Fresh vs. Frozen Organic Chicken

[phan1]

Hi, I want to share a chicken experiment I did. After being enlightened by Jamie Oliver's recent show about chickens, I wanted to see if there really was a difference between the quality of chickens. I compared 2 whole chickens: 1) cheaper, frozen, organic Sanderson Farms chicken at HEB and 2) nearly twice as expensive, fresh, organic Central Market chicken (not vegetarian fed). I chose these two as they're the the most likely chickens I would get at each respective store. I brined them in salt solution, and cooked them identically Sous-vide style. The following results reflect ONLY CHICKEN BREASTS!

OK, the first difference before the cooking was the difference in color and texture. The Central Market chicken was pinker and more firm to the touch. The Sanderson farms was more white and even had a yellow tint to it.

Now the difference between the two after cooking: my French roommate and I actually preferred the cheaper chicken! Even after cooking, the Central Market one retains a better color. In terms of taste, the Central Market was only slightly tastier, but pretty negligible all around. But what made the Sanderson's chicken better was the texture. The meat was more tender and you could feel the fibers come apart in your mouth, something that's especially important for typically dry chicken breast. The Central Market one was more firm and the fibers didn't fall apart in your mouth; they could only be broken up by teeth contact.

I think the differences in texture is explained by freezing the chicken. If you have ice crystals in your chicken, it's like a million needles poking at the chicken, so you get more tender chicken breast. That makes sense doesn't it? But then again, frozen scallops and many other things are less tender than fresh ones... I'm really interested in knowing how freezing affects the quality of our food, so if someone could explain why some frozen things taste good while others taste crappy, I'd appreciate that.

I've yet to taste the differences between the dark meat and the stock. I'm particularly interested in seeing if the stock is better, but that's a lot of work, and quite frankly, I don't think I care anymore given the disappointing initial result.

UPDATE: OK, I just compared the dark meat. This time, instead of sous vide (too lazy), I just simply pan-fried the two. It's a similar story: cheaper chicken is more tender, but more expensive chicken has more flavor. In this case, I actually prefer the Central Market chicken, as the difference in flavor is more prevalent than in the chicken breast. If we were to put a taste test on, I think the votes would be pretty split on which is better. I think the cheaper chicken would end up winning though, as it seems people are more used to more tender but less flavorful meat.

Edited January 16, 2008 by phan1 (log)

[paulraphael]

This sounds just like a comparison between conventional and free range chicken. The free range is tastier but firmer and less tender. The first time I had one I didn't like it! And I've heard that's pretty common. Jacques Pepin wrote about finding a free range bird back when they were hard to get in this country; he cooked it at home and had a French friend over for dinner. He and his friend raved about the bird and how it reminded him of chicken growing up. But his daughters didn't like it. It was unfamiliar. They wanted the soft texture of purdue, or whatever they grew up with.

[weinoo]

Also, isn't even "fresh" chicken cooled to a temperature below freezing - so unless you're getting a fresh killed chicken, that you know has not been packed in ice, I don't know that the experiment holds up.

[robos]

There are different freezing techniques. For fish they use a "superfreezing" technique so the water molecules don`t have time to crystallize, the cell structure is also not destroyed.

The chicken i get here in Austria, is vacuum-packed and frozen. But i prefer fresh chicken, i don`t like the texture .

[phan1]

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to get more info about whether or not the chickens were free-range. Simply based on price, I'd like to believe the Central Market brand was free-range, and the Sanderson's was not. The experiment also reminds me of KFC Chicken and how it is so incredibly tender to the point of mushiness yet also equally flavorless.

Edited January 16, 2008 by phan1 (log)

[saucée]

After eating average chickens for years (Bell and Evans) I started getting free range chickens. When I first cooked it, we thought I had overdone it because it seemed very tough, even though I cooked it to the right temperature. These chickens are seasonal though and we can't get them in the winter so we've since switched back to the Bell and Evans chickens. The first time I cooked one of those, after eating the free range chickens for a while, their texture was very mushy and off-putting. We didn't like it. I guess its all about what you're used to at the moment, but I do think the free range chickens are more flavorful and I actually much prefer the texture now. I think it makes a better stock too but I haven't done any side by side tests on any of this. That would be an interesting experiment.

josh

[junehl]

My parents used to get some chicken from farms and process it themselves. I have always found fresh farm chicken or even the frozen ones i get from the Asian markets have skins to be of superior taste.

The stocks are fuller flaver, and the skin has a nice crunchy/chewy texture when boiled/steamed as opposed to the one you get from the supermarkets. The supermarket chickens have skins that just taste soft,mushy gooey, unless it's been roasted.

I am not sure if the taste/texture difference is more due to how their processed or the species of chicken that I have tasted.

[Renn]

Might be worth it to ask more questions about the chickens you buy. Most if not all supermarket chickens are likely to be Cornish Cross hens which are bred for large breasts and tenderness...and typically are 7 weeks old at the most (possibly the largest contributing factor towards tenderness).

A more artisanal meat bird producer is likely to be raising heritage birds...but again the most significant factor with regards to tenderness (and flavor) may be the age of the birds at slaughter. So far, I've found pastured 7-week Cornish Cross birds to have a good boost of flavor compared to conventional birds while still remaining tender.

However, when I've managed to get some 3-month old Red Broilers, they are almost a completely different animal. The meat stays reasonably tender (not quite as tender as a cornish), but the bones are much much harder compared to the other birds, and the fat is a rich yellow vs the pale white of the more common birds. Still definitely not a stewing hen or rooster...but certainly very different from what is more available.

It would be interesting to start compiling some data on the chickens we eat so as to get a better idea of what factors really make a difference and how they make a difference.

Edited January 16, 2008 by Renn (log)