4 ms·
> - Fewer hormones for growth This is a urban legend. Not sure if it was true at any point, but it is not the case. Chickens were selectively bred to grow fas
by outworlder 8y ago
> - Fewer hormones for growth
This is a urban legend. Not sure if it was true at any point, but it is not the case.
Chickens were selectively bred to grow fast enough as it is, to the point that some breeds have a percentage of offspring lost. Try to make them grow any faster and more will die.
> - Higher quality meat (Chicken gets more exercise and movement, as well as increased quality of feed)
At least for cows (and most game), you don't want them to exercise too much or the meat won't be as tender. Is it different for chickens?
- benj111 8y ago"At least for cows (and most game), you don't want them to exercise too much or the meat won't be as tender. Is it different for chickens?" There tends to be a flavour/tenderness tradeoff. So you'll tend to get more flavour from more used muscles. (eg chicken breast v thigh) That said, the average battery hen could do a hell of a lot more exercise and still not be tough.
- shittyadmin 8y agoYeah, shit like this is why I absolutely refuse to pay more. Ultimately, you're killing them, I couldn't care less what else you do to them or how nice you treat them before you kill them. The few times I've had to buy the more expensive stuff (I was trying to make a specific dish and only the higher priced organic one was available), I've noticed no significant difference in quality or flavor. Fortunately I don't know many people who fall for it, but apparently they exist.
- Pfhreak 8y agoIt's not clear whether your intent is to come off as a sociopath, but there's a stunning lack of empathy in your comment.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- magic_beans 8y agoThis is the saddest comment I've ever read on HN.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- shittyadmin 8y agoIt's just the reality of eating something - you're not doing them or their species any favor by eating them and selectively breeding them to make the ones that taste best or produce the most meat. These are both the case no matter how you approach it, all "ethics" are at best a stretch here, if you don't like it, don't eat meat, it's a much better solution than paying some company to call you a good person. I know I'm not winning any brownie points here, but I think it's important to be realistic in your moral assessments.
- stevenhuang 8y agoIt's disingenuous to say that if one cares about animals they must not eat them. > it's a much better solution than paying some company to call you a good person. If you can afford to and understand the terrible conditions of battery chicken, but wish to still eat meat, then one choice is morally better. It's unrealistic to think otherwise. Signaling intention with your purchase decisions is real. Not eating meat is of course the better solution, but is again an unrealistic expectation to have for many people. You seem unable to tolerate incremental improvement. Why is that?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- shalmanese 8y agoAmerican preference for tenderness is marketing induced for economic reasons. Younger animals have more tenderness/less flavor and the faster meat grows, the younger you slaughter at. Also, marbling is prized because corn fed beef exhibits greater marbling than grass fed beef. By elevating tenderness & marbling above all else, even flavor, American manufacturers can align what consumers prize with what's cheaper to produce. If you go to other beef obsessed countries in the world in South America, Europe and especially Asia, a certain degree of chew is considered desirable. Take Picanha from Brazil, Bistecca alla Fiorentina from Florence of Kalbi Short Ribs from Korea.
- WillPostForFood 8y agoMarbling is prized because the fat gives a buttery flavor that people like. Look at Kobe beef in Japan, it is the most expensive, prized beef because the extreme marbling shows the highest fat content.