Slashdot Mirror
Featherless Chickens
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.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
It looks like it spent too long tanning on the beach.
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...
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.
"I like to wear big boy pants."
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?"
Says the RIAA: When you EQ, you're stealing bass!
Naked Roosters. Better in the heat.
Oh, boy...
The Humblest Mollusk on the Net
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.
There are three hits at google. It looks like a typical urban legend.
They changed the name to KFC because fried foods became associated with being unhealthy.
I wonder if the featherless fowl will be susceptible to skin cancer? Maybe those feathers were serving as an important barrier.
"I like to wear big boy pants."
Lets see you laugh when it's you going bald.
*sob*
I'm out of my tree just now but please feel free to leave a banana.
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.
My spoon is too big.
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.
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.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
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.
...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
When I try to send the link through company email (M$) using the Subject: "Look - HOT NEKKED CHICK...en!!!", it gets rejected for "Unacceptable Language."
Guess I need to be more creative with my spelling/punctuation.
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.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
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.
So the new KFC still has the Colonel's stylized image, but not the original name.
-wjc.
"I figure you're here 'cause you need some whacko who's willing to stick his finger in the fan. So who are we helping?
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.
This time I could be arsed.
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)
-Billco, Fnarg.com
"...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.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Loosing an important part of thsir body. Even with feathers the chickens would be killed for us to eat. Its not like they are altering chickens and then sending them back into the wild.
I once shot a man who posted too many, "Imagine a beowulf cluster of these"
"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.
...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
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?"
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.
/our/ plan at all?
/twice/ that of humans. That's around 13 BILLION chickens folks.
/why/! Well, they're quite tasty when hacked to pieces and cooked... and their (unfertilised) eggs aren't bad either.
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
Humans eat chickens, amongst other things. In fact, humans eat an awful lot of chicken. World chicken population has been estimated to be
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
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?)
It's true all right. Here's a writeup about it, including a picture. Except it's Animal 57, not Animal 54. The Animal 54s were too mutant to survive.
Plankton?
Bear.
F ish.
Lion.
Tiger.
Monkey.
Whale.
Raccoon.
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.
Human/Ranger/Zangband
Or would that be a Living Rubber Chicken with a Pully in the Middle?
Sorry, I played monkey island a few too many times.
Like silkworms moths (I'm sure there's a better word). These moths cannot mate on their own because their bodies are too unwieldy after having been bred over a couple thousand years. Without Man, they simply would cease to exist, at this point.
I have been pwned because my
I want boneless, featherless chicken ranches!... That way I know where my chicken patties come from!
0- Eamonman Proud member of DNRC
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!
Good luck in hell.
such a silly snarky little statement to make. man's been manipulating animals for thousands of years.
stored on computers from birth to the grave
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. ... er ...''
``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
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
Yes they can, just not very far. How else would they get up into the trees to roost? Of course, if they're kept in battery cages or have their wings clipped they can't fly. But a chicken allowed to run free can fly and scratch in the dirt and run away from dogs.
People have been crossbreeding animals with stupid results for millennia. This is not new. No genetic engineering involved, just old-fashioned crossbreeding. Just like when we breed dogs whose skulls are too small for their brains, or whose faces are too small for their sinuses, or any of the other health problems we've bred into animals in exchange for some trait perceived as desirable.
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. A friend had one - he was always putting sunscreen on it!! I wonder if the chickens would need that, too.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
Please tell me that you don't believe that. Note where the original post came from in that link:
alt.folklore.urban