If you have hens, and a rooster, no matter what you will have babies. You can keep them in a separate pen, and it won't happen. Or, you could fix the rooster, but then it won't be a rooster any more. It's logic.
Were ther chickens? If yes, than they did because chickens and roosters have babies so for a chicken to be born a rooster must be present.
A rooster does not have any teeth. Roosters and chickens eat food with their beaks. They do not need to chew the food.
Only if you want to hatch chicks. Then, no you don't have to.
Yes, Rhode Island Red chickens are capable of laying eggs without the presence of a rooster. The eggs will be unfertilized and thus will not develop into chicks.
No. It is a chicken, a hen, a cockeral/rooster or two chickens.
You do not need a rooster for a hen to lay eggs. A well feed, happy hen of appropriate age will lay about one egg a day. If a rooster is around the eggs will be fertilized and you get more chickens, if not you get yummy eggs to eat.
The possessive form for the noun rooster is rooster's.
If a rooster has not been in contact with the hen, there will be no chicks. The birds and the bees with chickens are much like humans, at least for fertilization. There has to be mating for there to be babies.
Old chickens are called hens or stewing hens. These are chickens that no longer produce eggs. Their muscles are tough and need to be stewed a long time to become a delicious treat. They make good chicken soup.
yes you do
not really