Eating eggs from a rescued backyard hen?

[g0rph]

The OP also asked:
Is it possible to hold vegan values while doing this, or would it still be considered non-vegan?

I'm not a fan of the vegan police, either, but veganism, despite efforts by some to change the definition to suit their desires (not you, g0rph, just something I see in general online), doesn't include eating animals or products derived from them. That is not in dispute, regardless of cruelty, as it is also a commodification issue. And veganism aims to avoid commodification of animals as well as cruelty.

I don't disagree with you, but this very discussion is a reasons why pure veganism will never be a majority.

I do think someone could hold vegan values AND eat those eggs. And no, that action by the purest definition would be non vegan.
But the fact we are quibbling over such non-issues is the main reason for my above statement.

I do see a future where factory farming is an abhorrent thing of the past...like slavery*
But while we nit-pick over inconsequential **** like this, we are delaying even that.

The whole vegan purity nonsense is counter-productive. Vegans calling out other vegans over this stuff is directly responsible for the slow uptake (IMO).

 

[Ahimsa24/7]

This is a philosophical debate over a moot point. Yes, eating unfertilized eggs left behind by a rescued hen in actual practice won't move the needle on animal cruelty a single tick in either direction. It's far better than numerous alternatives. So I'm not "calling out" anyone or acting as the "vegan police". Go ahead and eat them if it makes you happy. But if you want to discuss the question philosophically, I'm not budging from my initial viewpoint, which is that the act is unethical because it is is theft. The egg is not mine to eat, never was, never will be. PETA gets a lot of things wrong IMO, but the "Animals are not ours ...." slogan is right as rain. And whatever comes out of their bodies isn't ours either.

 

[silva]

I don't disagree with you, but this very discussion is a reasons why pure veganism will never be a majority.

I do think someone could hold vegan values AND eat those eggs. And no, that action by the purest definition would be non vegan.
But the fact we are quibbling over such non-issues is the main reason for my above statement.

I do see a future where factory farming is an abhorrent thing of the past...like slavery*
But while we nit-pick over inconsequential **** like this, we are delaying even that.

The whole vegan purity nonsense is counter-productive. Vegans calling out other vegans over this stuff is directly responsible for the slow uptake (IMO).

Can't understand what you think makes it a 'vegan purity' issue, and I haven't seen anyone 'called out'.
The definition of omnivore is really very broad, and includes many 'foods' that are only considered edible in certain cultures, and certainly in the US, few would ever think of them as food.
Everything that lives is potentially food. The only reason we're discussing the ethics of eating eggs from a humanly raised hen is because eggs are widely considered food. The only reason there are hens to 'rescue' is because they are raised to lay eggs. If eggs weren't considered food--and that idea perpetuated--hens wouldn't be bred to lay them. There wouldn't be the need to rescue them
What I find most surprising is how many here will advocate not only giving them to people but it seems they're either given free or at a minimal cost. The idea is that these eggs from a hen that was rescued will keep the factory farms from profit. This may make the rescuer feel better about themselves, but in reality, people will take, or buy, those ethical eggs because it gives them that warm fuzzy feeling of doing better while still viewing eggs as an essential part of their diet. Take away the ethical eggs, or raise the price, they'll be right back at the grocery. Putting a spin on eggs as being ethical is nothing but humane-washing. It does nothing to adversely impact the sales, and nothing to make people change their minds on whether eggs should be considered 'food'

Like I've said, everything that lives is food. I wouldn't ever judge people in need. What I do find so very unironic is that getting eggs from rescued hens is more of a feel good trendy thing to brag about.

I know many omnivores who freely admit that plant based eating is the better way, for every reason---they hold vegan values.

Honestly, why not just advocate for raising your own hens? Do you really see a difference besides the fact is isn't as warm and fuzzy a feeling of doing good?

 

[g0rph]

This is a philosophical debate over a moot point.

I agree.

Yes, eating unfertilized eggs left behind by a rescued hen in actual practice won't move the needle on animal cruelty a single tick in either direction. It's far better than numerous alternatives.

Agree

So I'm not "calling out" anyone or acting as the "vegan police". Go ahead and eat them if it makes you happy.

Well I wouldn't personally, but I do not care a jot about those who do. It does not even register on my scale.

But if you want to discuss the question philosophically, I'm not budging from my initial viewpoint, which is that the act is unethical because it is is theft.

On a scale of ethics, the theft is inconsequential, it's like taking litter off someone's lawn. If the chickens are fed properly, then the egg will simply be left and go rotten.
On a utilitarian scale, leaving the egg rather than making use of it is unethical. That egg, along with potentially millions of others mean that eggs from farmed chickens have a slightly reduced demand...which means less chickens bred into a tortured existence.

I think it is unethical to not use the egg, whether yourself, or by giving away.

The egg is not mine to eat, never was, never will be.

Not if you don't want it.

PETA gets a lot of things wrong IMO, but the "Animals are not ours ...." slogan is right as rain. And whatever comes out of their bodies isn't ours either.

I don't disagree. We are talking about an edge case though.

 

[g0rph]

Can't understand what you think makes it a 'vegan purity' issue, and I haven't seen anyone 'called out'.

Simply claiming someone else's action as unethical is calling out.

The definition of omnivore is really very broad, and includes many 'foods' that are only considered edible in certain cultures, and certainly in the US, few would ever think of them as food.

Not really sure what the point is here?

Everything that lives is potentially food. The only reason we're discussing the ethics of eating eggs from a humanly raised hen is because eggs are widely considered food.

Anything that is edible and contains nutrients...is by definition, food.

The only reason there are hens to 'rescue' is because they are raised to lay eggs. If eggs weren't considered food--and that idea perpetuated--hens wouldn't be bred to lay them. There wouldn't be the need to rescue them

Of course.

What I find most surprising is how many here will advocate not only giving them to people but it seems they're either given free or at a minimal cost. The idea is that these eggs from a hen that was rescued will keep the factory farms from profit. This may make the rescuer feel better about themselves, but in reality, people will take, or buy, those ethical eggs because it gives them that warm fuzzy feeling of doing better while still viewing eggs as an essential part of their diet.

That warm fuzzy feeling may very well be a spark to thinking more critically where and what their food is. Don't knock it. One of the reasons I ended up going vegan was that I started to only buy what I thought was the most humane food...organic, grass fed etc. In hindsight it was silly, but it put my brain on the right track.

Take away the ethical eggs, or raise the price, they'll be right back at the grocery. Putting a spin on eggs as being ethical is nothing but humane-washing. It does nothing to adversely impact the sales, and nothing to make people change their minds on whether eggs should be considered 'food'

People use this argument against going vegan. What difference will little old me make?

And eggs, flesh, milk etc are food. Whether we want to partake is irrelevant.

Like I've said, everything that lives is food.

Ok, Indeed.

I wouldn't ever judge people in need. What I do find so very unironic is that getting eggs from rescued hens is more of a feel good trendy thing to brag about.

Let them brag. As I mentioned above. Mindset...

I know many omnivores who freely admit that plant based eating is the better way, for every reason---they hold vegan values.

That was me 5 years ago. Again...Mindset.

Honestly, why not just advocate for raising your own hens? Do you really see a difference besides the fact is isn't as warm and fuzzy a feeling of doing good?

Not sure of the point being made here. I would never advocate for raising hens (other than rescues). I personally don't have the time or inclination to give them a life they would deserve anyway...And I have a non-vegan family.

 

[shyvas]

Everything that lives is potentially food. The only reason we're discussing the ethics of eating eggs from a humanely raised hen is because eggs are widely considered food. The only reason there are hens to 'rescue' is because they are raised to lay eggs. If eggs weren't considered food--and that idea perpetuated--hens wouldn't be bred to lay them. There wouldn't be the need to rescue them

This.

 

[g0rph]

This.

Except that is obvious to everyone on the forum. i.e. A truism, and besides the point.

 

[silva]

Except that is obvious to everyone on the forum. i.e. A truism, and besides the point.

The subject being discussed here is the ethics of eating eggs. "
"The only reason there are hens to 'rescue' is because they are raised to lay eggs. If eggs weren't considered food--and that idea perpetuated--hens wouldn't be bred to lay them. There wouldn't be the need to rescue them"----is the point.

I don't argue that it's wrong because the eggs are missed by the hens-I think that's irrelevant. I think it's wrong because perpetuates the very abuse that caused the hens to need to be rescued.

The question we should be asking here is why do hens need to be rescued? There was a time when people went out and foraged eggs, then found they could contain the birds and get the eggs. From there it grew to selective breeding, controlling food and light cycling, and because of the increased supply and low price the demand soared.
Hens need rescued because people are conditioned to want eggs. Thinking that giving, or selling, eggs from an ethical source is not indicative of changing that norm. If it does, it's only because the people have already been motivated towards giving them up, and the ethical source is just an end. For others, it gives bragging rights.

Read this and tell me if you think giving, or selling, ethical civit coffee from a rescued civit cat would be a good idea or not:

The truth behind the world's most famous coffee- civet coffee

Civet coffee (aka, Kopi luwak, in Indonesian) is commonly known as the most rare and expensive coffee in the world, due to its unique production method. Produced through the digestive enzymes of Asian civets, a family of cat-like arboreal mammals, civet coffee is prized for its perceived rarity...

www.thecivetproject.com

 

[g0rph]

The subject being discussed here is the ethics of eating eggs. "
"The only reason there are hens to 'rescue' is because they are raised to lay eggs. If eggs weren't considered food--and that idea perpetuated--hens wouldn't be bred to lay them. There wouldn't be the need to rescue them"----is the point.

I don't argue that it's wrong because the eggs are missed by the hens-I think that's irrelevant. I think it's wrong because perpetuates the very abuse that caused the hens to need to be rescued.

The question we should be asking here is why do hens need to be rescued? There was a time when people went out and foraged eggs, then found they could contain the birds and get the eggs. From there it grew to selective breeding, controlling food and light cycling, and because of the increased supply and low price the demand soared.
Hens need rescued because people are conditioned to want eggs. Thinking that giving, or selling, eggs from an ethical source is not indicative of changing that norm. If it does, it's only because the people have already been motivated towards giving them up, and the ethical source is just an end. For others, it gives bragging rights.

Read this and tell me if you think giving, or selling, ethical civit coffee from a rescued civit cat would be a good idea or not:

The truth behind the world's most famous coffee- civet coffee

Civet coffee (aka, Kopi luwak, in Indonesian) is commonly known as the most rare and expensive coffee in the world, due to its unique production method. Produced through the digestive enzymes of Asian civets, a family of cat-like arboreal mammals, civet coffee is prized for its perceived rarity...

www.thecivetproject.com

I think you are missing my point entirely and the civit coffee "analogy" is flawed and irrelevant.

The rescued hens will continue to produce eggs once rescued. They either get used or rot.
The civit, when rescued will only produce coffee if you continue the practice...i.e. It needs continuing action, and no, I wouldn't consider it ethical....Unlike the eggs.

Nobody on this forum thinks we should have the need to rescue hens. But here we are. So stating such....is not necessary for the discussion of their ethicality (if that's a word )

It's a little like when conservatives argue against allowing 13-15 year olds to have access to birth control...
"15 year olds shouldn't be having sex" - duh, no **** Sherlock...But that is besides the point....They do have sex and whether they should be or not is not the issue being discussed.

So the only question is "is it better to use those eggs, or discard them" if we are discussing is it ethical to use the eggs from rescued chickens?

 

[PTree15]

...

So the only question is "is it better to use those eggs, or discard them" if we are discussing is it ethical to use the eggs from rescued chickens?

... in the context of whether eating them would still be considered non-vegan, as the OP asked. And regarding your earlier post about quibbling over non-issues such as eating eggs from rescued hens, I don't consider that a non-issue, and I've stated why in earlier posts. If people want to eat the eggs, so be it, but it's not ethical if they are striving be vegan. And it that puts people off, again, so be it.

 

[g0rph]

... in the context of whether eating them would still be considered non-vegan, as the OP asked. And regarding your earlier post about quibbling over non-issues such as eating eggs from rescued hens, I don't consider that a non-issue, and I've stated why in earlier posts. If people want to eat the eggs, so be it, but it's not ethical if they are striving be vegan. And it that puts people off, again, so be it.

Whether it's ethical or not is subjective. I personally think it is. And no, I am not saying it's vegan.

For me, utilitarianism trumps deontology here.
Your subjective opinion is valid. But so is mine.

Using the eggs is a net plus for utility. Wasting them achieves nothing other than a plus mark in the "obeyed vegan doctrine" column.
And no, I wouldn't personally use them.

 

[fakei]

Is it ethically acceptable to eat eggs from a rescued backyard hen?

Hi everyone,
I’m exploring vegan ethics and had a question I’d love your input on.

If someone has a rescued hen that lives in good conditions—free, safe, well-fed, not forced to lay more than naturally, and not given hormones or chemicals—would it be ethically acceptable to eat her unfertilized eggs, as long as she hasn’t been “mounted” by a rooster?

The idea is not to exploit her, but rather to avoid wasting something she naturally produces, as long as her well-being is fully respected.

I know this might not align with strict veganism, but I’m curious about your thoughts. Is it possible to hold vegan values while doing this, or would it still be considered non-vegan?

Thanks in advance for any insights!

The relation with the animal may not be the same, and in some animals removing the eggs may put more pressure in laying. Not removing unfertilised eggs may lead to several months hatching.

However the problem here may be more practical, changing between consuming animal products and not is where usually the difficulty lies, so a person who wants to remain a vegan may consider that consuming eggs for the limited amount of time they might be available may lead not only to the inconvenience of a transition but to a habit that may also compromise reversing back to veganism.

 

[fakei]

 

[g0rph]

Win/win.

 

[Col]

naturally, and not given hormones or chemicals—

It is nice some birds are saved from certain death, but is there greenwashing of their breeding.?
I would suggest to well meaning 'owners' of the birds, birds that have been genetically bred to overlay, that 'hormones or chemicals' are not a problem.
There are chemicals and hormones that can medicate them in old age to not lay any eggs as they are very likely to become ill with the laying cycle they naturally have. Why would that be a problem if they are safe in a sanctuary?

 

[fakei]

There are chemicals and hormones that can medicate them in old age to not lay any eggs as they are very likely to become ill with the laying cycle they naturally have. Why would that be a problem if they are safe in a sanctuary?

What about the side effects of chemicals and hormones and the environmental cost to produce them including packages involved?

 

[Col]

What about the side effects of chemicals and hormones and the environmental cost to produce them including packages involved?

Medicines are taken to alleviate symptoms should none of us take any then for environmental reasons?
If your friend had a genetic non stop menstruation would you ask her not to take medicine for it to save the environment?

 

[fakei]

Medicines are taken to alleviate symptoms should none of us take any then for environmental reasons?
If your friend had a genetic non stop menstruation would you ask her not to take medicine for it to save the environment?

It seems to me that like anything it is necessary to analyse the costs-benefits and my question was in that direction. Otherwise we risk being like the guy who crossed the river for a cheaper haircut, but paid the double in the passage.


According to the info available, even though chickens lay an awful amount of eggs in the first year, it decreases considerably in the next, that's why chickens in the video were dumped after two years.

I have no personal experience with chickens, so don't know how easy they get broody or if it interrupts the laying like it happens with other fowl, but if so it reduces the number of eggs layed, it can be a matter of not removing the eggs and let them hatch.


Thankfully in the example you give it's not my responsibility, not even to advise, but an animal is always the responsibility of the owner/care-taker, that's why it is better, and I'm talking from personal experience, not to have animals either for exploitation or as pets.

To illustrate, some time ago posted an article on this forum on how excessive phosphorus in cat food is causing kidney problems, more recently someone involved in assisting abandoned cats told me kidney problems are endemic in cats these days.

 

[Col]

Thankfully in the example you give it's not my responsibility, not even to advise, but an animal is always the responsibility of the owner/care-taker, that's why it is better, and I'm talking from personal experience, not to have animals either for exploitation or as pets.

Well my friend I am also against ‘owning’ animals particularly when making money or use of them is concerned, therein is the dilemma of how to save existing farm animals but I would only give money or help a vegan sanctuary that makes no other use of them. A sanctuary which supports their health without thinking of consuming from them provides a reprieve from humans using them. People would not actually lose out in not nabbing and eating an unhealthy egg that was genuinely lost down a hole somewhere. I would myself love it if feral wild animals were not so detested in my culture.

It is okay these sanctuaries befriend them and ‘own’ in a legal sense for their protection but this should be taken seriously as something that is not actual ownership but respectful refuge. I am sure sanctuaries have a lot of ethical decisions to make but this one is really definitive of the treatment of our friends the animals.

Regarding the compost argument offered in the earlier video I could make more plant based compost from those bins of vegetables than the chickens would make manure because logic dictates they need food energy to live. Also insects would benefit, and insects are not necessarily harmful to the soil, actually quite the reverse in veganic farming and agroforestry.

 

[fakei]

Well my friend I am also against ‘owning’ animals particularly when making money or use of them is concerned, therein is the dilemma of how to save existing farm animals but I would only give money or help a vegan sanctuary that makes no other use of them. A sanctuary which supports their health without thinking of consuming from them provides a reprieve from humans using them. People would not actually lose out in not nabbing and eating an unhealthy egg that was genuinely lost down a hole somewhere. I would myself love it if feral wild animals were not so detested in my culture.

There is a sanctuary like that in Santorini, probably in other parts of the world. Things were difficult some months ago for them, the island had to be evacuated due to seismic activity and possibility of vulcanic activity, and there was serious risk according to the news of volcanic explosion, but since the animals could not be evacuated the woman remained. You can see the sanctuary in the video below.

There are really more problems about pets than we like to acknowledge and even zoos seem to me far more ethical than owning pets, and like mentioned before, I'm guilty on this issue myself, and still have some animals, not dogs and cats though, but if we don't acknowledge the problem it will never be solved.

The issue you mentioned about problems from being genetically modified is common in dogs, some were created to be particularly violent and have been responsible for the death of many children, but every time anyone says these breeds should be banned dog lovers oppose and come up with false excuse that it's the owner's fault, one only needs to look at the number of killings by breed, and to the percentage of registered animals by breed, to see it cannot possibly be only the owner's fault. Recently read bulldogs have been changed in recent times to be more fluffy to the point where it affects their health.

It is okay these sanctuaries befriend them and ‘own’ in a legal sense for their protection but this should be taken seriously as something that is not actual ownership but respectful refuge. I am sure sanctuaries have a lot of ethical decisions to make but this one is really definitive of the treatment of our friends the animals.

Regarding the compost argument offered in the earlier video I could make more plant based compost from those bins of vegetables than the chickens would make manure because logic dictates they need food energy to live. Also insects would benefit, and insects are not necessarily harmful to the soil, actually quite the reverse in veganic farming and agroforestry.

The positive aspect of the project is saving chickens from the slaughter and allowing them to live longer. It doesn't solve or mitigate other problems in the egg industry, including the culling of males.