posted
I found this picture in CNN's weekly weird pictures file... I gotta say, not only do I not think the chicks are cute, I find the concept of how they do it pretty disturbing.
They inject a non-toxic dye into the eggs before the chicks hatch, "coloring their down." Wouldn't that color everything else, too? Depending on what stage of development they do it at, I suppose. I guess I was picturing it happening before the chicks were fully formed, meaning all their insides were also being dyed, but I suppose it would make more sense if it's shortly before they are born, so the dye just has a chance to saturate the down.
I still find it pretty disturbing, though.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me, "before the chicks hatch" implies shortly before. Why is it any worse than dunking 'em right after they hatch? Far less traumatic, I'd imagine.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, I don't like the idea of dunking them right after they hatch, either. If you want a purple chick, in my opinion, you should buy a stuffed one.
I suppose in the big picture it's pretty harmless, but I don't really like the idea of us coloring animals to make them cute. I like meat, I eat meat, but I prefer the animals it comes from be raised and eventually slaughtered as humanely as possible. I guess these little guys probably don't feel an offense to their dignity in this... just like dogs probably don't when people dress them in tutus and fairy wings and take them to contests... but it feels like they should. Guess I'm just too empathetic. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to admit, I don't actually see the point of dying them -- they're so sweet without it! -- but it's probably way less traumatic than being handled by a bunch of excited kindergardeners. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ooooh, my brother gave me that book! Along with Why Cats Paint. I guess I kinda just thought the cats would get up and leave if they minded what was being done to them.
But I agree it's pretty looney.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was working at B&N one day and was supposed to be shelving (which, gimme a break, like I wasn't going to stop and look at every single book I touched) and found that in the humor section. I was thinking about getting it for my mom, she is crazy like that.
Posts: 2064 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
I have really strong memories of being in kindergarten and getting to hold a soft, fluffy, ALIVE little chick. So I'm not against it -- although I do hope that all kids have a teacher who watches 'em as carefully as mine did us.
Val, I've seen that before -- and my reaction is always the same. WHY???
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That farm where they dyed the chicks is about a half hour away from where I live. They had an interview with the the owner on our local news right before Easter and he said that he dyes them every year. I thought that this was a pretty cool idea.
Posts: 70 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mother Nature made chicks yellow, and that's not good enough for us?
So what about selective breeding? Mother nature didn't make those chicks at all. We did. Not with modern technology but patience and time. Look at sheep. Look at cows. Look at nearly any farm animal or crop. What we grow or breed isn't what mother nature made, but what we made.
The change in method doesn't change what we're doing.
how is this any worse than putting dye in the rivers for St. Patrick's day? Or getting your dog's fur trimmed? Or anything else we do to animals?
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
People put dye in rivers for St. Patrick's Day? That's really weird... It must require A LOT of dye.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
HE: Does the fact that they are directly injecting the eggs bother you even a little bit? That is taking it a bit more far than just trimming your dog's hair.
Posts: 2064 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Val, how? The egg is not the chick -- the chick is already immersed in fluid. It probably doesn't even notice.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, well, I'd just like to see someone slip that in during an amnio and say, "What?! It's just a little non-toxic dye! No chemicals! It's harmless! Really!"
Posts: 2064 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me, nothing screams "Easter" quite like some technicolor baby chickens.
I just can't even get in the Easter mood without a few dozen of the rainbow-hued fowl around to bring home the message of the season.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
HE - I don't like the idea of putting dye in rivers for St Patrick's Day, either. People can paint their own faces, why do they need to paint the earth's?
The breeding of modern livestock has for the most part taken place before my lifetime. I'm not going to make a moral judgement on it, I wasn't around when the human race was at a subsistence level and made the decisions it thought necessary in order to feel confident in the food supply. I think we're at a point now where we probably don't need to do much more tinkering.
The other difference, of course, is that there is an arguable reason behind the livestock breeding. To improve the amount of useable meat or wool on an animal is one thing. To make it cute for a holiday is different, in my mind.
Finally, I do most of my shopping at a co-op in the winter, the Farmer's Market in the summer. I buy buffalo directly from the farm, and milk, butter, and ice cream directly from the dairy. (Non-rbgh, of course.) So as much as I can, given modern constraints, I consume food that is as close to it's natural state as possible. (You know, except for in late afternoon at work and the vending machine wrestles me to the floor and MAKES me buy cheetoes. That doesn't count.) Call me a hippy throw-back if you like, but I'm doing what I can to make sure genetic manipulation isn't profitable and doesn't continue, either through selective breeding or modern technology.
(And you thought this was going to be a fluff thread, folks! Sorry!)
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xavier - I know. Hence the parts about those decisions being made before my lifetime, and "as much as I can" and "as close as possible." I know that's not very close. And the part about doing what I can not to encourage the continuation of such practices.
I'm not deluding myself. I know that with the size of the market, my choices don't really mean diddly-squat. I make them because they help define the person I am.
(Edit - The person I am being idealistic, sometimes against all common sense, and stubborn occasionally to the point of obtuseness. But it keeps me happy.)
posted
I agree with HE and rivka. I think that this guy is just trying to do something fun for the kids who come and visit the farm. He has no intentions of harming any of the animals. Posts: 70 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
YOu know, from an animal welfare standpoint, this might not be that bad. I wonder how many eggs they lose from the injections, and how many chicks they lose afterward. This doesn't seem any worse to me than any of the other things we do to chickens as the get older. At least the dye doesn't hurt anything.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
Why is it any worse than dunking 'em right after they hatch? Far less traumatic, I'd imagine.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I like you too, ElJay. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
WHY???
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
<-- we bought baby chicks this week!!
