modern farming practices? I genuinely appreciate this discussion
In a capitalist world where a small number of individuals possess significant wealth, the idea of free chicken is nothing but a myth. For the majority of people, money is the top priority and they will invariably choose it over any other option.
> Nothing wrong with eating a chicken or a pig who had a good life on an open field for me
Why vegetarian then? It's easy enough to buy meat that was raised on a local farm. Get a chest freezer, reach out to a local 4H club, and buy the whole animal. They'll butcher and vac-seal it for you. You could buy some kid's highschool project.
I live an hour from SF and I get much of my meat this way. It's surprisingly inexpensive. There are agricultural communities close enough to every urban environment to make it worth the drive.
I'm vegetarian for environmental reasons, not ethical. Nothing wrong with eating a chicken or a pig who had a good life on an open field for me