Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science News

Featherless Chickens 84

Posted by michael from the inevitable-finger-licking-jokes dept.
Everyone and their brother wrote in about the featherless chicken. Besides the humor value, interesting in that we're creating another species with qualities that suit humans but unsuitable for life on its own.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Featherless Chickens More

Featherless Chickens

Comments Filter:
  • It looks like it spent too long tanning on the beach.

  • hmm (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Transcendent ( 204992 )
    The naked chicken, as it has been dubbed, is also a low calorie bird because the lack of feathers means the chicken has less fat.

    I would think that it would gain fat since it has no feathers to trap in its own body heat...

    but then again, that would only happen if this bird was in nature...
    • You're right if the chicken is in cold weather, i.e. England or something. However, in the story, they are saying that it will be useful for chicken farmers in warm weather, where the chicken feathers are useless. But I don't see their argument for why featherless means less fat, either.

  • Animal 54? (Score:4, Funny)

    by reaper20 ( 23396 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2002 @11:21AM (#3559053) Homepage
    When I saw this I immediately thought of that old internet "conspiracy" about Kentucky Fried Chicken. I think it was called Animal 54 or something like that.

    Basically, KFC had genetically altered their chickens so much that the FDA told them to stop using the word "chicken", hence the name change to KFC from Kentucky Fried Chicken. The 'species' of the animal had been changed to Animal #54, since it was no longer a chicken - it couldn't fly and sat there getting fat until feeding time.

    Anyone have a link? Sounds funny but apparently alot of people thought it was true - my mom being one of them.
  • In high school I worked at a Kentucky Fried Chicken. There, in the backroom, it was a common myth among the cooks that the Colonel had already developed featherless chickens for his restaurants. After all, none of us had ever seen a feather on the birds we cooked.

    Perhaps in a few years it will no longer be a myth.
  • Allegedly, the reason for Kentucky Fried Chicken changing their name to KFC was that in Canada, the meat they were serving could no longer be legally called Chicken.

    Canada is stricter about health and food laws than the USA, for example - most of the USA cereals and candy snacks are illegal there, or are made with different ingredients. You can't sell ready-to-eat foods with too high a sugar content. There are other such examples, with about twice as many regulations on the quality and source of meat and dairy products as the USA (and most states therein) have as well. Companies are also required to list EVERY ingredient. Brand names and trace quantity ingredients can't be omitted as they are in the USA.

    If the KFC renaming bit isn't just a myth - though I know it sounds too juicy to be true - it would be in keeping with Canada's strict standards. And it would also be quite amusing to see what they force these naked chickens be listed as. "Anyone up for chickenoid?" "Chick Khan anyone?"

  • Naked Roosters. Better in the heat.

    Oh, boy...

  • MSNBC Factually challenged... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 21, 2002 @11:27AM (#3559087)
    1) The chicken is a hybrid of two types of chickens; it was not genetically engineered, as the article, or at least the photo caption say.
    2) These chickens would not "catch cold" due to lack of feathers. You do not "catch a cold" from being cold. You (and your chicken friends) catch a cold from germs, not matter how hot or cold you may be.

    but hey, wtf do I know.
    • Though being cold weakens your immune system and keeps you indoor facilitating the exchange of germs and making you more suceptible to cold and as such those chickens very well could catch a cold (or some other illness) if their lack of feathers meant they had to stay indoors and had weaker immune systems because they were busy trying to conserve body heat.

    • In a cold environment most chickens die from asphyxiation rather than anything else. They have a tendency to cluster very tightly together to preserve their body heat and end up suffocating one another.

      When I was a child, I had the onerous duty of raising chickens in upstate NY through a very bad winter. It was quite a shock to come in from the snow one morning to find a pile of dead chickens in the center of the coop.

      Regardless of how much cross breeding they do with chickens, nothing is going to make them any more intelligent.
  • I wonder if the featherless fowl will be susceptible to skin cancer? Maybe those feathers were serving as an important barrier.

  • Humour Value? (Score:1, Funny)

    by morbid ( 4258 )
    Lets see you laugh when it's you going bald.
    *sob*
  • Besides the humor value, interesting in that we're creating another species with qualities that suit humans but unsuitable for life on its own.

    I agree. Breeding animals to suit human whim is totally wrong [akc.org].

    • Re:Breeding new species (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Why? Humans have been breeding animals for food since when civilization oficially began.
      • Well, human instincts is not what makes us humane.

        When the animals natural instincs are lost we've passed the line, and we only removed the animals from somewhat natural condition during the last century. And it's already proved that some chickens can't go back to a normal life, while pigs for example can make surprising adaptations if let loose.

        And about the parent, I'm glad we've at least stopped cutting of tails here - just too bad for all the pups that can't breathe normally.
    • I agree. Breeding animals to suit human whim is totally wrong.

      Aside from this link, then, you would characterize the existence of any breed of dog as "totally wrong"? Or cows, or even horses?

      Kneejerk reaction aside, almost every animal we interact with on a daily basis has been changed to suit our needs. To be honest, we've also changed a bit to suit their needs, too. It's a bit overkill to dismiss all of the last 5-10000 years of animal husbandry as "completely wrong", wouldn't you say?

  • Creation of a new species by man isn't new. Just look at the cow. There is no way cows would survive in a world without humans.

    • Tip of the Iceburg (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Zelet ( 515452 )
      Humans have changed every domesticated plant and animal for millions of years. Selective breeding, although slow, is still "genetic engineering."

      Look at: cows, horses, dogs, chickens, wheat, corn, potatoes, goats, hell... look at donkeys... we completely f**ked mother nature in that deal.

      This method of changing things in our benefit has just gotten more efficient.
      • I _mostly_ agree. IANAGeneticist, but I work with many. This sort of 'loss of function' gene work is probably benign. What's more questionable is splicing of genes of different species (or even genus) into an organism. Also agriculture companies who engineer their crops to be resistant to their own herb- and insecticides in order to sell more of both raise serious alarms in my head. Test and label.
      • Donkeys? Are you concerned that we've altered the donkey species? Boy, ligers better watch out!
        • Donkeys are a human creation. They are a mix of horse and goat (forced breeding). Totally unnatural.

          • I laughed so hard I nearly peed myself. A mule is the offspring of a Horse and Donkey, fer cryin' out loud! I'm pretty sure it's a female horse (mare) and male donkey (jack).

            I'd pay good money to see the offspring of a horse and goat!

          • Actually I was thinking of mules as well, which was my point. While they are unnatural, it can't be said that we've damaged a group that wouldn't exist except for our "damage" -- we haven't screwed up mules, we've created mules.

            Individual mules may have a beef with us, but not the group as a whole, the "species" (which of course they are not).

            Rather OT, and please don't take it as an insult, but I'm reminded of the book "When Did Wild Poodles Roam the Earth?". The title question, along with its introduction to the effect that "we all know that domestic species were once wild", was handed off to some good-natured museum type, whose response began, "There are no stupid questions...but this comes close!"

    • Re:Nothing new (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Cows couldn't survive?!? Have you ever heard of bullfights or "the running of the bulls"? They're not exactly helpless to predators. They're just helpless against heartless, animal-abusing factory farmers and the billions of consumers who contribute to the needless suffering every day. (that is, anyone who is not a vegan)

      Breeding chickens without feathers for convenient slaughter reminds me of the old practice of "selective breeding" used on slaves in the United States to produce the strongest workers. There seems to be no limit to the suffering people are willing to be blind towards when it benefits
  • Don't mean to spoil everyone's fun but I completely fail to see what's funny about breeding an animal so it loses an important part of it's body.

    The chicken looks very odd, certainly, but as a joke I find it a bit of a damp squib.

    Of course I'm a crazy vegetarian so you can write me off as a nutcase.

    • Re:Humour value (Score:4, Funny)

      by gnovos ( 447128 ) <gnovos@nospAm.chipped.net> on Tuesday May 21, 2002 @12:36PM (#3559619) Homepage Journal
      Don't mean to spoil everyone's fun but I completely fail to see what's funny about breeding an animal so it loses an important part of it's body.

      Well that "important" body part actually kills it in hot areas, so by removing it you increase it's ability to survive. The funny part comes in because it's a living rubber chicken!
      • As someone who has 4 laying hens in his small urban backyard...

        If there are no breeds of chicken that can handle the climate, then don't use those breeds! Our hens can handle the near-100F heat of summer and the 10-20F winters. If these poor farmers require poultry to live (doubtful), they can use a more hot-climate oriented bird such a guineas or quail.

        I'm always a bit disgusted by modern methods of shoe-horning nature to serve our needs where other more natural varieties will fare much better by nature's own design.

        As much as I hated plucking our meat birds when we slaughtered them (we ended up skinning them), the thought of denying a life form a vital and natural part of its physiology makes me ill.

        There are plenty of other horrors in the poultry industry, such as de-beaking (barbaric), over crowding, and mass extermination of male chicks (in egg shops). Why add another one so KFC and Tyson and add another couple of pennies per pound to the bottom line?

        I swear, modern scientists have no scruples sometimes.

        • Re:Humour value (Score:3, Insightful)

          by battjt ( 9342 )
          don't use those breeds...by nature's own design

          Which is it? Us breeding these buggers or nature? We created those breeds, just like the new naked breed. Naked chickens aren't any more unatural than any of our other breeds.

          Again, where do these wild boiler chickens come from? [HINT: The same place wild dairy cows and wild chihuahuas come from.]

          Joe
        • Somebody please mod this up. Seems to me the spirit of the parent post is not that they're "unnatural" so much. As has been pointed out all domesticated animals are about equally "unnatural". But bald chickens are an example of the food industry's version of SUV's. Inefficient (compared to native species and of course PLANTS), ill used, and yet another totally unnecessary example of the extremely conspicuous consumption we've come to think we have a right to every single day.

          If we have to go to such lengths as breeding bald chickens maybe that's a good indication that we should eat less chickens?

          Mmmmmmmm....Bird carcass soup.
      • Or would that be a Living Rubber Chicken with a Pully in the Middle?

        Sorry, I played monkey island a few too many times.
    • Yah, right...Wild boiler chickens have feathers?!?! Wild boiler chickens don't exist.

      Those feathers are not important where boiler chickens live (you know, in a barn!).

      Joe

  • Read the Damn Article (Score:4, Informative)

    by gnovos ( 447128 ) <gnovos@nospAm.chipped.net> on Tuesday May 21, 2002 @12:33PM (#3559596) Homepage Journal
    Besides the humor value, interesting in that we're creating another species with qualities that suit humans but unsuitable for life on its own.

    Well, if you had READ the article instead of just looking at the picture, you would have seen that these chickens actually have a HIGHER survival rate in tropical areas (where it is originally designed to be introduced) becuase the feathers would trap heat that would otherwise kill the bird.

    Here so you don't have to strain your eyes actually reading that tiny 12 point font from the first few paragraphs:

    "(Boiler chickens) consume a lot of energy in order to grow rapidly but in the process they generate a lot of heat and they have to get rid of it otherwise their internal body temperature will go too high and they will die."

    "That's why the growth rate of boiler (chickens) is significantly reduced in hot seasons or hot countries and that is why the poultry meat is expensive in these countries."

    By keeping the chickens feather-free, the birds would direct their energy to growing larger rather than keeping cool.
  • interesting in that we're creating another species with qualities that suit humans but unsuitable for life on its own. Funny, that's not what the article said. "the lack of feathers keeps the birds cooler and leaner than their feathered cousins -- useful in hot countries."

    and

    "By keeping the chickens feather-free, the birds would direct their energy to growing larger rather than keeping cool."

    These birds are quite well suited to temperate climates. Chickens don't need feathers any more. Growing them just drains energy the birds could put to another use.

    • If chickens didn't need their feathers anymore why don't they 'evolve them away'?

      Simple - Natural selection doesn't apply to domesicated animals. Even if these chickens were unable to live on thier own, we'd still keep them around if they had qualities that we desire. Most likely we will end up with a bunch of livestock that needs far too much specialized care to be useful. (Much like our gen-eng corn that can't breed true.)

      Growing them just drains energy the birds could put to another use.

      Like being crispy, juicy, and tender. For me.

  • If we were creating a new species then prehaps I could get worked up about this.

    But all he did was breed (not genetically engineer) two existing types of chicken to produce another breed without feathers.
    This is no different to breeding dwarf wheat or pit-bulls.

  • Do they play well together? (Score:5, Funny)

    by rehannan ( 98364 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2002 @01:28PM (#3559989) Homepage
    Growing up, we usually had anywhere from 10 to 50 chickens. If one chicken lost a few of it's feathers and the skin became exposed, the other chickens would usually begin pecking the poor bird with the missing feathers. We had one chicken that had it's brain exposed from this pecking. (There's a product you can smear on the wound to keep the other chickens from doing this.)

    Has this geneticist put any of these featherless chickens together?
  • CAHANER'S RED-SKINNED CHICKEN looks a little ridiculous, but the lack of feathers keeps the birds cooler and leaner than their feathered cousins -- useful in hot countries.

    If the heat is giving chickens are hard time down there, I wonder what they put on their Athlons!?
    (rimshot)

  • "...we're creating another species with qualities that suit humans but unsuitable for life on its own."

    Name a species of animal that is suitable for life on its own.
    • I think John was trying to point out that all animals must interact with some other species in order to survive (single cells don't count) so what if we end up creating an animal that has to be raised by us to survive. selective breeding has already largly done that with other species. errr for instance most dogs we keep as pets are rather docile and weak compared to wolves (no i don't want an arguement about environment VS DNA) anyway its fine if they need us to reach maturity we need them to eat!
  • My God, someone's finally done it. They've created the Chicken of Tomorrow [mst3kinfo.com]!

    "Men and women breeding better poultry? What kind of sick experiment is going on there?" - Mike, MST3K episode 702

  • When I first read the headline I thought it said "Fatherless Chickens" which of course I though to myself, who cares if they are bastard chickens, they are still ugly.
  • I know! Let's breed naked humans too! Oh, wait...
  • Six years ago, one of my little cousins referred to all chicken as "Bawk Bawk".

    *...imagines her cousin's future, twenty-thirty years from now...*

    "Dada, can me have Bald Bald?"

  • Anyone ever eaten Tilapia? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by uslinux.net ( 152591 ) on Tuesday May 21, 2002 @04:22PM (#3561460) Homepage
    For those unfamiliar, Tilapia is a white fish which originated in Africa. Over the last decade, the fish has been specifically bred to be eaten. That's right, the Tilapia you order at your local seafood restaurant isn't found in the wild. Ironically, nobody seems to care, but this sort of genetic manipulatioon has been going on for ages.
    http://www.genomar.com/tilapia.php
  • One of the issues which this will raise (yet again) is how terrible, natural, unnatural, suicidal, dangerous, safe, humourous and so on it is that humans will adapt animals to meet their needs. I would argue that such exploitation is not necessarilly the way you see it: time to flip the coin.

    How many wild chickens of original genus have you seen in the western world? Of all the chickens in the western world, how many have avoided a few thousand years of selective breeding? For both these questions, I would say it is virtually 0. But is this /our/ plan at all?

    Humans eat chickens, amongst other things. In fact, humans eat an awful lot of chicken. World chicken population has been estimated to be /twice/ that of humans. That's around 13 BILLION chickens folks.

    Why are there so many? Well, because we eat them and the eggs they produce. If chickens were poisonous, how many chickens would there be? Certainly not 13 BILLION of the little buggers!

    Just think of how we have been exploited by the chickens: we let them breed to huge proportions, we feed them, keep them safe from predators (except one), try to keep them disease free using the tools we have developed... but /why/! Well, they're quite tasty when hacked to pieces and cooked... and their (unfertilised) eggs aren't bad either.

    Just think of what the 6.4 billion of us and the 13 billion chickens could do together in the future - we could terraform planets and spread ourselves (and the chickens) across the stars... the first chicken nugget served on another planet will be a great day in the human-chicken partnership!

    I for one are quite happy with this symbiotic relationship: the chickens help us achieve our (not so obvious) goals (food is important!) and in return we keep their species alive and, like we have done before all over this planet, we will take them wherever we settle.

    Personally, I think the chickens get a great deal.

    Ian Woods
    (Just don't get me started on how humans are being exploited by plants: do you think those arable crops growing over a lot of the better farming land all over the planet is because of just our desire to grow and eat them?)
    • Just think of what the 6.4 billion of us and the 13 billion chickens could do together in the future - we could terraform planets and spread ourselves (and the chickens) across the stars... Dude, that's so NOT what we've always dreamed about when we talked about naked chicks from outer space.

  • Humans have bred lots of species to the point where they couldn't survive on their own. The best example is maize (corn) - without humans to remove kernels from the cob, maize can't reproduce.

    Compared to normal chickens, these chickens might even be better-adapted for life in the wild, since no feathers isn't much of a disadvantage to a bird that can't fly well anyways.
  • I want boneless, featherless chicken ranches!... That way I know where my chicken patties come from!
  • such a silly snarky little statement to make. man's been manipulating animals for thousands of years.
  • interesting in that we're creating another species with qualities that suit humans but unsuitable for life on its own.

    A large dairy animal approached Zaphod Beeblebrox's table, a large fat meaty quadruped of the bovine type with large watery eyes, small horns and what might almost have been an ingratiating smile on its lips.
    ``Good evening,'' it lowed and sat back heavily on its haunches, ``I am the main Dish of the Day. May I interest you in parts of my body?'' It harrumphed and gurgled a bit, wriggled its hind quarters into a more comfortable position and gazed peacefully at them.
    Its gaze was met by looks of startled bewilderment from Arthur and Trillian, a resigned shrug from Ford Prefect and naked hunger from Zaphod Beeblebrox.
    ``Something off the shoulder perhaps?'' suggested the animal, ``Braised in a white wine sauce?''
    ``Er, your shoulder?'' said Arthur in a horrified whisper.
    ``But naturally my shoulder, sir,'' mooed the animal contentedly, ``nobody else's is mine to offer.''
    Zaphod leapt to his feet and started prodding and feeling the animal's shoulder appreciatively.
    ``Or the rump is very good,'' murmured the animal. ``I've been exercising it and eating plenty of grain, so there's a lot of good meat there.'' It gave a mellow grunt, gurgled again and started to chew the cud. It swallowed the cud again.
    ``Or a casserole of me perhaps?'' it added.
    ``You mean this animal actually wants us to eat it?'' whispered Trillian to Ford.
    ``Me?'' said Ford, with a glazed look in his eyes, ``I don't mean anything.''
    ``That's absolutely horrible,'' exclaimed Arthur, ``the most revolting thing I've ever heard.''
    ``What's the problem Earthman?'' said Zaphod, now transferring his attention to the animal's enormous rump.
    ``I just don't want to eat an animal that's standing here inviting me to,'' said Arthur, ``it's heartless.''
    ``Better than eating an animal that doesn't want to be eaten,'' said Zaphod.
    ``That's not the point,'' Arthur protested. Then he thought about it for a moment. ``Alright,'' he said, ``maybe it is the point. I don't care, I'm not going to think about it now. I'll just ... er ...''
    The Universe raged about him in its death throes.
    ``I think I'll just have a green salad,'' he muttered.
    ``May I urge you to consider my liver?'' asked the animal, ``it must be very rich and tender by now, I've been force-feeding myself for months.''
    ``A green salad,'' said Arthur emphatically.
    ``A green salad?'' said the animal, rolling his eyes disapprovingly at Arthur.
    ``Are you going to tell me,'' said Arthur, ``that I shouldn't have green salad?''
    ``Well,'' said the animal, ``I know many vegetables that are very clear on that point. Which is why it was eventually decided to cut through the whole tangled problem and breed an animal that actually wanted to be eaten and was capable of saying so clearly and distinctly. And here I am.''
    It managed a very slight bow.
    ``Glass of water please,'' said Arthur.
    ``Look,'' said Zaphod, ``we want to eat, we don't want to make a meal of the issues. Four rare steaks please, and hurry. We haven't eaten in five hundred and seventy-six thousand million years.''
    The animal staggered to its feet. It gave a mellow gurgle.
    ``A very wise choice, sir, if I may say so. Very good,'' it said, ``I'll just nip off and shoot myself.''
    He turned and gave a friendly wink to Arthur.
    ``Don't worry, sir,'' he said, ``I'll be very humane.''
    It waddled unhurriedly off into the kitchen.

    Excerpt from Chapter 17 -- The Resturant at the End of the Universe by Douglas Adams

  • That's right - we muck w/ the natural order-o-things all the time. The Martin, a bird that eats its weight in mosquitos everyday and is a great pesticide depends on humans to survive. Martins roost in nests that are high up and in the open. People put up Martin houses to attract them to their land and now a hundred years later the Martin has lost the ability to make a nest. Without humans constructing Martin houses the species would die out in one year.
  • but you'll find a lot more meat on a Peruvian Hairless [netti.nic.fi]. A friend had one - he was always putting sunscreen on it!! I wonder if the chickens would need that, too.

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close