The Cellar - Fat Chickens get laid more

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Relationships (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=34)

- - Fat Chickens get laid more (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=18753)

Fat Chickens get laid more

eggs.

I tell you it is because of the steroids in the feed.:eek: :cool: :p :blush: :D :eyebrow: :neutral: :yelgreedy :headshake :o :greenface :mad2: :thepain: :3_eyes: :mad: :) :sniff: :3eye: :rolleyes:

I tellya, it's true - no steroids, just feed store crumbles, weeds, and moldy hamburger buns. :)

I've got about 4 dozen eggs in the fridge right now and only four birdies out back. They're hard working gals!

What do you do with all those eggs? Does your family really eat that many?

Seen em me self! Hens get all the cock!

Nope. It's only one egg a day per chicken, so you'd think we could keep up, but I guess we're sick of eggs. :) We give a lot away to friends.

Quote:

because of the steroids

Just fyi... there are no steroids approved by the fda for use in chickens. You're thinking of beef maybe...

Chickens may not be fed steroids, but they are fed antibiotics.

From here:

Quote:

Antibiotics
Antibiotics have been used on poultry in large quantities since the Forties, 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.[30]

The mechanism is apparently the adjustment of intestinal flora, favoring "good" bacteria while suppressing "bad" bacteria, and thus the goal of antibiotics as a growth promoter is the same as for probiotics. Because the antibiotics used are not absorbed by the gut, they do not put antibiotics into the meat or eggs.[31]

Antibiotics are used routinely in poultry for this reason, and also to prevent and treat disease. Many contend that this puts humans at risk as bacterial strains develop stronger and stronger resistances.[32] Critics point out that, after six decades of heavy agricultural use of antibiotics, opponents of antibiotics must still make arguments about theoretical risks, since actual examples are hard to come by. Those antibiotic-resistant strains of human diseases whose origin is known originated in hospitals rather than farms.

A proposed bill in the American congress would make the use of antibiotics in animal feed legal only for therapeutic (rather than preventative) use, but it has not been passed yet.[33] However, this may present the risk of slaughtered chickens harboring pathogenic bacteria and passing them on to humans that consume them.

In October 2000, the FDA discovered that two antibiotics were no longer effective in treating diseases found in factory-farmed chickens; one antibiotic was swiftly pulled from the market, but the other, Baytril was not. Bayer, the company which produced it, contested the claim and as a result, Baytril remained in use until July 2005.[34]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha (Post 505751)

Chickens may not be fed steroids, but they are fed antibiotics.

yeah, for chicken pox.

Ba dum dum

-groans- I don't think I can stand one more bad joke today...

Actually, I think you mean to say the fat chickens get FILlaid more.

Once again taking a clone thread and rambling in it...

I've known quite a few people who have brought eggs into work to distribute.
I love them, I always have my hand up (no, not just because they're free!) but I'll only take two or three.
Same with fruit trees, people always seem to be overly blessed (strained Milton reference).

My sister and I used to go and visit an old lady that lived in the flats at the end of our path. She had a ground floor flat, and Mrs Fox was a very keen gardener (and would have been brought up to Dig For Victory!) She always gave us apples to take home late summer, and Mum would groan because she could barely use them before another bag arrived. It was hard for us to refuse though, especially as Mum was delighted by the strawberries and rhubarb earlier in the year.

It confused me as a child because there is a small leathery eating apple called Cox, which was the surname of another of Mum's friends. But Mrs Fox gave us cooking apples, green and big as turnips, tempting to the eye but not suitable for the fruit bowl.

You don't eat green apples, Sundae? Is that just you, or a more general British thing? They're the only kind I'll eat.

No, these are specifically cooking apples. We do have green eating apples, although few are home-grown these days - France has a bigger landmass and lower population per square mile than us, so they can give more land to orchards. Saying that, I am such a fan of Braeburn (French apple) I can hardly complain.

Aha, Wiki says,

Quote:

A cooking apple is an apple that is used primarily for cooking rather than eating fresh. Cooking apples are larger, and can be less sweet and more sour than eating varieties. Some varieties have a firm flesh that doesn't break down too much when cooked. Only the British grow a large range of apples specifically for cooking.

I don't eat the little green apples and it don't rain in Indianapolis in the summertime...