Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

Are Free Range Chickens Worth It?


highchef

Recommended Posts

I think in the UK (and the EU for that fact) have very stringent  rules on free-range classifications.

I think that for it to qualify for a traditional free range it has to have have 24-hour access to the outdoors, to breathe fresh air, to have access to a large meadow, field or orchard, to peck and scratch about and to have a truly natural existence; to be protected from foxes and other predators by an electric security fence; to have shelter from the weather when needed; to have a place to roost and a plentiful supply of grain and fresh water.

In order to qualify for the "free range" Special Marketing Term in the UK, chickens must have continuous daytime access to open-air runs, comprising an area mainly covered by vegetation, of not less than one square meter per animal for at least half the lifetime of the animal.

In order to label chicken "free range" or "free roaming" in the United States, "producers must demonstrate to the [uSDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service] that the poultry has been allowed access to the outside."

I was interested to read that the term "chemical free" is not allowed at all.

--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . .  to have a truly natural existence; to be protected from foxes and other predators by an electric security fence; to have shelter from the weather when needed; to have a place to roost and a plentiful supply of grain and fresh water.

Well, having electric-fence protection from predators, shelter, and abundant food and water doesnt exactly sound like a 'truly natural existence,' or at least any more natural than, say, my cat's existence. I'm gonna look and see if the UK's Food Standard's Agency has guidelines. I'm just curious because common sense tells you that if there are no such standards, than there will be birds sold as free range whose living condition did not differ substantially from other commercial birds. According to this article from The Gaurdian, discussing how the FSA found organic and free-range birds more than twice as likely to be contaminated with Campylobacter*, there per regulation must be 'access' to the outdoors but there is no minimum size for the outdoor enclosure. But that was written in 2002, and things may be different know for all I know.

* Which is not a concern, so long as the chicken is cooked properly.

"If you hear a voice within you say 'you cannot paint,' then by all means paint, and that voice will be silenced" - Vincent Van Gogh
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in the UK (and the EU for that fact) have very stringent  rules on free-range classifications.

I think that for it to qualify for a traditional free range it has to have have 24-hour access to the outdoors, to breathe fresh air, to have access to a large meadow, field or orchard, to peck and scratch about and to have a truly natural existence; to be protected from foxes and other predators by an electric security fence; to have shelter from the weather when needed; to have a place to roost and a plentiful supply of grain and fresh water.

In order to qualify for the "free range" Special Marketing Term in the UK, chickens must have continuous daytime access to open-air runs, comprising an area mainly covered by vegetation, of not less than one square meter per animal for at least half the lifetime of the animal.

In order to label chicken "free range" or "free roaming" in the United States, "producers must demonstrate to the [uSDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service] that the poultry has been allowed access to the outside."

I was interested to read that the term "chemical free" is not allowed at all.

That appears to answer my question about enclosure space.

"If you hear a voice within you say 'you cannot paint,' then by all means paint, and that voice will be silenced" - Vincent Van Gogh
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was interested to read that the term "chemical free" is not allowed at all.

Well, no chicken could ever possibly be chemical-free, seeing as how its literally made of chemicals and all. :raz:

"If you hear a voice within you say 'you cannot paint,' then by all means paint, and that voice will be silenced" - Vincent Van Gogh
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also interested to see that poultry and pork in the US may not say "hormone free" or anything like that.

Hormones are not allowed in raising hogs or poultry. Therefore, the claim "no hormones added" cannot be used on the labels of pork or poultry unless it is followed by a statement that says "Federal regulations prohibit the use of hormones."

--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also interested to see that poultry and pork in the US may not say "hormone free" or anything like that.

As you point out, in the US hormones are by law not administered to poultry and pork. But, as Im sure you know, poultry and pork are certainly not hormone-free! Beef, sheep, pork, chicken, eggs and milk all contain one or more of the hormones progesterone, estradiol, and testosterone. All animals tissues naturally contains hormones, so strictly speaking it would be inaccurate to call any of these products hormone-free. Even plants have hormones.

Edited by Patrick S (log)

"If you hear a voice within you say 'you cannot paint,' then by all means paint, and that voice will be silenced" - Vincent Van Gogh
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit that I have not knowingly purchased, cooked, or eaten a free-range chicken. It is not that I don't like chicken, for I eat chicken several times a week, but as a friend of mine says, "the only thing wrong with chicken is that it isn't beef." To carry that further, nor is it lamb, pork, or fish, all of which I would choose over chicken. My reason for choosing to eat more chicken (typically at least 3 times a week) is driven by cost.

The chicken I prefer, as well as the one I find to be the cheapest and most readily available is Foster Farms. I'm pleased enough with the stock I make with it as well as the other dishes so, for the price it seems very reasonable. At Costco I get 3 whole chickens for $12 and and occasionally, with specials for half that. So for $4 bucks (or $2 if I'm lucky) I have a hard time justifying the purchase of a $10+ chicken. If I get into a $10 plus chicken I can now have beef, lamb, pork, or fish which makes the chicekn s.o.l. to begin with.

As to humane or chemicals. We are a society who indulges in alcohol, recreational drugs (for many), and chemicals in some form in many ways so I don't hold much store one way or the other about chemical free. As to humane, I guess I view it from the standpoint that, while not an ideal existance, they'd have no existance at all if they weren't being rasied to be eaten.

I will say that I intend on going out (spurred on by this thread) and buying a free range chicken and to roast it and see how it tastes. Not so much to compare it to other chickens but to compare it to other meat choices in the same category.

Just my l judgment or opinon, but while the people using the e-g forums are probably, for the most part, in a better position economically to ignore the cost factor, I think that for most peple that cost is a concern. After all, less money spent on food, more money for wine, drink and...... other vices let's say.

Charles a food and wine addict - "Just as magic can be black or white, so can addictions be good, bad or neither. As long as a habit enslaves it makes the grade, it need not be sinful as well." - Victor Mollo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

definatly go for a free-range chicken...

Being in the UK I always opt for a Label Anglais.  Quite possibleone of the best chickens i've ever tasted.    A bit on the costly side.....  (£10.00 per bird)  but worth every penny!

What is that? about 17$?? still cheaper than 40! It makes a case though, for introducing more produce and less meat into our diet. For me it's the cleanliness issue, I think to have a healthy bird you're gonna need more space. First, though, I'm getting worried about hormones. Organic, fenced in chickens! That's what I'm after, for under 10$/each. I think this is where I need to make friends with some country people, and cut a deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've found this website to be extremely informative, and helpful in locating organic, or grass raised, or free range (fill in the blank) meats in your area.

http://www.eatwild.com/

I hope this is helpful.

Steve

I found 2 farms within a couple of hours driving from here. I'll be going right by one of them Sat. morning. I've e-mailed them to see if I can pick up some chickens and eggs. Thank you for that site, I'd never have known those farms were there without it. I've not tried organic eggs, but do use organic butter and milk so it's a logical next step. I've heard they are noticeably better, so I should see at once if paying extra is going to be worth it, not like the chickens. btw, I made those 2 chickens I paid 3.29$ for do triple duty. We ate them roasted (critique above) Then I used the leftover meat for chicken spagetti, then roasted the bones and made stock. Think I got my moneys worth!!! Thanks again Steverino (my bil's name), that is a HUGE help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad you were able to find a local farm. That's how we get all of our meat. If eggs are available you really should try them. There is a huge difference between farm eggs and supermarket eggs. BTW I don't know if you use the innards, but we have to ask the farmer to include them with the rest of the chicken. Apparently some people are grossed out by them and so it was assumed that everyone was.

If only Jack Nicholson could have narrated my dinner, it would have been perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

The Rolls Royce would be the Bresse chicken from France. There are other "AOC" chickens in France that are very good too. In my opinion, the real taste test comes the day after when the chicken is coold. I am surprised that there aren't movements in the US to develop AOC type products like in France.

...

Daniel Boulud mentions getting Bresse chicken via a farm in Pennsylvania, owned by Sylvie and Steve Pryzant. They learned how to raise them by contacting Boulud's mentor, Georges Blanc. (Letters to a Young Chef, pg. 55)

Not exactly a movement, but it is something.

Pat

"I... like... FOOD!" -Red Valkyrie, Gauntlet Legends-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm no longer a virgin. This afternoon I went out and bought a free range chicken. It was from 'Coastal Range Organics.' At 2.79 per pound, and 3.54 lbs it came out to $9.88 To get something comparable to how I normally would cook a whole chicken, I cooked it in my Romertopf clay pot, with onions and celery inside, salt, pepper & fresh lemon thyme, along with a little melted butter over the top and drizzled with chardonay. Cooked along with it were pearl onions, red potatoes and carrots.

My s.o. only eats white meat from the chicken (argghhh, but I can't fight city hall) while I like both and actually prefer the dark. She did not notice much if any difference on her part. Her statement was to buy the cheaper chicken. It might have been a bit better for her, then again, cooked this way it usually turns out delectable to begin with.

I on the other hand, and I say this begrudginly, noticed a good deal of difference. Then again, I primarily ate the legs and thighs. I found the flavor noticeably deeper and more staisfying than the normal chicken I cook. Of particular note, is the fact that when I took the chicken out, I did not need to skim the fat off before making a gravy. That, to me, was the most noticeable and obvious difference. Another difference was that the bird crisped up more than is normal. While I occasionally crisp it up after taking out the vegetables and pan juices for the gravy, this chicken did not really need much crisping.

All in all, I still feel the normal/other chicken offers more bang for the buck. 2.5 times (actually a little more) in price doesn't quite justify it in my book. When it comes to spending this amount I'll also probably lean towards beef, lamb pork or fish based on price and getting what I want. I will conceed however, that if I have a hankering for chicken that on its own is kicked up to another level, I will then purchase the free range.

I guess after trying it out you could call me half a convert. I can apprectiate the difference and for special occasions yes, I can find justification. Day in and day out though, the other chicken is hard to beat for the combination of price and bang for the buck.

Charles a food and wine addict - "Just as magic can be black or white, so can addictions be good, bad or neither. As long as a habit enslaves it makes the grade, it need not be sinful as well." - Victor Mollo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it's the cleanliness issue, I think to have a healthy bird you're gonna need more space. First, though, I'm getting worried about hormones.

What's worrying you about hormones? Were you aware that in the US no poultry, organic or otherwise, are given growth hormones? Eggs do have high levels of some hormones --higher than beef raised with hormones-- but they are present naturally, not as a result of supplementation.

"If you hear a voice within you say 'you cannot paint,' then by all means paint, and that voice will be silenced" - Vincent Van Gogh
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it's the cleanliness issue, I think to have a healthy bird you're gonna need more space. First, though, I'm getting worried about hormones.

What's worrying you about hormones? Were you aware that in the US no poultry, organic or otherwise, are given growth hormones? Eggs do have high levels of some hormones --higher than beef raised with hormones-- but they are present naturally, not as a result of supplementation.

I was apparently under the wrong impression that chickens were given hormones to develop those oversized breast....or maybe I have the wrong species!

Why do the 'organic' chickens make a point of saying NO HORMONES, if they arn't added commercially? Is this a fallacy created by hysterics/militant mother earth news readers? (don't yell, I used to subscribe myself, but quit when I realized y2k was a non event!) just curious...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe no hormnes, but chock full of antibiotics, GM soybeans, animal derived protein (chicken feathers and waste) and who knows what else;

I believe its still legal to feed chicken derivatives to chickens. It was feeding of protein derived from the same species that was the cause of BSE in cows.

NUTRENA (reg.): Chick Starter (STK) w/Amprolium Medicated

For replacement pullets from day-old to 6 weeks of age.

As an aid in the prevention of coccidiosis.

Feed as directed.

Active Drug Ingredients Amprolium .... 0.0125%

Guaranteed Analysis

Crude Protein Min 20.0%

Lysine Min 1.0%

Methionine Min 0.32%

Crude Fat Min 2.5%

Crude Fiber Max. 5.0%

Ash Max 8.0%

Added Minerals Max 4.0%

Calcium Min. 0.75% Max 1.25%

Phosphorus Min 0.70%

Salt Min 0.15% Max 0.5%

Sodium Min 0.15% Max 0.30%

INGREDIENTS:

Ground Corn, Dehulled Soybean Meal, Rice Bran, Wheat Middlings, Dried Bakery Product, Hydrolyzed Poultry Feathers, Whole Pressed Safflower Meal, Calcium Carbonate, Dicalcium Phosphate, Monocalcium Phosaphate, Salt, L-Lysine, Vitamin A Supplement, Choline Chloride, Methionine Supplement, Ferrous Sulfate, Manganous Oxide, Zinc Oxide, Calcium Pantothenate, Niacin Supplement, Riboflavin Supplement, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Vitamin E Supplement, Copper Oxide, Menadione Sodium Bisulfite Complex, Vitamin D3 Supplement, Mineral Oil, Ehtylenediamine Dihydriodide, Folic Acid, Sodium Selenite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it's the cleanliness issue, I think to have a healthy bird you're gonna need more space. First, though, I'm getting worried about hormones.

What's worrying you about hormones? Were you aware that in the US no poultry, organic or otherwise, are given growth hormones? Eggs do have high levels of some hormones --higher than beef raised with hormones-- but they are present naturally, not as a result of supplementation.

I was apparently under the wrong impression that chickens were given hormones to develop those oversized breast....or maybe I have the wrong species!

Why do the 'organic' chickens make a point of saying NO HORMONES, if they arn't added commercially?

Federal regs prohibit the use of hormones in poultry for the past 35 years.

As to why someone would label their chickens with a 'NO HORMONES' label, I can only assume that the intention is to mislead you into believing that their product is safer. Maybe there's a more innocent explanation, but I'm not imaginative enough to think of what that explanation might be. This is exactly why USDA regs prohibit this label, unless it is accompnaied by the statement "Federal regulations prohibit the use of hormones." Unfortanately, it is not entirely obvious to consumers that the label is saying, in effect, "This chicken [turkey, goose, etc] has no more or less hormones than any other."

"If you hear a voice within you say 'you cannot paint,' then by all means paint, and that voice will be silenced" - Vincent Van Gogh
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe no hormnes, but chock full of antibiotics, GM soybeans, animal derived protein (chicken feathers and waste)  and who knows what else;

I believe its still legal to feed chicken derivatives to chickens. It was feeding of protein derived from the same species that  was the cause of BSE in cows.

NUTRENA (reg.): Chick Starter (STK) w/Amprolium Medicated

For replacement pullets from day-old to 6 weeks of age.

As an aid in the prevention of coccidiosis.

Feed as directed.

Active Drug Ingredients Amprolium .... 0.0125%

Guaranteed Analysis

Crude Protein Min 20.0%

Lysine Min 1.0%

Methionine Min 0.32%

Crude Fat Min 2.5%

Crude Fiber Max. 5.0%

Ash Max 8.0%

Added Minerals Max 4.0%

Calcium Min. 0.75% Max 1.25%

Phosphorus Min 0.70%

Salt Min 0.15% Max 0.5%

Sodium Min 0.15% Max 0.30%

INGREDIENTS:

Ground Corn, Dehulled Soybean Meal, Rice Bran, Wheat Middlings, Dried Bakery Product, Hydrolyzed Poultry Feathers, Whole Pressed Safflower Meal, Calcium Carbonate, Dicalcium Phosphate, Monocalcium Phosaphate, Salt, L-Lysine, Vitamin A Supplement, Choline Chloride, Methionine Supplement, Ferrous Sulfate, Manganous Oxide, Zinc Oxide, Calcium Pantothenate, Niacin Supplement, Riboflavin Supplement, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Vitamin E Supplement, Copper Oxide, Menadione Sodium Bisulfite Complex, Vitamin D3 Supplement, Mineral Oil, Ehtylenediamine Dihydriodide, Folic Acid, Sodium Selenite.

Well, that's enough for me to try and establish a regular supply of organic chickens, even if I have to take up all my freezer room to buy in bulk. Thanks for the ingredient info..I take it that organic poultry food would be the first 5 ingredients...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe no hormnes, but chock full of antibiotics,

'Chock-full' of antibiotics? Does a few nanograms per serving qualify as chock-full? Can you point me to some analytical data showing how much AB is in poultry. Is it enough to produce a clinical effect? I promise, I'm ready and willing to be swayed by evidence!

GM soybeans,

What's the problem with GM soybeans? I've studied the issue a bit, and can't see any reason to prefer traditional to GM soybeans. Some GM crops do concern me, but this isnt one of them. And at any rate, GM soybean is fed to poultry, its not actually an ingredients in the meat. The soybeans and its proteins are broken down when the chicken eats it.

animal derived protein  (chicken feathers and waste)  and who knows what else;

I believe its still legal to feed chicken derivatives to chickens. It was feeding of protein derived from the same species that  was the cause of BSE in cows.

What's wrong with feeding chicken animal-derived protein, from a human health standpoint? There's nothing I love better than animal-derived protein, though I prefer mine in the form of steak or breast meat rather than chicken feathers. I dont see how bovine spongiform encephalopathy, which is specific to cows, constitutes an argument against using poultry-derived feeds with poultry. But I'm more than willing to be educated on the subject!

Edited by Patrick S (log)

"If you hear a voice within you say 'you cannot paint,' then by all means paint, and that voice will be silenced" - Vincent Van Gogh
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"animal derived proteins" are somehow bad?

Anybody ever see what the REAL free range chickens eat? I mean those that are scratching around someone's farmyard, the only free range chicken there is, strictly speaking. What they eat is a smorgasbord of creepy crawlies, live and dead, all manner of garbage including animal products, the odd seed out of a cow pattie or horse bun, water from a fetid mud puddle on the drive way, etc. ad nauseam.I'll take a supermarket chicken anyday, thanks ever so much.

I absolutely believe that a REAL free range chicken has better flavour and, what's more important to my Chinese trained palate, better texture and mouth feel. But, it'll be a cold day in Hell before I'll let myself be gouged by the people who claim "free range" status when all they're doing is making the pens slightly larger and letting in more daylight to satisfy the PETAphiles. Most of them feed the same commercial feeds as the non-free range producers. (I am not talking "organic" chickens, which is another topic altogether).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is cannibalism, feeding possibly insufficiently sterilised meat from one species to itself,and brains can help incubate and spread disease, and notably prions. It could be that a chicken equivalent to BSE would develop and be spread this way, as it did in cattle, where it was previously only known in only in sheep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh. I know that this is a food site, but I am still depressed by how people will be willing to pay more for a fractional difference in mouthfeel or skin crispiness, but dismiss the increase in the welfare of the bird as something only a PETAphile can care about. When you're at the supermarket and picking out out a chicken to roast or a dozen eggs, what is most tangible to you, of course, is how tasty it will be, how yellow the yolk. But what is equally real is the reduction in distress in the life of a fellow creature if you choose to pick the free-range bird.

I despise the insane, destructive, self-righteous, hypocritical group of dangerous loonies that is PETA. But I also believe that modern factory farms are cruel in a way that is unconscionable to anyone unless they don't think that animals suffer pain. The problem is, because those the suffering takes place out of sight, we think we can ignore it. For most of history, the argument that theres' nothing wrong with eating a chicken because if it weren't bred to be eaten, it would not even have existed might have been sound. But now, the short and brutish life of a chicken in a factory farm is a fate worth than death. I say this without hyperbole.

I'm not throwing stones, here. I do not always make the most ethical choices myself, out of economic considerations. But when it comes to something like paying more to give the chicken I am eating enough space to turn around, walk a short distance and occasionally scratch a little, I don't think I can live with myself if I did otherwise. I don't want to sound like I'm attacking anyone who does not do so. That is not my intention at all. It is one of the distressing costs of living in a global consumeristic society. We see the price tag on our purchases in dollars and cents, but not in terms of human and animal suffering, or environmental cost. I think I would go crazy if I considered the consequences of every act from throwing away a newspaper to driving my car to the store. I'm sure I have many blind spots that are egregious.

I know I cannot live the perfect life. But what I refuse to do is look away instead. I believe in the basic goodness of people. If we can all see the cruelty that goes on in a factory farm, I believe most of us if not all of us, will opt for free range. The more of us we are, the more economy of scale will work in our favor, thus lowering the price of the ethical choice and encouraging yet more people to join us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...