Chickens

[Vincent Berraud]

Considering the vast majority of people have no desire to go vegetarian, let alone vegan and have zero desire to set vegetarianism as a reasonable target, and the facts that it takes about 200 chickens to produce the same amount of meat as one cow and that the typical mass production of chicken meat produces the most amount of suffering in the animal agriculture industry, should we not consider focussing on a message asking people to stop eating chickens as One Step For Animals?

Some more discussion: http://www.onestepforanimals.org/why-one-step.html

[inator]

Well I wouldn't encourage people to start replacing chicken with beef, since red meat is the most carbon intensive way to get food energy.
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/foodkCal1.gif

An argument could be made for switching from chickens to pigs. But pigs are significantly more sentient than chickens, and I wouldn't know how to quantify this difference in sentience in order to calculate to what extent it's worth it.

[miniboes]

We discussed this question here:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2777&p=27971

Chickens are both more numerous in meat production and treated more cruelly. Cow agriculture, however, is worse for the environment. And pigs are probably the most intelligent. There are issues with any choice of meat aside from rope grown oysters

I think the most effective thing to do is to preach for reduced consumption of all animal products. Shifting consumption towards oysters and insects would be good, but those are tough sales too.

[Vincent Berraud]

The problem with advocating for reduced consumption of all animal products is that it often translates in people eating MORE chicken, which means more sentient animals killed and suffering more.

"In other words, no matter what vegans claim is true or what we want, people will react from where they are, based on what they’re used to and with an eye for what they want. No matter how strong we think our arguments are, no matter how noble our intentions or passionate our desires, when we advocate without considering human nature, history, and the numbers, we cause more animals to suffer and die." - http://www.mattball.org/2014/11/lesson-learned-advocacy-can-hurt-animals.html

[brimstoneSalad]

The problem with advocating for reduced consumption of all animal products is that it often translates in people eating MORE chicken, which means more sentient animals killed and suffering more.

I think you're remembering the issue with advocating for reduction on health grounds; which targets red meat like beef. That IS likely to increase chicken consumption. I agree there.

But total reduction of all meat --like meatless Mondays, or having a meal a day vegan-- is less likely to do so.

The argument to eat more beans and bean products like tofu would probably achieve the same overall reduction too. Being high in protein, they're likely to displace some meat, rather than increasing consumption of chicken.

We need to be a little careful about warning people off red meat on its own else we drive them to more white meat, but I haven't seen any arguments that gave compelling testimony against "eat vegan sometimes" reducetarian type of messages.

Also, it's worth noting that a cow probably has about a hundred times the neurons of a chicken. While a cow is a thousand times the weight, more of that is also bone, organs, etc.
Far be it from me to say that neurons map directly to sentience, but the increased meat yield vs. brain matter and cognitive ability may not be as dramatic as is commonly thought. It's something worth investigating.

[Vincent Berraud]

No, I am not particularly talking about the reduction on health ground.

I entirely support Meatless Mondays and a meal a day being vegan but this is a different conversation.

While these initiatives are excellent and worth supporting, everything I wrote in the opening post about chickens still stands and animal advocates should take it into account far more than they currently do.

I am happy with initiatives to reduce the consumption of meat, go vegetarian or go vegan as long as they have a clear message about chickens, strongly encouraging people not to replace their meat with chicken meat and preferably to start by cutting out chicken meat.

A cow is not anywhere near 200 times more important or more intelligent than a chicken - and intelligence is not a factor of sentience, as you said.
It has been investigated and it changes nothing in any way as far as this discussion is concerned: whenever we give a message which simply encourages meat reduction, plenty of people start eating more chickens as a result and it's a disaster for the animals.

[Vincent Berraud]

As Matt Ball wrote: Let’s say we have developed what we think is the most powerful pro-veg argument ever, and we present it to ten people. Incredibly, five of them stop eating animals; the others decide to “eat better”—following the mainstream suggestions of their doctor and friends by giving up red meat.

We might think, “Fifty percent conversion rate? That must be the way to go!” This is how I used to think. But after years, I finally learned to ask: How does this argument actually affect animals?

Every year, the average American eats twenty-three birds, a third of a pig, and a tenth of a cow. It currently takes about 193 birds (chickens + turkeys) to provide the same number of meals as one steer. It takes fifty-six birds to equal one pig.

So, before our presentation, the ten people consumed a combined 234 land animals every year. After our presentation, the same ten—including the five who joined our vegetarian club—eat 296 land animals per year. This is because, even though our argument convinced fully half of them to stop eating animals entirely, the others replaced their red meat intake with birds in order to eat more healthfully.

Moving from red meat to chicken is a well-documented fact. For example: “‘If you look at dietary recommendations put forth by the U.S. Department of Agriculture [and other health institutions], they are to decrease red meat and substitute lean meat, poultry and fish,’ says Daniel [a nutritional epidemiologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center]. ‘We’ve seen in other data that people are gravitating toward poultry.’”

Finally, the National Institutes of Health notes “[t]he growing preference in the US for poultry, but not fish, as a replacement for red meat.”

There are contradictory studies on how much chicken is eaten by people who give up red meat entirely. But for people who reduce the amount of red meat they eat—the majority of people who change their diet for health reasons—all the data are absolutely clear: red-meat reducers eat much, much more chicken. For example, in the largest recent study, those who consumed the lowest amount of red meat ate fifty percent more chicken than those who consumed the most red meat. [Aston, L. M., et al. Meat Intake in Britain in Relation to Other Dietary Components and to Demographic and Risk Factor Variables: Analyses Based on the National Diet and Nutrition Survey of 2000/2001. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 26(1), October 18, 2012.]

Fifty percent more! The facts are clear: anything at all that might possibly lead anyone to cut back on red meat actively harms animals.

Of course, we all know people who have gone veg for health reasons. As vegetarian advocates, we are obviously in a position to hear from and remember them. When we survey vegetarians (and/or meat reducers), of course we sometimes hear the “health argument” as a motivation. But looking only at vegetarians doesn’t begin to show the full impact of any argument. The error is thinking the “health” vegetarians we know or survey are a true sample of society. They aren’t. Rather, they represent a highly self-selected sub-sample.

History shows that eating fewer large animals and more small animals for health reasons isn’t a made-up, worst-case scenario. It has been the driving force for the suffering and slaughter of billions and billions of birds. Just look at any graph of animals killed in the U.S.: as the consumption of mammals declined, the slaughter of chickens skyrocketed over the decades!

This is one of the reasons I don't use any argument that could, in any way, support the general move toward giving up only red meat. Every person who decides to “eat better” more than counters the good done by a new vegetarian.

In other words: I won’t repeat anti-meat arguments. We promote pro-animal arguments. Obviously, it feels good to say: “Vegans have lower rates of disease X.” But the point isn’t to feel good about ourselves or our diet. We’re not out to justify or glorify our choices. Our goal is to keep as many animals from suffering as possible.

Of course, advocates can claim eating birds is bad for everyone’s health and the environment. Putting aside the veracity of those health and environmental claims, this simply isn’t the way the world works. People don’t simply accept what a vegan advocate says as gospel truth. Rather, they combine what they hear from all sources, paying more attention to what their doctor and friends say. On top of this, people generally give much more weight to advice that leads toward what they want to do—i.e., continuing to eat the familiar and convenient foods their friends and family eat.

More importantly, we simply don’t make decisions based on what is “perfect” for our health or the environment. None of us, vegans included, exercise the optimal amount, sleep the optimal amount, floss every day, work standing up, give up our car, etc. With few exceptions, we all follow our habits/peers. For most people (not a self-selected vegetarian sub-sample), if we change anything, we do something somewhat “better”—eating chickens instead of cows.

In other words, no matter what vegans claim is true or what we want, people will react from where they are, based on what they’re used to and with an eye for what they want. No matter how strong we think our arguments are, no matter how noble our intentions or passionate our desires, when we advocate without considering human nature, history, and the numbers, we cause more animals to suffer and die.

If we want to help animals, we need to advocate for the animals.

http://www.mattball.org/2014/11/lesson-learned-advocacy-can-hurt-animals.html

[brimstoneSalad]

I am happy with initiatives to reduce the consumption of meat, go vegetarian or go vegan as long as they have a clear message about chickens, strongly encouraging people not to replace their meat with chicken meat and preferably to start by cutting out chicken meat.

That's fair.

A cow is not anywhere near 200 times more important or more intelligent than a chicken

How can we estimate or know this?
When we compare the brains, 200 isn't that far off. Particularly if we believe that sentience may scale somewhat exponentially based on cognitive ability.

We can quickly get into tricky questions like how many chickens or cows a human life is worth.

and intelligence is not a factor of sentience, as you said.

I just don't think neuron counts map directly to sentience.

I think it's a very important factor, crucial I would say, although I subscribe to more of a soft threshold theory, where there are points at which self awareness and sentience increase rapidly, then only gradually between those cliffs.