Why is chicken a staple on our tables? The reasons seagulls and swans aren't chosen: The dynamics of 'Domestication × Culture'

When it comes to birds that humans commonly consume, chicken is at the top of the list. In the United States, it's reported that each person consumes about 45 kg annually. Why, then, have other birds like seagulls, swans, thrushes, or pigeons not become mainstays in our diet? By comparing the explanations from the science media outlet IFLScience with historical research and social media reactions, the answer lies in a combination of factors: "ease of domestication," "breeding efficiency," "taste and smell," "suitability for cooking," and "cultural and legal frameworks."IFLScience

1) The decisive factor of "ease of domestication"

The ancestors of chickens trace back to the red (and gray) junglefowl. They lived close to humans, had relatively weak wariness, and were easy to domesticate in groups. Additionally, their low flight capability made them less likely to escape, supporting their breeding since ancient times. Genetically, chickens are derived from crossbreeding with red junglefowl, with some traits like yellow skin originating from other species. In other words, they have been "optimized as livestock" by human hands.IFLScience

2) Production efficiency: "Can produce a lot and multiply in small spaces"

Chickens have a fast reproductive cycle, can be raised in groups in small areas, and have relatively good feed conversion efficiency. After the shortage of red meat during World War II, intensive poultry farming expanded, establishing chickens as a "cheap and uniform protein source" in society. This was not just a "coincidence of food culture" but also an issue of supply systems and pricing.IFLScience

3) Reasons why "other birds" are not the main focus

Pigeon (Squab)

While pigeons have been consumed since ancient times, they require "crop milk" during the squab phase and are difficult to artificially inseminate, making them unsuitable for industrial mass production. As a result, they remain a niche luxury ingredient and have not become as widespread as chickens.IFLScience

Geese and Ducks

While they are established as poultry in Europe, they have not become mainstays on a global scale. Factors include the quality of their fat, feeding costs, and religious and regional taste preferences.IFLScience

Swan

In medieval to early modern Europe, especially in England, swans were served as "show meat" in court cuisine. However, they often received reviews of being "fishy-smelling" and "tough." Combined with royal and legal protection traditions, they have become distanced from being "food" in modern times.The Guardian

Seagull

Due to their omnivorous coastal diet, they are often described as "fishy, greasy, and tough," and they have little meat. Similar sentiments are shared in English-speaking Q&A and forums. Considering taste, yield, and hygiene risks, they lack industrial advantages.Reddit

4) Culture and legal systems fix preferences

When stories like "swan equals royal bird," religious dietary norms, and regional taboos overlap, even edible birds can be categorized as "not to be eaten." The customs and protection stories surrounding swan ownership in the UK have acted as cultural barriers, distancing swans from the dining table.Atlas Obscura

5) "Conclusions from everyday people" observed on social media

This article was spread by IFLScience's official accounts on X and Facebook, where comments like "Ultimately, 'easy to catch, easy to breed, and tasty' won out" were prominent. There were negative personal accounts of seagull taste, historical anecdotes about swans being "eaten in the past but culturally avoided now," and a chorus from the supply side stating "chickens are cheap and easy to handle."X (formerly Twitter)

On the other hand, there are sporadic testimonies from hunters and chefs who affirm the taste of swan, leading to divided opinions. Responses also noted that taste is subjective and can vary with cooking methods, individual differences, and habitat.Atlas Obscura

6) The auxiliary line of human psychology's "meat paradox"

The question "Why is chicken okay, but swans and seagulls are not?" reflects the boundaries of preference and morality. As related explanations from IFLScience suggest, we simultaneously harbor feelings of affection for animals and the act of eating them, reconciling this contradiction through culture and stories. Labels like the "nobility" of swans and the "unpopular" image of seagulls introduce biases into discussions of taste and efficiency.IFLScience

7) Conclusion: The rationality of chicken becoming the "mainstay"

• Easy to domesticate (approaches humans, doesn't escape, reproduces quickly)

• Can be industrially increased (feed-to-meat conversion efficiency, facility suitability)

• Taste and cooking suitability (less distinctive taste, versatile use of parts)

• Cultural and institutional tailwinds (post-war supply systems, pricing, legal and symbolic narratives)

This high overall score has elevated chickens to the status of "world-standard edible bird," pushing other birds to the periphery. While seagulls and swans are not "inedible," they do not make it to everyday plates because they are "difficult to establish as an industry" and "culturally rejected"—this is the modern answer.IFLScience

Source Highlights

• IFLScience article: Overview of the origins of chickens, domestication and spread, and the cooking suitability and taste evaluations of other birds (swans, pigeons, etc.).IFLScience

• British media and Q&A: Traditions of swans being "fishy," cultural background of royal and protective status.The Guardian+1

• Social media reactions: IFLScience official posts and comment sections, discussions based on personal impressions of taste and efficiency.X (formerly Twitter)

• Counterexamples: Testimonies from hunters and chefs affirming the taste of swan.Atlas Obscura

• Psychological auxiliary line: Meat paradox, aversion, and the boundaries of food.IFLScience+1