On flavour, I've had my share of OG scrawny chickens raised in rural backyards in developing countries that I assume aren't Scientifically Manufactured Frankenbirds and TBH I prefer the latter in terms of dark meat. I don't care much for white meat eitherway.
The chicken you are eating has increased 364% in size over the last 50 years
41–50 of 91 posts
Re: The chicken you are eating has increased 364% in size over the last 50 years
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is this a bad thing? Thread argues that modern chicken is less tasty: > Modern chicken is notorious for being "dry, "bland," and "flavorless." Contrast this to the 1960s, where chicken was considered a delicacy. "Chicken should be so good in itself that it is an absolute delight to eat as a perfectly plain, butter roast, saute or grill." Thread also argues that fat profile is out-of-whack due to modern chickens bei…
"flavorless" is exactly what the industry wants. This allows easy control of the taste during processing. This is why the chicken "wings" you buy in your well-knownfast food restaurant taste the same everywhere and every single day of the year.
That seems backwards and hard to believe. They could use the same chickens and would need less sauce frying and spice
Re: The chicken you are eating has increased 364% in size over the last 50 years
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is this a bad thing? Thread argues that modern chicken is less tasty: > Modern chicken is notorious for being "dry, "bland," and "flavorless." Contrast this to the 1960s, where chicken was considered a delicacy. "Chicken should be so good in itself that it is an absolute delight to eat as a perfectly plain, butter roast, saute or grill." Thread also argues that fat profile is out-of-whack due to modern chickens bei…
It's not that I find these arguments false or anything like that but I always notice a seeming lack of awareness that the extra food produced by these chickens or gmo corn or whatever actually saves lives. Complaining about taste and fat content is a luxury not everyone can afford and I think a lot of the "natural" foods type of people take that for granted.
By this logic, complaining about how inhumane and painful it is for these unnaturally bred chickens is also a class luxury.
Re: The chicken you are eating has increased 364% in size over the last 50 years
#44> “ Chicken should be so good in itself that it is an absolute delight to eat as a perfectly plain, butter roast, saute or grill.”
I said something like this to my ”modern” friends, they laughed at me for having low standard. It was something my dad used to say:
“It takes effort to make chicken tastes bad.”
We raised chicken via the natural long process. I miss that taste so much and it’s hard to explain to people.
Now, I will just point them to this tweet.
Re: The chicken you are eating has increased 364% in size over the last 50 years
#45I’m assuming this keeps chicken prices lower. Is this a bad thing? I guess it could be if it is because of gnarly things they’re doing, but if it is primarily breeding larger chickens, well, that sounds ok.
It is a bad thing. We should go back to where only the middle class can afford quality protein like chicken. Let the poor eat beans I always say!
one could also eat less and receive the same nutritional benefits. today's giant chickens do not seem to be nutritionally dense, flavorful and the unnatural steroids and estrogen levels are certainly worse consumed, than not
Re: The chicken you are eating has increased 364% in size over the last 50 years
#46What was the 364% grows caused by? Is this due to selection (like a modern corn we have) or antibiotics being fed to the livestock? (of course, the answer is both but maybe I am missing something). And a question to a no-tasty-chicken-in-markets adepts, have you (or your farmer/supplier) ever tried to take a modern-genetics chicken and feed them with no antibiotics or other grow-stimulators - what is the taste?
Antibiotics doesn't lead to growth, it prevents infection and diseases.
Most of farmers buying big loads of antibiotics are not doctors/veterinars. Maybe they are just too hacker-minded if they use to convert meds to extra gains from meat. And from my experience chicken are not that vulnerable to diseases, like rabbits for example.
Re: The chicken you are eating has increased 364% in size over the last 50 years
#47I’m assuming this keeps chicken prices lower. Is this a bad thing? I guess it could be if it is because of gnarly things they’re doing, but if it is primarily breeding larger chickens, well, that sounds ok.
The implicit context of this thread (like with a lot of Internet nutrition discussion) is that rising obesity rates over the past half century or so indicate something has gone wrong with our diets. The author is suggesting that this could be one piece of the puzzle.
There is a lot wrong with diets in developed countries, but it's not chicken, or at least chicken is way down the list of offenders.
AIUI the biggest dietary culprit is the insidious infiltration of sugars into the foods that many people eat. Much of the prepared, convenience foods people rely on contain sugars that even dedicated label-readers may not be able to readily identify. A whole laundry list of cane sugar, sucrose, high-fructose syrup, rice syrup, honey, invert syrup, molasses, panela, muscovado, etc.
Unless they're sneaking sugars into chicken, sure doesn't seem that it would be the main problem.
Re: The chicken you are eating has increased 364% in size over the last 50 years
#48> “ Chicken should be so good in itself that it is an absolute delight to eat as a perfectly plain, butter roast, saute or grill.” I said something like this to my ”modern” friends, they laughed at me for having low standard. It was something my dad used to say: “It takes effort to make chicken tastes bad.” We raised chicken via the natural long process. I miss that taste so much and it’s hard to explain to people. N…
We have slow grown chicken (as one of many chicken options) here in Australia, not sure if it matches the taste from your experiences
Re: The chicken you are eating has increased 364% in size over the last 50 years
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a bad thing. We should go back to where only the middle class can afford quality protein like chicken. Let the poor eat beans I always say!
one could also eat less and receive the same nutritional benefits. today's giant chickens do not seem to be nutritionally dense, flavorful and the unnatural steroids and estrogen levels are certainly worse consumed, than not
Today's chickens have more muscle mass. They are bred for this trait.
Are you arguing this larger muscle isn't made of protein? What is it made out of then?
Are you arguing these chickens somehow survive without the nutrients that others chickens need to live? How is that possible?
Those are some pretty tall claims you need to back up.
Re: The chicken you are eating has increased 364% in size over the last 50 years
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is this a bad thing? Thread argues that modern chicken is less tasty: > Modern chicken is notorious for being "dry, "bland," and "flavorless." Contrast this to the 1960s, where chicken was considered a delicacy. "Chicken should be so good in itself that it is an absolute delight to eat as a perfectly plain, butter roast, saute or grill." Thread also argues that fat profile is out-of-whack due to modern chickens bei…
It's not that I find these arguments false or anything like that but I always notice a seeming lack of awareness that the extra food produced by these chickens or gmo corn or whatever actually saves lives. Complaining about taste and fat content is a luxury not everyone can afford and I think a lot of the "natural" foods type of people take that for granted.
Does sacrificing food quality for quantity really save lives, or does it just allow for population increase, with similar levels of suffering at the margins?
This is a controversial question. To pick a popular example, estimates of lives saved by the Green Revolution range from the billions to the hundred thousands, and you don't have to look hard to find arguments that this shift in agricultural technology increased the number of people living in poverty. The advent of agriculture precipated explosions in food production and population growth along side a major decrease in living standards that persisted for millennia. One well-documented side effect of this transition is a vastly increased susceptibility to epidemics.
When presented with a surplus of a resource, humans have an interesting tendency to simply use up more of it until a shortage reappears. Maybe this is why I have to use so many electron apps.