Jeong Ha (Stephanie) Choi 1

Jeong Ha Choi Professor Squier ENGL 083T November 13, 2011

Chicken: The Edible Pet

Abstract More and more people have started to keep chickens in their backyard, starting a trend of urban chickens. It brought the concept edible pet to todays culture, showing that chickens do not have to be considered only food or only pet but can be both. Not everyone agrees with this way of thinking, going for the more polar decision of either the pet or the food. However, people who keep urban chickens raise them with care, having "fellowfeeling" for these animals. Later most consume these animals for a nice meal. This is an interesting paradox that I explore in this paper. To see more about "edible pets" I first explore the meaning of a pet, which is not so simple. Relating to the complex definition I will go on to look at the equally complicated history of pets and how the boundaries of pets have changed over time. This came to show that the start of domestication was based on practicality, and some later moved on to pleasure. Specifically in America, after the Europeans settled in, pets also included livestock such as chickens, which shows that the term "edible pet" is not totally new. Not because the same concept was used back then, but because they had to face the same dilemma that contemporary urban farmers are facing today: the dilemma about killing one's livestock pet. People do have their own ways of dealing with this dilemma but not everyone is content with it. Chickens can be edible pets, but the debate is

Jeong Ha (Stephanie) Choi 2

still on.

Introduction Keeping backyard chicken is becoming a trend in the United States America. As an extension of the Urban Farming Movement, the number of "urban chickens" is growing, whether legally or illegally. According to Jac Smit, president of the Urban Agriculture Network, the trend actually "first gained popularity in London, England, with the invention of the 'eglu' chicken house about ten years ago," and soon the movement started to enter the States as "large numbers of city dwellers began to raise chickens in the U.S. cities of Seattle and Portland."(Block, Worldwatch Institute) Soon within five years, the trend expanded to the places like Los Angeles and Chicago, where chicken raising was already legal, then later even to the places where such an act was not permitted.(Block, Worldwatch Institute) The interesting thing is that people try to perceive chickens dichotomously, as either pet or food. In HOMEGROWN.ORG, one member put up a post asking the readers whether backyard chickens - along with other livestock - are pets or food source. One commenter named Erica says "[chickens] are fun to watch, but they are not pets." and she has "no compunction about culling that bird and using it for soup, stock, etc." She understands that there are people who keep chickens as pets and is not against this, but is "just not willing to maintain the feed and [the] upkeep of non-laying birds." However, is there any meaning in deciding if chickens are one or the other? The two ideas that are clashing do not really oppose each other, and chickens definitely can be both food and pet. This idea brings forth a few questions. What is the definition of a pet? Has a pet been the same throughout history? As for chickens, have they ever been pets? Also, what problem comes forth when we nominate this animal both roles?

Jeong Ha (Stephanie) Choi 3

Definition of Pet and Its Complexity Although "pet" has an actual 'definition' in dictionaries and laws, the explanations do not fully grasp the broad meaning of the word pet. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a pet as "a domesticated animal kept for pleasure rather than utility." Going more further in to the definition, a 'domesticated' animal is to 1) "live near or about human habitations" or 2) be "tame." The former only refers to the material aspect of domestication, while the latter goes a bit more farther than that. 'Tame' means that the living creature is "reduced from a state of native wilderness especially as to be tractable and useful to humans." Eventually, according to the dictionary, pets are animals of minimum natural wilderness which are raised to keep one pleased. However, this is an incomplete definition that needs further exploring. In reality, people do not keep only domesticated and tamed animals as pets; exotic pets such as snakes and tarantulas are, too, pets. Even more, pleasure can vary between people. Some might consider just looking at fish as pleasure, while others might think raising and breeding chickens is pleasure; its standard is subjective. Solely with this definition, keeping cows and dogs is no different. The part about "pleasure more than utility" needs consideration as well. This can be related to the "non-laying chickens" that were talked about in the introduction. The woman unconsciously defines a pet as an animal that is in no way productive, agreeing to what the dictionary says about "pleasure than utility," and it seems like we got our answer. Though when we consider therapy dogs, things turn more complicated. Therapy dogs are dogs "trained to provide affection and comfort to people in hospitals, schools" as well as people with disabilities.(wikipedia) These animals are productive in their own way. In other words, this dictionary definition lacks relation with reality. The Common Household Pet Law also defines pets in a similar way. In legal terms, the common household pet is still a "domesticated animal, such as a dog, cat, bird,

Jeong Ha (Stephanie) Choi 4

rodent(including a rabbit), fish, or turtle, that is traditionally kept in the home for pleasure rather than for commercial purposes." However, it goes on to say that it "does not include reptiles(except turtles)." Here, there is an irony. Turtles considered pets means that they are domesticated, in other words tame, but we do not normally call turtles tame, just quiet. The definition conflicts with itself.( Legal Definitions Legal Terms Dictionary Web) The complicated meaning probably comes from its complex history and obscure origins. The word 'pet' is thought to be rooted from the french word 'petit' meaning 'small or little.' At first it was actually used on people(specifically children) by the early 1500s, describing one as spoiled and indulged. Later in the mid-sixteenth century it included the meaning that people know today, which was especially applied to orphan lambs that require raising by hand.(Grier, 6) Also Noah Websters American Dictionary of the English Language of 1828 defined pet as a lamb brought up by land, or any little animal fondled and indulged. (Grier, 6) Surely the orphaned lambs were bred for practical use, the only difference from them and other livestock is the fact that they got more direct care from their owners. Considering this etymology, pets started out as animals that received extra care. The interesting thing is that the word is actually originated from livestock, which implies that pets were not always "pets" as in the way we have come to define them. The complexity may also come from the many reasons people keep pets. Some people raise pets for their beauty, look or sound, while others raise them as living toys, and others perceive them as symbols of (their) desires for social status.(Grier, 7) In some cases people consider more than one reason for pet keeping. The one thing that is certain about pets is that "they have been singled out by humans. They receive special attention from people who intend to promote their well-being. (Grier, 8) Beyond that, the explanation depends on the individual. Therefore, there is no exact definition to explain what a pet is; it is provisional and obscure. Within certain conditions, defining a pet is eventually

Jeong Ha (Stephanie) Choi 5

the owner's role.

History of Pets Words and definitions do not grow out on its own. They reflect the society and culture of that era. Defining what a pet is is not simple, and the definition does not have a specific boundary. This certainly relates to the history of pets; how they have come into our lives and how they have changed, specifically in America.

1. The Start of Domestication: Dogs and Cats Considering the fact that the word pet emerged during the sixteenth century, it is better to say the history of pets is the history of animals kept for pleasure more than practicality. Pet keeping started very early but no historian is sure of exactly when people started to keep pets. It is known that dogs and cats were one of the earliest animals to be domesticated. Considering this fact and looking at how they were domesticated, these animals were brought into the lives of humans for reasons far from pleasure. According to archaeology, dogs were domesticated about 30,000 years ago, but the earliest known evidence of a domesticated dog in the dog that was found buried with a human in Palestine, which dates back to 12,000 years before. From early times, they took on roles as guard animal, source of food, fur, and beast of burden.(wikipedia) As for cats, their domestication was different from that of dogs. While dogs were domesticated "by artificial selection," domestic cats were "products of natural selection." "Wildcats exploiting human environments were simply tolerated by people and, over time and space, they gradually diverged from their wild relatives."(Discroll, MacDonald, O'Brian) In other words, the domestication of animals, even those considered pets today, was for practicality. Here we can connect this with the etymology of the word pet in the fact that is started as a reference to

Jeong Ha (Stephanie) Choi 6

"practical animals."

2. The History of Pets in America Pet-keeping spread out all over the world and developed in their own ways, based on their own beliefs and culture. Even in America, keeping a pet was not new. According to Pets in America: A History(Grier), before the arrival of the European settlers and the finding of the 'New World,' Native Americans had "complex relationships with a variety of animals." They were "sources of food, raw materials, and muscle power." Other than practical use, "young wild animals lived in villages as casual pets and children's playthings." [20] With the arrival of European settlers, the form of pet keeping that we "recognize as the antecedent of our modern practice" was introduced. When the Spanish first arrived they brought European dogs to use them for conquering tribes. As more and more Europeans colonized in North and South America, dogs arrived in the new found land as hunters, guardians for their homes, and as close companions. The dog was not the only animal that was kept as a pet in these new settlements. Europeans had long traditions of relationships with other small animals, so they either brought animals like cats or found "comparable substitutes among local species."(Grier, 20) As a result, all kinds of pets came into being. Birds, squirrels, and small dogs were being cared in the typical American household by the eighteenth century. Like today, the boundaries of the word "pet" was vague. There is not much information about pets in the early days, but we can know through written material. Elizabeth Sandwith Drinker, an eighteenth-century woman from Philadelphia whose diaries from 1759 to 1807 have survived till this day, talked about the list of pets she had encountered during her life through her diaries. "Drinker's life list of pets reflected the basic range of creatures kept by early American households."(Grier, 24) Her words show that "even working animals could become

Jeong Ha (Stephanie) Choi 7

favorites." Even chickens were taken in as pets, or "favorites," a term that was used more commonly back in that era. Looking at how even farm animals were considered as pets, the term "edible pets" is actually not a new concept. This relates to the etymology that was discussed earlier. Pets were not always the "I-only-give-you-pleasure" animals from the start, but were primarily used as a reference to animals, more specifically livestock, that received extra care from owners. Over time and time the trend was "for more people to keep multiple animals as pets, and for more animals to enter the category of 'pets.'"(Grier, 24) However, by the midnineteenth century, there was a change in the American pet. "Pet stock," a "specialized husbandry" of breeding chickens, pigeons, and rabbits for their looks and sometimes shown competitively, started to become a popular hobby among adults and children. Guinea pig and hamsters were also introduced during this era as "sturdy, relatively undemanding animals," becoming popular children's pets. As a result, the types of pets became quite similar to those of today: the common dogs, cats, birds and fish, along with some exotic animals. The only difference of the pets between the nineteenth century and today is the popularity of each animal, the kind of available exotic animals, and the health of pets. "Nineteenth-century Americans also continued to sort animals into kinds that echoed social categories."(Grier, 184) While some were categorized as a part in the family, calling the dog after their owner's name, some had roles as a "representative of a community or a group."(Grier, 184) Giving these animals identity and more human-like roles, people started to anthropomorphize them and see them as their equals. We can say that the contemporary idea of a pet comes from this era, the thought of these animals as companions and another family member. In other words, the "pet" that we think of today is comparatively new. Just like the definition of the word pet, the history of pet started in a direction that was very different from today. Apparently society brought people to perceive pets in a certain

Jeong Ha (Stephanie) Choi 8

form of way. However, looking at this fact a bit differently, we can say that this debate over the role of chickens is evidence that society is slowly making a change. In other words, because the society is gradually transforming, it is affecting vocabulary as well. This shows again the vagueness of the word pet, however now including the thought that it may never take a solid shape.

Chickens in America Pet-keeping went through some transition, starting out as practical domestication and gradually changing into the practice that we all have come to take in as natural. Since we are talking about the "renaissance of backyard chickens," I would like to go more into the lives of chickens in America. Back in the early days in America, chickens were more than food source. They were pets as well. However, with the introduction of industrial poultry farming, or poultry industries, the stance of chicken started to take a turn; they turned into lifeless meat.

1) Chickens Before the Poultry Industry During the nineteenth century, before poultry industries came into being, "chickens were the most common urban livestock." They did not require a lot of space to raise, so they were the perfect "family-size" livestock. Hens produced plenty of eggs, "an otherwise expensive luxury in some seasons," such as winter. Keeping hens also led to more number of poultry, "which led to a supply of new layers and cockerels for Sunday dinner, and old hens can be killed for stewing after their egg-laying declined."(Grier, 197) As chickens were popular livestock, they were famous pets as well. In the twentieth century, "both boys and girls often took up a kind of 'toy' animal husbandry, (such as) keeping small flocks of chickens."(Grier, 41) Bantam chickens, which are small gentle creatures and

Jeong Ha (Stephanie) Choi 9

therefore easy to raise, seemed to be famous among children back then.(Grier, 197) Breeding animals for aesthetic purposes, being called "fancy," started at the latest in the early nineteenth century, "built upon an earlier sense that a fancy was a whimsical act of imagination and caprice that gave pleasure precisely because it was not useful."(Grier, 41) Keeping fancy poultry was more than just a children's activity. In 1849, the first American chicken show, the Exhibition of Fancy Poultry in the United States of America, was held(McKnight), and a craze for poultry breeding started in the States, producing years of "hen fever."(Squier, 54) Here, the chickens that were kept mainly for entertainment and were eligible to enter poultry competitions were out of the death list. However, as long as there were raising chickens, it was common for both children and adults to witness the killing of a chicken, whether "by wringing its neck or cutting off its head for Sunday dinner." (Grier, 197) During this time, chickens were playing two roles in the lives of urbanites: food and pets. We can assume that people did not really distinguish between pet and food. They were livestock, animals that they took special care of and later consumed for practical needs. This also takes us back to the definition of pet. Dividing pets and non-pets is not in whether they are raised for their practicality or their pleasure-giving. They can be both practical and pleasurable. However, the movement of people to the cities already had started as the Industrial Revolution started to take over the world, slowly changing their way of living, with people trying to adjust to the new city life. This change in living patterns slowly changed the way people perceived chickens.

2) The Emergence Of Poultry Industries and the Disappearance Of the Pet Chicken As breeders began to stress meat and egg production, the modern poultry industry appeared in America in the nineteenth century.(Animal Planet) Between the nineteenth and

Jeong Ha (Stephanie) Choi 10

the early twentieth century, "a few entrepreneurs began selling young chickens during the summer for meat as a sideline activity on their family farms. (However) year-round production was limited because vitamin D had not yet been discovered, and the importance of the photoperiod (cycle of sunlight and darkness) and its impact on production were not understood."(National Chicken Council) The event that really started intensive poultry farming was World War One. "The demand for chicken eggs increased to feed soldiers fighting in World War I," so it was necessary to produce an enormous number of eggs in a short amount of time. However, "the emphasis turned from backyard-chicken keeping to commercial flocks during the Depression of the 1930s."(McKnight) Fewer Americans were farming and more moved into cities and other urban areas. Naturally, a movement away from small chicken flocks toward large, commercial chicken operations started, and soon more and more people were no longer keeping hens.(McKnight) People did not have enough room in the industrialized cities to raise chickens, and they did not have the time to take care of these animals for their life styles had changed. Eventually people had fewer opportunities to come in contact with chickens, as well as with other livestock animals. This also meant that there was much fewer opportunities to have "fellowfeeling" for these animals, slowly growing a gap between a pet and a livestock in the minds of most people. In their minds, chickens were slowly becoming "food." People did not have the need to go through the process of slaughtering animals, a process not many people went through lightly. However, the disappearance of domestic butchering also meant the disappearance of "the dilemma."

The Unsolved Dilemma Chickens have played their roles as food and pets. Then they became just a food

Jeong Ha (Stephanie) Choi 11

source to a majority of people due to the industrial revolution and growth of the poultry industry, but are now retrieving back its former role in America. They have been edible pets all this time. However, despite the fact that pet chicken has a long history, a dilemma still has not been solved: the dilemma of killing and consuming one's own pets. In the past, this dilemma was mostly what children went through. Surrounded by numerous livestock, children were taught to be kind to animals. According to Grier, children "chose to regard stock as pets without the blessing of their parents," this blessing meaning keeping them alive. Some children got used to the killing and thought of it as "the way

things are." (Grier, 201) Back to the present, some people have proposed their own ways of dealing with this dilemma. Peat Willcutt who teaches how to raise urban chickens said "it behooves everyone to once in their life take part in the killing of their meat." He also said "I don't really have mixed feelings. I've made my peace with it. It's an essential evil of omnivores." So Willcutt thinks that killing and eating animals is an evil act, but is not something that cannot be taken away from humans. On the other hand, L.E. Leone, a writer for SLATE.com, an online daily newsletter, thinks of it as an "act of mercy," not something that is evil. She thinks killing the chickens that one owns is as important as raising them, adding that killing to eat meat is just part of being part of the food chain. (Leone) Also an urban farmer, Novella Carpenter in a lecture talked about how she dealt with this dilemma. She said she looked upon them as "edible pets" and "love the animals that you are going to eat. Love it, not in the way I love my cat that is on my bed and is in my house... whereas other animals like the rabbit and chickens...they were raised thousands of years to be food for us." So there is nothing weird about keeping them close and loving them, feeding with the best possible feed, and then "gently killing them with love." Her main focus was on the fact that livestock is mainly raised for the purpose of their practicality, not pleasure. The

Jeong Ha (Stephanie) Choi 12

only difference is that she is able to appreciate the food and feel thankful for what people eat. That is why, she said she does a ceremony; "not for the animals but it makes us feel good."(Carpenter) However, although some people try to overcome the awkwardness of "killing one's own pet," this is still an issue that cannot be fully explained and understood easily. Just like the definition of pet that was talked about earlier, there is no direct and clear conclusion. Maybe this is an unsolvable issue, a phenomenon that cannot be concluded as one or the other. Or in other words, a critical dilemma that should not be solved in any way, for it leads people to think about their own food and moreover feel gratitude over their daily meals. It may be the paradox that keeps the minds of people grounded.

Conclusion There is no need to debate over whether chickens are pets or food: they are edible pets. Far from what people think of what a pet is, the word was first used on livestock, and even today, the definition in dictionaries and regulations do not fully cover the broad boundary of pets. The definition practically depends on the individual. We can say that this complicated background comes from the history of pets. Before pleasure, animals were domesticated for their practicality or just natural selection. As for America, even after Europeans moved in, there was no actual division between pets and non-pets. The concept of livestock pet was common, which is similar to the current concept of edible pets. So there is no need in trying to classify chickens as pet or food. However, after the dominance of the poultry industries, people did not have any reason to kill for their own meat. This gradually increased the distance between humans and chickens, as well as exile the dilemma of killing one's own pet livestock. This is where the contemporary idea of pets evolved from. However, as the trend of backyard chickens has come back, so has the dilemma. Now people are stuck

Jeong Ha (Stephanie) Choi 13

to the idea of classifying pets and non-pets, also trying to solve the dilemma. There is no need in trying to find an answer, though. This dilemma was meant to be unsolved, making people think about and appreciate what they eat and consume. Same for the classification of the chicken: it can function as both.

Jeong Ha (Stephanie) Choi 14

Work Cited
1. Grier KC. Pets in America: A History. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press; 2006. 2. "Pet." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 10 Nov.2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet> 3. "Tame - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary" Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online Web Merriam-Webster Inc. 10 Nov 2011 <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tame> 7. "Common Household Pet Law & Legal Definition" Legal Definitions Legal Terms Dictionary Web 10 Nov 2011 <http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/common-household-pet/> 8. "Pet, N.2 and Adj." Home : Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. Web. 10 Nov. 2011. <http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/141778?rskey=BlUKEP> 9. "Pet - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary." Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. Merriam-Webster Inc. Web. 10 Nov. 2011. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pet>. 10. McKnight, Pat. "Urban-chicken History - Urban Farm Online." UrbanFarmOnline.com Sustainable City Living at Your Fingertips. Bowtie Inc. Web. 16 Nov. 2011. <http://www.urbanfarmonline.com/urban-livestock/chickens/chicken-history.aspx>. 11. Squier, Susan Merrill. "Culture." Poultry Science, Chicken Culture: a Partial Alphabet. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 2011. 54. Print 12. "About the Chicken Industry." Welcome to the National Chicken Council. National Chicken Council. Web. 16 Nov. 2011. <http://www.nationalchickencouncil.com/aboutIndustry/detail.cfm?id=16> 13. "FORA.tv - Farm City: Novella Carpenter with Michael Pollan." FORA.tv - Videos from

Jeong Ha (Stephanie) Choi 15

the World's Best Conferences and Events. Fora TV. Web. 17 Nov. 2011. <http://fora.tv/2009/06/18/Farm_City_Novella_Carpenter_with_Michael_Pollan>. 14. Bartash-Dawley, Linda M. "Dogs as Pets - The History of Domestic Dogs Dates Back Thousands of Years, When Man Began..." Read Books Online Free - Romance Novels Online. Public Bookshelf Corporation. Web. 18 Nov. 2011. <http://www.publicbookshelf.com/nonfiction/pet-names/dogs-pets> 15. "Therapy Dog." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 04 Dec. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapy_dog> 16. "Origin of the Domestic Dog." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 06 Dec. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog#cite_note14> 17. Driscoll, C. A., D. W. Macdonald, and S. J. O'Brien. "Colloquium Papers: From Wild Animals to Domestic Pets, an Evolutionary View of Domestication." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106.Supplement_1 (2009): 9971-978. Print.