Editorial Policy

Chicken Keeper Guide exists to give backyard chicken keepers the practical, accurate information they need to raise healthy flocks, design functional coops, and navigate local regulations with confidence. Whether you’re a first-time keeper with three hens in a suburban backyard or an experienced farmer managing dozens of birds across multiple breeds, our mission is to publish research-backed advice rooted in real-world experience. This work matters because backyard chicken keeping has surged in the last decade, and much of the information available online ranges from helpful to dangerously wrong. We take our responsibility seriously: bad coop ventilation advice can kill a flock in winter. Incorrect biosecurity practices can spread disease through an entire neighborhood. Misleading feed information can stunt growth or tank egg production. That’s why we’ve built editorial standards designed to catch mistakes before they reach readers, and why every piece of advice we publish has been traced back to a source we trust.

Our Editorial Team

Laura Simmons serves as Poultry & Backyard Farming Editor for Chicken Keeper Guide. Laura has been raising chickens for just over a decade—first as a backyard hobby in suburban Connecticut with a small flock of Rhode Island Reds and Wyandottes, later expanding into a rural operation in upstate New York where she’s raised Orpingtons, Sussex, Marans, Polish crested varieties, and bantam breeds across multiple coop configurations, from converted garden sheds to purpose-built mobile setups. She’s worked through the full cycle of backyard chicken keeping: design mistakes and coop renovations, predator losses and biosecurity lessons learned the hard way, seasonal egg production swings, brooding chicks, and managing the transition from backyard hobby to something larger.

Beyond hands-on experience, Laura has spent the last five years reading primary literature in poultry science, veterinary medicine, and animal husbandry. She’s attended workshops run by university cooperative extension programs, studied the American Poultry Association’s breed standards in detail, and maintains an active relationship with poultry veterinarians and extension agents in her region. She doesn’t claim to be a veterinarian or animal scientist—she’s explicit about those boundaries—but she’s done enough reading in those fields to understand the evidence and know when to defer to specialists. Her perspective is fundamentally that of a practitioner who’s also spent considerable time understanding the science behind what works and why.

Laura oversees every article published under the Chicken Keeper Guide byline or under the bylines of contributing writers. She checks sources, questions unsupported claims, and pushes back on anything that doesn’t hold up. She’s also willing to say “we don’t know yet” or “the evidence on this is mixed,” rather than manufacturing false certainty. That intellectual honesty is non-negotiable for this site.

How We Research

Every article on Chicken Keeper Guide begins with a research question and a source map. Rather than start with an opinion or an assumption, we start with the primary sources: government agencies, peer-reviewed research, official breed standards, and established clinical guidelines. For a topic like coop ventilation, that means pulling recommendations from USDA guidelines, reading the ventilation research from university poultry science programs, and checking what cooperative extension advisors in different climates actually recommend. For a breed guide, it means consulting the American Poultry Association’s published standards and cross-checking against Cornell and Penn State cooperative extension breed descriptions.

From there, we read secondhand sources selectively. We use reputable industry publications, books by established poultry scientists, and articles from university extension sites. We do not use other poultry blogs, YouTube videos, or general farming sites as primary sources, though we may reference them to show what information is circulating among keepers. We read them to understand common questions and concerns, not to build our factual foundation.

When sources conflict—and they sometimes do—we trace back to understand why. A disagreement between one university extension program and another is usually worth investigating: Is one outdated? Are they recommending different approaches for different climates? Is one source more specialized or recent than the other? We err toward primary sources over secondhand interpretation, toward recent research over outdated guidance, and toward sources with explicit methodology over those offering opinions without evidence.

Numbers and statistics never stay secondhand. If we cite a statistic about flock loss rates, disease prevalence, or egg production benchmarks, we find the original source. We read the study. We check the sample size, the methodology, the date, and the population it describes. A statistic about layer productivity in commercial operations might not apply to backyard flocks. A study from 1995 might be superceded by 2020 research. We document all of this.

For health and disease topics, we particularly emphasize university poultry science departments and veterinary sources. The Merck Veterinary Manual’s poultry section is a standard reference. So are articles from the Journal of Applied Poultry Research and resources from the USDA’s National Poultry Improvement Plan. When it comes to diagnosing and managing disease, we lean heavily on expert sources and are careful about the scope of our advice—we provide information keepers need to recognize problems and know when to call a veterinarian, but we don’t attempt to replace veterinary judgment.

Source Standards

Our standard sources include:

  • Government and regulatory bodies: USDA guidelines, state agricultural departments, local health departments for ordinance information, CDC poultry guidance during disease outbreaks
  • University cooperative extension programs: Cornell Cooperative Extension, Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences, University of Georgia Poultry Science, and land-grant university extension services in general, which employ subject-matter experts and publish peer-reviewed or expertly-reviewed materials
  • Professional and breed associations: American Poultry Association, American Bantam Association, specialized breed clubs, and veterinary organizations
  • Peer-reviewed academic literature: Poultry Science, Journal of Applied Poultry Research, Avian Diseases, and comparable journals, accessed through university libraries or journal databases
  • Clinical references: Merck Veterinary Manual, disease diagnostic guides from poultry veterinarians, biosecurity frameworks from official sources
  • Books and monographs by established poultry scientists: Authored by individuals with degrees and published work in the field, not self-published guides by keepers without subject-matter credentials
  • Firsthand accounts from experienced practitioners, used to illustrate real-world application of research findings, but never as substitutes for evidence-based guidance

We reject or treat with significant skepticism:

  • Manufacturer and vendor press releases about their own products, which are marketing materials and not objective information (we may cite them to explain what a product claims, but we won’t treat a manufacturer’s claims as evidence)
  • Unverified anecdotes and internet rumors, including Facebook group posts, Reddit threads, and blog comments—these reflect individual experience, not generalizable evidence
  • Sponsored research that hasn’t been transparently disclosed as such, or studies funded by companies with financial interest in a particular outcome without independent corroboration
  • Outdated guidance, particularly on biosecurity and disease management, where practices evolve as evidence accumulates
  • Non-expert blogs and general farming sites as primary sources, even if they’re otherwise well-written
  • Product reviews that are clearly paid or affiliate-driven without editorial independence, or that lack specificity and methodology

Accuracy and Fact-Checking

Before publication, every article goes through a fact-checking process. This means re-reading sources, verifying citations, and checking that our language accurately represents what the sources actually say. If a source says “improper ventilation can lead to respiratory disease,” we don’t rewrite it as “improper ventilation causes respiratory disease”—the first is more accurate to the evidence. If a recommendation comes from one source but not others, we flag it as such rather than presenting it as universal consensus.

When sources genuinely conflict—say, one extension service recommends a 4:1 ratio of roosts to hens while another suggests 6-8 inches per bird without specifying how that translates to roosting space—we work through the disagreement transparently. We explain what each source says, why they might differ (different coop configurations, different bird breeds, different priorities), and what readers should consider when applying the guidance to their situation. We don’t pretend consensus exists when it doesn’t.

Numbers are treated with particular care. We check the original source for any statistic we cite. We report the context: Is this statistic based on a study of 50 birds or 5,000? Is it from a commercial operation or backyard settings? Is it current or is this 1998 data? We acknowledge limitations. If a study is small or specialized, we say so. If research on a topic is limited, we say that too. We’re more likely to say “research suggests” than “the science shows” when evidence is preliminary or mixed.

Keeping Content Current

Chicken keeping isn’t a static field. Biosecurity guidance evolves, sometimes dramatically, in response to disease outbreaks. Coop design recommendations shift as materials and knowledge improve. New research on nutrition or flock health regularly emerges. We maintain an annual review cycle where Laura systematically re-reads articles, checks for outdated information, and incorporates new research or guidance that’s emerged since the article was originally published. Articles also carry a “last reviewed” date so readers know how current the information is.

Additionally, we monitor announcements from USDA, state agricultural departments, and university extension programs for urgent updates. If new biosecurity guidance is issued in response to a disease outbreak, or if the American Poultry Association updates breed standards, we revise affected articles immediately rather than waiting for an annual review. For time-sensitive articles—like seasonal topics—we revise annually before that season to ensure current information is in place.

Staying current matters in this space because chicken keeping is a living, evolving practice. What worked ten years ago might be superseded by better understanding or equipment now. Readers rely on us to surface those improvements, and they trust that an article published three years ago has been checked and updated if necessary. That trust is earned through systematic attention to the current state of the field.

Corrections Policy

We make mistakes despite careful work, and we have a clear process for addressing them. Readers can report errors through our contact form at chickenkeeperguide.com/contact/ or by emailing Laura directly. We investigate reported errors within 48 hours and make corrections within 7 days if the error is confirmed.

Significant factual errors—those that substantially affect the advice or accuracy of an article—are corrected in the article itself with a clearly-marked correction note at the top explaining what was changed, when, and why. Minor corrections (typos, small clarifications) are made silently. We record all corrections, significant and minor, in an internal log for our own reference and for transparency if anyone asks about our correction history.

Editorial Independence

Chicken Keeper Guide earns revenue through two sources: Amazon affiliate links (primarily in equipment and feed product recommendations) and display advertising. Neither of these revenue streams determines what we write or what we recommend.

When we recommend a specific feeder, coop design, or piece of equipment, the recommendation is based on research, user feedback from experienced keepers, and whether it aligns with our editorial standards. If it’s an Amazon affiliate link, that’s disclosed clearly. But our editorial decision to recommend something is independent of whether we earn a commission from it. If we think the best coop design for a small backyard flock is a mobile setup, we’ll recommend that whether or not we have affiliate links for mobile coops. If the evidence says that a particular expensive piece of equipment isn’t necessary, we’ll say so even if we could earn money by recommending it.

We carry no sponsored content, no paid article placements, and no manufacturer-funded reviews. No chicken feed company, coop builder, or equipment vendor pays for coverage. No brand gets preferential treatment based on advertising spend. When we discuss a product or brand in an article, it’s because it’s relevant to the topic and meets our editorial standards—not because they advertised with us or might advertise in the future.

What We Don’t Do

  • We don’t diagnose medical conditions or prescribe specific treatments for individual birds. We provide information about recognizing symptoms and knowing when to call a veterinarian. We explain what a vet might recommend or what treatment options exist. We do not tell you “your chicken has coccidiosis, use [specific drug].” That’s a veterinary decision.

  • We don’t provide personalized advice for your specific situation. We publish general guidance: how to design a coop for your climate, what to feed layers, how to handle predator problems. We don’t know your local climate specifics, your budget, your predator situation, or your regulations well enough to tell you exactly what to build or buy. We provide the framework; you apply it with local knowledge.

  • We don’t review or recommend specific local breeders, hatcheries, or feed mills by name, though we explain what to look for and how to evaluate sources in your area. Local recommendations are better left to local communities who know the actual operations and their track records.

  • We don’t publish product reviews that lack independence. If a company sends us free equipment to review, we either return it, pay for it, or transparently disclose the relationship and acknowledge potential bias. We don’t pretend a freebie review is objective.

  • **We don’t make claims about heritage,