I always wondered what a chicken with its wings taped down would act like. Because whenever I picked up a chicken, it would always be blissfully unaware of everything.
I suppose it could be assumed, but I’d rather know for sure…
ARE wild chickens smarter than the domesticated version?
and for that matter… is there such thing as a TRUE wild chicken? or are they simply domesticated chickens that survived being flushed down the toilet to emerge from the sewers?
which also brings up another Q… when where Chickens domesticated? and if there are no TRUE wild chickens left… When and where did Chickens originate?
a lot of chicken Q’s here…
anyone feel up to answering them… or are y’all chicken… 
With regard to capacity to survive in the wild, probably yes. I’m not aware of any studies on the subject, but wild chickens (including feral ones) are almost certainly going to be more alert and wary, at least, than ones that have been raised in captivity.
The Red Jungle Fowl, the ancestor of domestic chickens, still exists in a wild state in south and southeast Asia. There are feral populations very similar to the wild type in many other areas.
The linked site indicates that they were domesticated in India as early as 3200 BC. Another site indicates that genetic work shows that they are actually descended from a subspecies found in Thailand.
Sorry to extend the hijack, but I have a nit to pick.
Your chance of winning the lottery is not at all lowered by picking your birthdate. Assuming a random lottery, one set of numbers is just as likely as another to come up, so you have the same chance of winning if you pick the same numbers each time or choose different ones from the entire range.
What is lowered is your expected winnings. Odds are that some other fool shares your birthday and has also picked it, so if you pick your birthday (or someone else’s), there is a much higher chance that you will end up splitting the prize with others.
So hence, SDAB should do an experiment where chickens pick the numbers (but not thier own birthdays) and compare them to the B-Days of the SDAB and see who statisticly does better. (and if they win any money, I expect a cut for being the one to propose the experiment ;))
(why do cats and dogs look you in the eye?)
Will chickens look you in the eyes? Perhaps to see if you plan to eat them?
And could the “look me in the eye” trait be a sign of superior intelligence, or simply a learned skill resulting from a specific process of domestication?
I always thought that looking you in the eye was a sign of dominance or aggression, a threat display.
It ain’t necessarily so. Afghans from abroad are generally much more intelligent than U.S. (and Canadian) ones because they don’t breed exclusively for conformation (phenotype) without consideration of physical soundness or mental competency, as is all too often done in English-speaking North America.
<rant>
Afghans aren’t the only breed so bizarrely altered. American Cocker Spaniels and Irish Setters are also bred for long, impractical coats that will be impressive in the show ring. Each of these breeds started out as intelligent and useful hunting dogs, which, after coming to the U.S., acquired “fanciers” (think fan crossed with something in the range from intelligent admiration to obsessive ambition) who hope to “advance” the breed (Guess which ones have a chance of success, and which ones damage it?). 
All three of these breeds have significant distortions from the natural proportions of the head[sup]1[/sup] (U.S. Afghans and Irish Setters both have very long and very narrow skulls; the Amer. Cocker has a squashed-in, too short brain pan). When you breed for the shape of the head, rather than its contents, there is inevitable risk of losing both intelligence and “temperament” (personality, sorta kinda). This problem exists to some degree in all breeds where the head has a different shape or different proportions than the ancestral wolf (yes, even among Danes, though it’s merely the shape that’s altered, not the proportions. You rarely see a stupid dog among the breeds where it’s only the shape and not the relative proportions and displacement (size of the brain cavity in the skull) between brain pan and muzzle that are altered.). If you want one of these three breeds, but you want a dog with some intelligence, then you import one from Europe, where the breeders are responsible to their stud books (national and international dog organizations, which also put on dog shows). Of course, you could also buy an English or Gordon Setter instead of Irish. They’ve never had the misfortune of popularity, so their gene pools here are in pretty good shape. Personally, I think the ES is a very attractive dog - though I doubt I’d ever want a dog with a (mostly) white coat. :dubious: If you want an intelligent Cocker Spaniel, you can simply buy an English Cocker (a separate breed under the AKC) here. They won’t have that perpetual puppy look, but they’ll have normal intelligence - as well as being considerably healthier. The EC breeders here are one of the breed organizations that is devoted to keeping them healthy, and not physically distorted.
To a lesser extent, those breeds which have had the misfortune to become extremely popular and have suffered for it, include:
Poodles, Collies (“Lassie”-type collies (which also have the squashed heads and luxuriant coats), not beardies, Aussies, etc.), German Shepherds, Doberman Pinschers, Great Danes (which had made it well into the “top 20” breeds when the economic downturn during Pres. Carter’s term made it too expensive for most people to keep a giant breed dog knocked them back out, thankfully!), Rottweilers, Saint Bernards (ditto the Dane thing), Siberian Huskies, Bull Terriers, Scotties, Staffordshire Bull Terriers (not “pit bulls”, though often confused with - and bred with - them, alas), Chihuahuas, Pekingese, Yorkies, Chows, Border Collies and Shelties. Some of the other spaniel breeds have acquired luxuriant coats (which may be the triumph of shampoos and coat conditioners), but they seem to be otherwise unaltered, and most of the sporting breed clubs - like breed clubs in other groups - do their best to persuade all whom they can reach of the importance of physical soundness.
All of the above breeds have suffered for their popularity in the U.S… The problem, you see, is that breeds which become too popular begin to have more “backyard breeders” (more common in the U.S. than Canada), because too many people decide that they can make lots of money breeding them. They neither know nor wish to learn what’s important about breeding dogs; they don’t care about physical soundness (hip dysplasia is probably the most important problem that they exacerbate; while this problem is more obvious in large dogs than small, it doesn’t mean that smaller breeds are immune). Most people seem to think that, so long as they don’t inbreed (often with absurd definitions for it), it doesn’t matter which dogs they breed together. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Dogs of the same breed which appear to be unrelated often carry or express “bad” genes in common. That’s why ethical breeders do testing for whatever genetic problems are known to exist in the breed(s) they’ve got. The German Kennel Club (Verband fur das Deutsche Hundewesen), which belongs to the F.C.I. (Federation Cynologique International, which governs dog shows throughout most of the world, some of which require a " Fit for Breeding Test"), and it has the most stringent controls in the world over the breeding of dogs, which benefit both the dogs and those who acquire them.
Yes, breed clubs in many countries - especially Germany - “interfere with the rights of the owners,” but so do leash laws and SPCAs. Do you object to those? And testing of breeding animals is distinctly in the interest of anyone who buys a purebred dog. Knowing that the parents were both tested and found healthy relieves a lot of anxiety!
</rant>
[sup]1[/sup]Please note that other breeds with significantly distorted skulls and/or bodies (e.g., bulldogs, Pekingese, greyhounds (and other similar gazehounds), Dachshunds, and most of the smaller terriers (whose main distortions are in the jaw, so most have some problems with tooth placement and missing teeth, therefore their “bite” - and they don’t make braces for dogs), etc., were altered anywhere from ~150 to several thousand years ago. Breeders of yore were intensely practical; no animal they judged unsound was allowed to survive, and they culled repeatedly - at birth, at weaning, and at sexual maturity, as well as any dog which failed to perform the duties for which they were intended. Modern North American breeders - yes, even the most thoroughly professional ones - almost never cull (destroy). And that’s a problem for the future of a breed (review the opinion to which I was responding), even though it may seem inhumane toward the individual dog.
Two chickenthreads in one week-end!
In the other thread, I tell the story Of ChickChick, the Amazing and Intelligent White Rock Rooster or (mean chickens suck)
Has anyone put this much thought into breeding chickens?
priceless
That was a cool story about the Chicken Camp… but even mice can be trained to do some amazing stuff.
Hey, I used to work there.
That’s all