Talk:Chicken

Predators

how about calling humans "predators of chickens"? and btw Scientists found that genetically the Tyrannosurus dinosaur is related to the modern chicken. --174.89.235.248 (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Animal Size Market Designations

Should include all sizes of chickens rather than just the over all identification of broilers as meat raised chickens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A1Houseboy (talk • contribs) 11:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Split proposal

I have placed a split tag on the "Issues with poultry farming" section. My reasons are:

1. It takes up too much of the article
2. A section on poultry farming is more important and the issues should a section of that. (FYI, the section on Chicken#Poultry_farming has no citations.)
3. It is a notable global issue of interest to many people.

I had split it out to its own article but it was reverted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the removal of the split tag. It is bad form to remove a split proposal without discussion. The reason given in the edit summary was "splitting off this material into a fork is expressly against Wikipedia's rules". This is incorrect since it is not a fork. It is an article spinout with a summary to be left behind. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The question is, why are people looking up chicken in Wikipedia? I say it it because the want to know what they are putting in their and their children's bellies. So they expect to find the information here. Furthermore, we already have an article on Poultry farming, so any overload of detail can be placed there. WP:FORK is very much in effect here; "issues with" or "controversy " articles are the classic form these forks take. Finally, Chicken was viewed 123,582 times in August, but Poultry farming was only viewed 7081 times. This means that if something is a "notable global issue of interest to many people" then it should be in the Chicken article, where it will be actually read. Abductive (reasoning) 21:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Replies:

• You are making an assumption about why people visit the chicken article. There are any number of reasons to visit the page and since it has many related topics we have to make it easy for a reader to navigate to the one that they want. One of the ways of doing this is to use summary style and place the bulk of its information in its own page.
• Note that the poultry farming article was not linked from this article until one of my very recent edits. Before I came along there was a "Chickens in agriculture" section that was all about the US with no link to poultry farming. As the article now stand there is STILL no information about poultry farming in general, and a big section about "Issues with poultry farming".
• There are numerous issues and controversies and criticisms articles that are happily exist in in WP with no accusations of being content forks
• Since it is a "notable global issue of interest to many people" it deserves its own article linked from chicken with a summary style.

Have a read of WP:CFORK, WP:SS. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems really odd to me that this material is not in the poultry farming article. With an April expansion to include material on alternatives to factory farming, the many criticisms leveled against poultry farming would be better placed in that article, consistent with Wikipedia's summary style.--chaser (away) - talk 02:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Forking out criticism is forking. Could this attempted fork be perceived as related to the huge lawsuit coming down the pipes? Abductive (reasoning) 03:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make assumptions about how I edit. It is, arhhh, bad reasoning... So can you explain how lil' ol' me in lil' ol' New Zealand who moved some text to its own article has on how some US states are "considering" legal action. It is an extremely tenuous connection and it beggars belief that you could ever make that claim. Please read and make an attempt at understanding WP:CFORK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Perceptions count. Abductive (reasoning) 22:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the stuff should have been in the poultry farming article. The chicken article should have a passing mention of the issues however. Because of the strong interest the topic will only grow so I feel it should have its own article now. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The chicken article should far more than a "passing mention" of a topic with "strong interest" (your words). The poultry farming article is this place for the minutiae of poultry rearing, including criticism thereof. There should not be a third article for the negative aspects of chicken production; this would be a fork for all the worst reasons. Abductive (reasoning) 22:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I came to this page interested in the wild relative from which the domestic chicken was bred from. This article answered my question to my satisfaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.194.45 (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I have just added a sentence in the 'General biology and habitat' to balance the description of the different ways of what happens to commercial hens when egg production begines to decline. This paragraph now looks nothing like General biology. I suggest this para needs a good clean up which I am willing to do. Any thoughts? DrChrissy (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Chickens as pets

Anyone think Chickens as pets should have its own article? Do you think so? I don't.Portillo (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not automatically against it; it would be interesting to see if enough WP:RS information can be found to support a stand alone article. --Nsaum75 (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Chicken coop article has some information on keeping chickens at home, which in theory could be merged with a Chickens as pets article. Thanks for your response. Portillo (talk) 06:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, go for it. Presumably the article is to cover chickens kept for for household egg production. The whole aricle needs to be cleaned up. I tried splitting out part it (see above). There needs to be a "Chicken in cuture" section as well as other changes. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

yeah-do it!Roxy:Pkid (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree - this could be a good article. There has been a lot of stuff in the news lately about this - Vancouver, BC and some other cities are looking at ordinances to allow chickens as pets.Bob98133 (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I, to agree. I encourage anybody to raise chickens,and I myself have six.Rachel Sun, June 23,2010,5:10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachel Sun (talk • contribs) 00:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I just got a chicken (story for off wiki) and It's good to have one article about it so that you don't need to look around the WHOLE site. It's a huge world. It's a huge site. Ian (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

remeber to keep your chicken in a cage because they will bite your head off if not and if you let them out they will also take over the universe and team up with aliens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doughnut07771 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Chicken fodder

Perhaps a section "chicken fodder" can be added ? Chickens can eg be fed with grass, as mentioned at fodder KVDP (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Chicken genetics?

The main page of this article suggests that cross-breeding the Red Junglefowl with the ordinary chicken results in a sterile hybrid.

But it isn't clear to me why the hybrid is sterile.

This could be explained here, or in an article dedicated to chicken genetics. Even a generality would be better than nothing at all. After all, if cows can be cross-bred with buffalos, yielding beefalo, why can't chickens be cross-bred with other, similar, near-chicken species? Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I am actually working on an article about chicken genetics in my Sandbox, though it's on hold until this summer when I can finish it properly. There's lots more to add. This information about the breeding of RJF and chickens is incorrect, red jungle fowl and chickens are the the same species (Gallus gallus), and can 100% of the time produce fertile offspring. There is significant SNP variance between domestic chickens and red jungle fowl, but that's what happens with thousands of years of artificial selection for traits useful to humans. Even grey jungle fowl have been reported to hybridize with domestics and sometimes produce fertile offspring. I'll fix it up.Earthdirt (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

How can you say 100% of the time? There is no species that can produce fertile offspring 100% off the time, though some species get close to that (those mostly are micro-organisms and plants). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.224.238.214 (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite what Earthdirt meant. If I understand it correctly, they're not saying that chickens (or anything) can be fertile all the time – in other words that every single egg hatches, but that any Red Jungle Fowl crossed with any domestic chicken will produce fertile eggs, in other words every pairing between the two will be fertile.

Actually, I'm not sure that interfertility is too good a guide to speciation in birds. The barrier between bird species is often not mainly physiological but behavioural, and very many closely related bird species are physiologically interfertile. For example most finch species can interbreed freely, most ducks, many geese, many gulls and most falcons. These hybrids occur freely in captivity, but hybrid birds are very rare under natural conditions. Not so sure about chickens and other pheasants, but the lack of physiological barriers is illustrated by hybrids of chickens and turkeys. This cross can produce living embryos which I believe can sometimes survive until hatching – and they're not always even considered to be in the same family! Richard New Forest (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect geographic reference

In the section "Breeding" there is reference to "the Tarim Basin of Central Asia - modern day Iran".

The Tarim Basin is not in modern day Iran and is quite far from Iran. It is in Central Asia, but it is north and west of Tibet in what China calls its Xinjiang Province, and what historically is in fact the Central Asian area known as Eastern Turkestan.

Please edit, since this page is closed to my account for editing.

Rthwait (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Corrected per our article on Tarim Basin Trugster | Talk | Contributions 20:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

chickens

I have four hens, and can take pictures of them doing things if necessary for the article. UNIT A4B1 (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Like alpha (the black chicken) pecking the lowest rank (my favorite one, the yellow chicken) or dust baths or eating food or fluffing their feathers or maybe brooding or "flying" or pecking at the ground or wiping their beaks on the ground after eating soft/squishy food. They're quite intelligent really. The chickens, that it. UNIT A4B1 (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That was weirdly phraised. UNIT A4B1 (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That was not, really —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachel Sun (talk • contribs) 00:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there should be a section on the intelligence of chickens.Derwos (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Rat Attack

In the Nova show "Rat Attack", it says that the bamboo fruits from the mass flowerings could have led to the domestication of the chicken. Could someone watch the show and incorporate? UNIT A4B1 (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem with age of commercial vs. "free range organic" chicken

"In commercial intensive farming, a meat chicken generally lives only six weeks before slaughter.[13] A free range or organic meat chicken will usually be slaughtered at about 14 weeks. "

The most popular "meat chickens" are the Cornish Cross, typically raised from 6 to 8 weeks whether in a commercial poultry house, in a commercial poultry house falling under the USDA definition of "free range" (meaning the chicken is fed organic feed and has "access to the outdoors" accord to USDA Organic Standards) or on a farm (typically a small farm that direct-markets them) that raises chickens on pasture.

Other breeds of chicken are generally slaughtered at an older age because they take longer to develop meat. So, the age of slaughter is dependent on the breed, not the farming method. Most free range, organic and pasture raised meat chicken is Cornish Cross because it is cost prohibitive to raise other breeds of chickens if you're running a business. However some small farms do raise 'heritage' breeds, standard breeds or non-Cornish Cross hybrids.

I know this from my experience in raising chickens and as a small farmer, so I need to collect sources. The literature on this, however, is all over the place, typically from misconceptions published in homesteading magazines and in articles by new/hobby farmers.

Addition: The egg laying period is also breed dependent. Most chickens are closer to two or two and a half years of high yield laying. The article sourced for the usage and lifespans is politically motivated and focused on the very specific industry in the US, while the data pulled from it are restated as a matter of fact for chickens as a species. A less biased source with more general information should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.24.9 (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The age of slaughter differs on how they are bred. The so-called breeds are just made by picking the fastest breeding ones and let them reproduce. In that way, the slaughter age is dependent on the slaughter method, as they would not need to create such a fast-living chicken breeds which collapse (both feet and heart) under its own weight and are made to have no life. They just have to be slaughtered or they die by themselves. That is no life. Let them die and don't let them breed. Put them out of their misery as a species in total and let the bio-industry go down, so normal chickens can be used in a normal way. For that to happen, people first need to realize that you don't need meat every day. 2 times a week or no meat while eating other stuff with a lot of iron and B12 and you should be fine. Sorry for wandering off after the slaughter-age dependency :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.224.238.214 (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Information

Useless article doesn't even answer these questions - how big is a typical chicken, and what its mass?

Useless, unsigned comment of no relevance. If it is important to you to include this information, find references for it and edit the article. Bob98133 (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

i recomend to have one more section taking about broodies and layer hens and their differences —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.97.155.55 (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Fowl

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) states that chicken is

• 1.a The young of the domestic fowl; its flesh.

It states as its fourth definition:

• 1.d. A domestic fowl of any age.

First point it is the young of "the domestic fowl" not "a domestic fowl" "the" implies only one species of domesticated fowl while "a" as used in this article implies more than one.

Under "Fowl" the first meaning given is

• 1 Any feathered vertebrate animal; = BIRD n. 2 (q.v. with note attached). Now rare exc. collect.
• 3 The prevailing sense: A ‘barn-door fowl’, a domestic cock or hen; a bird of the genus Gallus. In the U.S. applied also to ‘a domestic duck or turkey’ (Cent. Dict.). Often with some modifying word prefixed: as, barn-door-, game-, guinea-fowl, for which see those words.
• 4. a. The flesh of birds used for food. Now only in the phrases fish, flesh, and fowl, etc.
• 4. b. In narrower sense: The flesh of the ‘barn-door’ or domestic fowl.

The Wikipedia article states "'Chicken' was originally the word only for chicks," but this is contradicted by the OED, while it may be used for "a domestic fowl of any age" the primary use is for "The young of the domestic fowl; its flesh." Intact a chicken is a young fowl but usually one older than a chick, although the OED says under chick:

• 1. A chicken; esp. a young chicken; sometimes, the young of any bird.
• 2. esp. The young bird still in the egg or only just hatched.

The usage is similar to the eating of lamb instead of mutton. Supermarkets prefer to advertise lamb, and in the English speaking countries most sheep are slaughtered as lambs but that does not mean that lamb means either sheep or mutton.

I have no intention of editing this article but perhaps someone else can use them to improve this article. -- PBS (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary as such the words may be treated differently. This article refers to a species of animal (Gallus gallus domesticus) whose current universal common name is "Chicken". The history of the word is fine to discuss in a section of the article but the main article is about the animal and its role in the world today, it would be uncommon to find modern agricultural references which refer to this animal as a fowl. Earthdirt (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

PBShearer, the older usage of "chicken" is actually the plural form of "chick" (similar to "child" into "children", although "children" has actually been 'double pluralized' — "child+er+en"). As words always do, they eventual change in meaning or die out. In the case of "chicken," it now refers to the domestic fowl (g. gallus domesticus) of any age and sex, not to a plural form of a term for the young fowl. — al-Shimoni (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Rated as C

I rerated this to a C, quite choppy in bits and odd sections etc. Not bad overall as inline references go though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

More chicken info needed

I found this page while searching the internet for info on the history of keeping chickens as livestock.

I have been involved with the raising of chickens since childhood, and have continued in the forty-some years since.

i would like to see the following additions to the wikipedia article:

a detailed list of acceptable foodstuffs for domesticated chickens. this should include a list of items not recommended for poultry consumption. while i do not criticize commercial poultry feed it is feasible to feed chickens entirely on crops grown on your own land as long as you are aware of the nutritional content of each item individually and the feed as a whole.

---

an exhaustive list of known breeds, their know colors and characteristics and adult weight. as an addition it would be very interesting to have a similar list of extinct breeds. it would be very valuable to have large, bright, clear photos of each breed showing both hen and rooster.

---

i did not see a mention in the article that chickens vision is limited due to their eyes being placed on the sides of their head. this is why chickens 'cock' their head sideways and horizontally to see what lies on the ground before they peck it up.

---

i would like to see added: chickens make a sound called 'cackling' when they have laid an egg, also occasionally when communicating.

---

chicken care, chicken health, chicken diseases: more info please.

ThePerfectCottage (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi – This is Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. If you have information about these things that can be supported by published sources, please add it. In fact there is a separate article listing breeds: List of chicken breeds, though this does not currently include much detail about each breed. Further comments on your talk page. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

how did i not laugh hysterically at this before? ViniTheHat (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"Buttonholing" chickens

I know someone who lives on a farm, and he recently made a remark about "buttonholing" chickens. I have no idea what he means, being a suburbanite myself, and Googling around gives no results (!). Currently there is no mention of this term or its meaning on Wikipedia, but I think there really ought to be, so that people who hear about it and don't know what it is can find out easily without having to spend several hours looking for it. After all, that's what Wikipedia is here for. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If you can find no references to this, perhaps it doesn't exist. Bob98133 (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Try this. I do something similar when butchering chickens, but with the lower skin, I think just a form of "trussing" without string. This certainly isn't something for the main article on chickens. Earthdirt (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

reproduction

One subject in this article lacks is details on the reproductive cycle of chickens.

This includes the role of roosters in fertilisation, the differences between fertilised and unfertilised eggs and more details on eggs in general.

Given that the hen seems to lay the eggs whether they are fertilised or not, I think it would be helpful for someone to explain how roosters fertilise the eggs.

Also what causes hens to begin laying eggs in the first place? Is it just a matter of reaching a certain developmental stage or are roosters involved?

There could be a lot of information added to explain this aspect of chicken reproduction and egg laying.

--I (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Incubation?

"Artificial incubation An egg incubator.

Chicken egg incubation can successfully occur artificially as well. Nearly all fertilized chicken eggs will hatch after 21 days of good conditions - 99.5 °F (37.5 °C) and around 55% relative humidity (increase to 70% in the last three days of incubation to help soften egg shell). Eggs must be turned regularly (usually three to eight times each week) during the first part of the incubation. If the eggs aren't turned, the embryo inside will stick to the shell and may hatch with physical defects. Some incubators turn the eggs automatically. This turning mimics the natural process. An incubating hen will stand up several times a day and shift the eggs around with her beak. However, if the egg is turned during the last week of incubation the chick may have difficulty settling in the correct hatching position."

Where did you get this? The humidity level an ventilation level has to be adjusted to account for outside temp an humidity. 55% is way to high for most of the world. You need the egg to lose about 14% of its weight or the air cell to grow to a set level seen threw candling. You also have to turn at least 3 times a day (not a week) you can turn more but it should always be in odd numbers. You then stop turning on day 18, 3 days before hatching, not a week. At that point you bump the humidity up to 65% to keep the membrane around the chick from completely drying out after the chick cracks the shell.(shell softening has nothing to do with it)

Marlon Weldon Confederate Money Farm cmfarm.us —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.94.159 (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

OK Marlon I have referenced an OSU document. Can you find something out there which says that humidity should be lower than 55% in the first 18 days? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Vermont extension office ([1]) says humidity needs to be above 55% during incubation. Earthdirt (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The pdf is from Virginia Tech, but I take your point T0mpr1c3 (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the most linked page I know of on using low humidity day 1-18 http://paraguinparadise.netfirms.com/Dry%20Incubation.htm This website http://www.backyardchickens.com/forum/index.php has hundreds of people that are incubating all over the world an talking about what works for them. Some can incubate at 55% but most need to run it much lower. The over 55% rule really only applies to days 19,20 an 21. I have tried here http://cmfarm.us/ventilation.html to explain why the humidity one person uses day 1-18 an works for them to get good hatches does not work for others. Its about losing the right amount of water from the eggs not about trying to run a set Humidity level. Marlon 67.132.241.161 (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

How many eggs in a day

500,000 eggs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.125.30.133 (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Please,how many eggs can a hen lay in a day.I believe new technology must on grounds for more egg laying ability of hens,Please let me know the latest technology concerning hens laying abilty.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.128.49.41 (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Each hen of an egg-laying breed usually lays one a day for a couple of weeks, then rests for a day or two before starting again. Once a year she stops altogether for a couple of weeks to moult. A good hen might lay 500 corndogs that drink coolaid READ THIS or more in a year. Very occasionally they may lay one egg in the morning and another the same evening, so two in one day is not impossible – but more commonly a hen may lay two yolks in one egg. Meat and fancy breeds may only lay for a few weeks in the spring – perhaps only 20 to 30, or fewer if they are allowed to sit on them.

It's not really "technology", but biology, and hens of laying breeds are already very efficient at turning feed into egg, so there's not really very much prospect of making the poor things lay even more. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Chicken article potential vandalism?

This is a potential problem for this article: http://www.everytopicintheuniverseexceptchickens.com/ Should this article be locked?

--Some random IP address, but actually [User:lf2planet] since I'm too lazy to log in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.112.26 (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think instead we should include this in the chickens article. -varunrau — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varunrau (talk • contribs) 05:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, that link and the dinosaur comic from which it originated are the only reason I came to this article (and I'm guessing that's where quite a few of this article's hits came from). It deserves a mention in the article, even though the comic is five years old and I doubt vandalism is a concern any longer.

Hey everybody I totally agree you should unprotect this article I'm sure nothing bad will happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.121.28 (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

RE: chicken breeding

We have 3 hens and one rooster and the rooster is pecking at one of the females. Is that normal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.230.251.20 (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Chicken disease

I looked quickly and I did not see Bumble foot (officially a form of Staph, I think) but it even says on its own wiki-page that it is really common in poultry. I don't have time/not sure how so can someone else put it in? Thanks--75.18.197.21 (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

added it. It's not caused by staph, but susceptible to staph infections (like any open sore). ViniTheHat (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, egg binding can be caused by ovo-duct constriction in excessively fat chickens - not just from "oversized eggs." I daresay that cause is more common. Can this be verified/updated? Alphachimera (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Poultry Farming

Again, my computer won't let me actually edit the real article, but I have a suggestion. -I feel like the factory/intensive farming aspect of commercial layers/boilers is not discussed enough in the "Poultry Farming" section. Maybe someone could add a pic of caged layers and something from/about "FOOD, INC'? -Just an idea :)--75.32.144.42 (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

this article is primarily about the bird. see if http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poultry_farming has what you're looking for. ViniTheHat (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks, this is definitely what I was talking about.--173.11.83.125 (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Communication

Chickens communicate both vocally and behaviorally. Squawking, clucking and a whole range of vocal communication comes from a flock. Chickens also posture and behave in ways that have meaning to others of their species. Roosters do a dance just before mating and hens indicate they are ready to mate with various movements recognized by the male. A young rooster will charge at an older bird but stop short of an attack with no response from the adult but based on behavior that same adult will counter the attack just by knowing when the young one is serious or not. 1:'Cluck' 2: 'Squawk' 3: 'Buck' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.138.91 (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Image: Red Jungle Fowl

I'm not too handy with uploading images to wikipedia, so could someone please crop the image, so that in the thumbnail-sized image in the article, the bird is more easily seen? ViniTheHat (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Origin addition

I would like to add a line in the origins section:

Research shows that chickens are the closest living relative to Tyrannaosaurus Rex. Similarities in collagen fibers and proteins were found in a T. Rex leg.

Reference: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/13/uknews.taxonomy Mary Schweitzer, a palaeontologist at North Carolina State University and the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences

Lvangundy (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Go for it! If you want to add that easily, one way is you can click the Cite dropdown menu on the editing toolbar (which appears after you load the edit window). Then choose "cite news" from the Templates list and fill in the options you know. Steven Walling 02:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The news article is inaccurate: the Schweitzer study compared amino acid sequences of T. rex collagen proteins to amino acid sequences of of the collagen of all animals that were available (which might be a couple dozen species). Since the chicken was the only bird included in the study, all this does is confirm that dinosaurs and birds are related: it does not support the notion that chickens are the closest living relatives of T. rex. In fact, it is almost certainly not true, given that chickens aren't even a particularly basal lineage of birds. I'm removing this. Tennesseellum (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Steven Walling Darn, I don't have enough edits. Someday!

It's probably a lie. How could T. rex's closest living relative possibly be the domestic chicken. What does it even have in common with the chicken. T. rex was a carnivore. It could run as fast as 40 km/h. Chickens can't run nearly that fast. T. rex could see in the dark. Who ever heard of a chicken who could. Plus, T. rex was so ravenous. Also, it was even more intelligent than the chicken. Say, T. rex's closest living relative is probably actually the North American raven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.40.89 (talk) 07:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Breeding: blood/air

The section with the heading Breeding, subheading Current, includes the words "blood supply" where I assume it should be "air supply" or "air sac." The passage in question:

The chick begins by "pipping"; pecking a breathing hole with its egg tooth towards the blunt end of the egg, usually on the upper side. It will then rest for some hours, absorbing the remaining egg yolk and withdrawing the blood supply from the membrane beneath the shell (used earlier for breathing through the shell). 24.239.168.210 (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's withdrawing its blood supply. ViniTheHat (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Terminology

The section under 'Terminology' is incorrect, male chickens over 12 months of age are in fact called Cock Birds in Australia, not 'Roosters'. Roosters is a generic term that refers to all male Chickens. The chicken article will not allow me to edit it though. Anjwalker (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

gggggggg  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.242.31 (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC) 

the hen is a pet.it is a for making money.in kerala lot of chikken farms  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.242.31 (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC) 

Awministries (talk | contribs)

Please could you explain what message you are trying to convey to the readership by your addition to this article. I'm afraid it is lost on me at the moment. DrChrissy (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Possibly a benefit to Wiki purposes would be a move of the majority of information leaving a paragraph and a new page created on "in religion and mythology" for further explanation and expansion of information on subject for more clarity.All Worlds (talk) 03:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit of "which presumably reflect farming practice[original research?]".

The citation and original research belong to the 28 days in the sentence. I postulated this presumably relates to standard practice because otherwise the sentence indicates that it ONLY occurs under experimental conditions, and I do not not whether this is the case or not.DrChrissy (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Within religious practice and understanding, Fox pointed out that Saʻadiah's understanding was "the honesty of their behavior and their success" (the rooster) and not simply aesthetic, but to be that of his will{and ultimately the king according to Fox) as being that of spiritual and instilling of understanding. All Worlds (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

How many pictures of chickens do we really need in this article? I would say that a third are either unnecessary/redundant. For instance, the images of chicks and two images subtitled junglefowl (I would probably get rid of the first). I'm not sure what we gain by the image of the battery hen either. 96.247.176.69 (talk) 08:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I partly agree. Certainly, this article is about the chicken and therefore 2 pictures of the Red junglefowl seems excessive (some might argue that one is not required at all, just a link to Red junglefowl). Personally, I think a photo of a fried egg is a complete waste of space - how many people using WP do not know what a fried egg looks like? The image of the ex-battery hen is to illustrate the plumage damage these hens might experience because of the housing system, and the paleness of the comb and wattles due to a combination of diet and lack of sunlight.DrChrissy (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to delete section on 'chickens as food'

This article heading states "This article is about the animal. For chicken as human food, see Chicken (food)", however, Section #7 is all about chickens as food! I propose this section and the pictures (please see previous Talk subject) be deleted.DrChrissy (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Most common animal on the planet?

The second sentence of this article currently reads: "As one of the most common and widespread domestic animals, and with a population of more than 24 billion in 2003, there are more chickens in the world than any other species of bird." Surely at 24 billion, they are the most common domestic animal? Doing a quick search of likely contenders, there are 1.3 billion cows, 1.3 billion goats, 1 billion pigs, 1 billion sheep, 0.5 billion cats and 0.4 billion dogs. Chickens are the clear winner.

Also, with sure a high population, I can't help but suspect - are the most common vertebrate on the planet? Anxietycello (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think your first question largely depends on the definition of 'domestic' or 'domesticated' being used. Are we counting things like goldfish or honey bees? What about lab animals like rats or fruit flies?

As for your second question, that would definitely be false. Remember, vertebrates include things like rodents and fish. So many widespread fish species and several rodent ones would definitely outnumber chickens. There may also be a few reptile or amphibian species widespread enough to have that large of a population, but I'm less familiar there with species ranges and whether some of the most common ones are actually a single species or not. Nemokara (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The domestic chicken is the most common vertebrate on the planet. It is not even outnumbered by any rodent, fish, amphibian or reptile. But it's not the most common animal. It is immensely outnumbered by invertebrates, especially Antarctic Krill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.40.89 (talk) 07:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how you can state that so unequivocally. After some poking around, it seems to me that the best we can say is "we can't ever be sure". At the very least, things like the brown rat and cyclothones (deepwater bioluminescent fish, aka 'minnows of the deep') are on par with chickens, if not orders of magnitude more abundant. Certainly chickens are worst off of the three in terms of both global range, and biomass per individual. -Nemokara (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Chicken Intelligence?

How about a section on the intelligence of chickens? --Derwos (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand why people want to include sections on animal 'intelligence'. Intelligence amongst humans and other animals is such a nebulous idea that I fail to see what such sections achieve.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Nowadays in Education they talk about 'multiple intelligence' in humans, which means that even if you are a ballerina who is weak in math, you are still considered intelligent. Same with animals, they are intelligent, even if they can't read books. It is important to discuss this, because people will be less inclined to hurt and eat an animal they view as intelligent. Nowadays they view chickens just as a piece of meat. --174.89.235.248 (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Whether or not an animal is perceived as intelligent depends on the question asked. If we were to judge intelligence on teaching ability, a mother hen teaches (using the strict definition of 'teaching') her chicks which foods to eat and which to avoid; a dog does not. Which is the more "intelligent"? People then mistakenly equate intelligence with a capacity for suffering, including pain. But this would mean humans that are less intelligent than others suffer less. Should we therefore treat less intelligent humans humans in a different way?__DrChrissy (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, we need to recognize the hen’s ability to teach her children. And intelligence does depend on the questions we ask. For example, if we give a hen a math test and judge her intelligence based on that, they she’d be perceived as dumb and given a death sentence. Is that why it’s ok for humans to murder chickens? I think that humans usually measure intelligence based on academic skills and IQ. Lets for a moment compare an educated person to a fish. This person just went on vacation to Thailand. The year is 2004. He’s looking at the ocean and feels an earthquake, and then the ocean recedes. He looks at the horizon in wonder, meanwhile all the fish take off, because they know that a tsunami is coming to this location. This person just stands there until he is swept by the tsunami, causing his legs to shatter... So, who is more intelligent – the human or the fish? And what does all this mean in regards to who gets to live on this earth and who dies? Jane955 (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Unhelpful comment deleted__DrChrissy (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Food Sharing and Courting-should be seperate

The section "Food Sharing and Courting" discusses two different topics, so it should be seperate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinzhang27 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Have split the two into new different headings.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 March 2013

Please change:

"In the UK, Ireland and Australia adult male chickens over the age of 12 months are primarily known as cocks, whereas in America and Canada they are more commonly called roosters. "

to

"In the UK and Ireland adult male chickens over the age of 12 months are primarily known as cocks, whereas in America, Australia and Canada they are more commonly called roosters.

Explanation:

The article is currently contrary to current general usage. "Rooster" is the generally accepted term for an adult male chicken as evidenced by its use by the restaurant chain "Red Rooster" and the Sydney "Roosters" (rugby league) football team. "Cock" is more commonly used as the colloquial for penis, and its use in general conversation would be considered inappropriate if not outright offensive.

Richard1098 (talk) 08:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- Dianna (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

RELATED NOTE

I believe "in the UK and Ireland adult male chickens over the age of 12 months are primarily known as cocks, whereas in America, Australia and Canada they are more commonly called roosters. Males less than 1 year old are cockerels" To be factually inaccurate, although i cannot source anything for you.

The reason i believe this to be inaccurate is i've never actually heard anyone call a male chicken a cock outside the context of cock-fighting.

I'm from rural Scotland, casual owners of chickens invariably call them cockerels, and i'm not talking about those under 1 year. It may be different in serious farming, but in the general populace the male bird appears to be a cockerel, so the sentence is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.73.75 (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I live in the UK and have been involved in research on hen farms for 20 years. My own view is that the dominantly used word in the UK (farming and non-farming populations) is "cockerel", although this is incorrect (a cockerel becomes a cock at 1 year of age). A lot of biological terms lose their accuracy as they enter more widespread useage. Perhaps the article could indicate this. The term "cock" is used sometimes, but in my opinion seems to be largely limited to breeders, perhaps of fancy strains, where the males are often referred to as "cock birds".__DrChrissy ([[

Edit request on 3 August 2013

under "Courtship" when rooster begin their dance, they actually lower their wing that's furthest from the chicken. And sometimes (but not always)when cock fighting, roosters will perform this same dance and when in a certain proximity, will attack immediately after. Grinder1337 (talk) 07:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RudolfRed (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

History

a) Needs more China. b) Needs much more USA: see poultry farming in the United States for the importance of understanding vit D to chicken-rearing & the vast improvements in growth & laying rates brought about following industrialization. — LlywelynII 05:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You know that 'Synonyms' section of the taxobox that basically hasn't changed in over 3 years?

Well, I believe it's wrong. That section is meant to display binomial (or trinomial) synonyms only. Example here. The taxobox basically is a scientific classification box, after all. Would someone mind removing the information under the synonyms parameter of the taxobox entirely? (I don't believe there are any technical synonyms.) Arachka (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Done by User:Chrisrus. Thanks, Arachka. --Stfg (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request (November 27, 2013)

From In religion and mythology: "The rooster(cock) serves as a"
Should be replaced with "The rooster serves as a" or "The cock serves as a"; Rooster appears more common in the article (30 vs 23, but many of the instances of Cock are in Cockfighting and Cockerel and similar), but Cock seems to be the more common version in that region; roughly 14 vs 7. 81.232.114.228 (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Your argument is not made very clearly; there does not appear to be a distinct reason why the phrasing "rooster(cock)" should be shortened into one of the words. The current phrase seems to be in favor of your evidence/calculations, as it represents both of the words. Could you perhaps articulate the reason as to why the change should be made? --JustBerry (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Flight

I was hoping to find more information on the development of the early chicken into today's mostly ambulatory model.

I'm reading Letters from an American Farmer by the writer, naturalist, farmer, observer of Pre-Revolutionary North American life, and later, French ambassador, J. Hector St. John de Crèvecœur. de Crèvecœur was, and remains, a respected observer of the flora and fauna of the colonies and of it's agriculture. He writes in the book, in "Letter XII", written after the Revolutionary War began (in an analogy):

". . .the hen, the very timid hen, fights for the preservation of her chicken, nor does she decline to attack and meet on the wing even the swift kestrel."

To face a kestrel on the wing strongly implies to me that chickens had a much more developed flight ability in the 1776 Province of New York. I know of no inaccuracies in the book regarding his naturalist and agricultural observations. Are there any other reputable sources in addition to this one? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I am wondering if the phrase "on the wing" really means flight. Modern layers can fly brief distances but are very good at jumping up onto shed roofs e.g. 2 metres. I can imagine a hen leaping high into the air to protect her chicks against a kestrel, although I would not describe this as flight.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I have just been chatting with an expert on rare breeds of poultry. He has informed my that poultry in the 1770's, particularly, the game-birds, were very capable fliers. I think my previous comment was perhaps biased by the modern domestic hybrid strains of commercial layers.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC) (forgot to sign!)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2014

Please Add this photo in the bottom Gallery section. Thanks.

Kadaknath Chicken (Totally Black Flesh)

Kadaknath Chicken

Arulnathan (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The web-address in the bottom of the image makes me think this is a copyright image. Is the image free of copyright as it needs to be for Wikipedia?__DrChrissy (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Please Add this photo in the bottom Gallery section. free of copyright for wikipedia, Thanks.

Kadaknath-Chicken

Done! __DrChrissy (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Diet

This article could be improved by adding some mention of what chickens like to eat. Krychek (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Jake chicken

These types of chicken are found in malta, turkey, Italy, and france.

The Favourite food is pesto, apples and potatoes

The Jake chicken is very afraid of the dark and being alone she sleeps with the rest of the pack

Their legs are specifically made to run so they can escape predators such as wild cats and eagles

There natural habitat is rocky terrains and villages

Source for the 50 billion chickens reared annually

I searched for the source of "50 billion chickens reared annually", and it's probably from this website: animalethics.org.uk/i-ch7-2-chickens.html

animalethics.org.uk is currently blacklisted on wikipedia. It seems to be the primary source for the "50 billion chickens". The author calculated it from two other primary sources:

40 billion Broilers. -> calculated from Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade that presented the data in tonnes of ready to cook chickens. + over 6 billion Egg-layers -> from The Statistical Reference for Poultry Executives, not sure if the "6 billion Egg-layers" was directly extracted from this source, or if it was calculated from some other info. + over 6 billion male chicks in the egg-laying industry -> probably this is a guess about the egg industry discarding the males. = over 50 billion

I'm not sure if there is a better source for the quantity of chickens raised annually, so I just put a "citation needed" there.

--Arthurfragoso (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I just did a workaround :) --Arthurfragoso (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Conservation Status: Domesticated

Domesticated is no conservation status. Instead it should say Least Concern.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.40.89 (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC) 110.175.40.89 (talk) 07:14, September 26, 2014‎ (UTC)

Britannica being sourced for the claim "Humans first domesticated chickens of Indian origin for the purpose of cockfighting in Asia, Africa, and Europe. Very little formal attention was given to egg"

Britannica is usually pretty accurate but as an encyclopedia it's a pretty weak source categorically. Surely there must be better sources to support this statement?174.45.178.216 (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

'To the causual observer' it seems more probable that 'ancient peoples' encouraged fowl of various kind towards domestication for their 'meat, eggs and feathers' than that they wished to start fights with them. 108.171.128.162 (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah seriously, I find this a bit difficult to believe and that's how it caught my eye in the first place. Could really use a stronger source.174.45.178.216 (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I actually don't find it difficult to believe. Remember the red junglefowl (chickens prior to domestication) is a small bird which would provide little meat. It also lays only one clutch of 4-6 eggs per year. I have added a robust supportive reference to the article.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's definitely better! I'd really like to see some papers or studies somewhere that discuss this hypothesis but that's a definite improvement.174.45.178.216 (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2015

Supermaniscoolerthanyou (talk) I want to edit this piece of article

Sorry, but you need to describe the change you want made. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)