Costco $4.99 chicken has preservatives

[Terrel L. Shields]

Sorry, greedy humans involved. I don't trust the organic deal the same way I don't trust our government.

Wise move. When they tested some organic labeled foods against conventional they found no difference. You also run into issues with cross-contamination. Someone starting organic farm may be contaminated from farms upwind who are not organic. Same with GMO crops. People get contaminated with patented GMO products then get sued by the maker if they attempt to use the seeds in their own farm.

 

[Zoe]

Even though it's cheap, my wife had told me to stop buying it long time ago because it doesn't taste right, not like the high quality chicken she's used to.

I didn't know you ate chicken. I thought it was below your level if you know what I mean. Kroger did have fresh boneless skinless chicken breasts last week for $2.49/lb and this week $2.99/lb.

I am on a chicken budget. They had special on 80% lean ground beef this week for $4.99/lb. I made a big batch of homemade chili. I am not huge chili fan but wife loves it. We eat chicken a bunch.
I don't buy Sam's rotisserie chicken. She does sometimes. I cook my own chicken. You can do so many things with chicken on recipes.

You can do many things with Chili too. It is good on many things like baked potato or whatever. Sprinkle a little cheese and sour cream on it. Eat it with nachos, etc.


From a meat standpoint, chicken is about the cheapest route you can go.

You can't buy a whole fresh chicken and cook it for $4.99. You might could but it would be a really small bird.

I buy chicken liver sometimes. Not often. I like calf liver occasionally that Walmart sells. It is good with onions and gravy and mashed potatoes. Calf liver is supposed to be better for you than full grown cow liver.

I like boneless chicken thighs. It goes good in oriental dishes. I like wings occasionally. Not a huge leg man. Wing is tenderest meat on a chicken.

I think many people buy the rotisserie chicken and pull it off the bone and make other dishes (recipes) with it.

You don't have to eat the skin on chicken. Just peel the skin off if you want and eat the meat.

 

[Zoe]

Don't give Fernando's puppy the chicken bones. You may have a big vet bill. Chicken bones can splinter and create problems in dogs. They make good chicken broth though. Cook the bones with other ingredients and make like a good broth for soup or whatever. You can give the puppy some broth.

Just strain the broth after cooking. Put a little on puppy dog food.

 

[Carnivore]

My girlfriend has some free range chickens around her home. She didn't put them their . no they just showed up one day. They laid a lot oof eggs. The eggs taste a lot different than store bought eggs.

 

[Zoe]

My girlfriend has some free range chickens around her home. She didn't put them their . no they just showed up one day. They laid a lot oof eggs. The eggs taste a lot different than store bought eggs.

Yeah, if they roam, they will just lay the eggs on the ground. Without a rooster, the eggs are fresh and not fertilized. Ask @Terrel L. Shields

Terrel is very unique appraiser. He is a geologist. He knows chickens. I would not doubt he has chickens on his family farm. He has appraised a few farms.

 

[Zoe]

My girlfriend has some free range chickens around her home. She didn't put them their . no they just showed up one day. They laid a lot oof eggs. The eggs taste a lot different than store bought eggs.

Hold on a minute now. Tell me about your girlfriend. She sounds like a country girl. Can you hang on to her?

She don't sound like a city slicker to me.

 

[Carnivore]

TMI we both grew up in the country different states, Thats all I will say

 

[J Grant]

Wise move. When they tested some organic labeled foods against conventional they found no difference. You also run into issues with cross-contamination. Someone starting organic farm may be contaminated from farms upwind who are not organic. Same with GMO crops. People get contaminated with patented GMO products then get sued by the maker if they attempt to use the seeds in their own farm.

Who are "they?" And what tests did they do?

To get the certified organic label, the farms and their methods undergo rigorous tests. It it is not just a label.

you wear a hazmat suit when you appraise your big ag chicmen farms. Dont call them farms, they are CAIFO (confined feeding operations ) . Your client tells you the hazmat suit is to prevent you from tracking in any outside germs that might kill their flock. Well, a human being does not need a hazmat suit to enter a normal chicken coop, do they?

You defend the bad practices of big Ag.

 

[J Grant]

There is no such thing as a "low cost" bird and the bird you raise organically is the same as one in a regular setting - exactly. No chemicals are added. And those "organic" birds are still vaccinated for coccidiosis

Organic chickens are generally vaccinated to protect against common poultry diseases that can cause significant health issues and economic losses. Vaccines used in organic farming are typically derived from natural or minimally processed sources and must be approved by organic certification bodies. These vaccines help reduce the need for antibiotics and other chemical treatments, which are limited or prohibited in organic management.​

A vaccine has nothing to do with it. The use or non-use of pesticides, certain fertilizers, the feed, genetic engineering, waste practices, and access to outdoors for poultry and livestock are what separate organic from non-organic farming.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

genetic engineering,

There is no genetic engineering for birds. That's the feeds. Again there is virtually no measurable difference in the chemicals found in non-organic and organic grains fed to birds.

Glyphosate-based formulations (GBFs), such as Roundup, are the most heavily used herbicides in the world. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that glyphosate and GBFs are probably carcinogenic to humans (group 2A), mainly for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). However, this finding has been controversial, and most pesticide regulatory agencies have not followed their lead.​

​

The study was unable to show any cancer link only that certain cells can react to Roundup. In other words, cancer shows up at random levels that are often insufficient to prove a link. So, the Europeans are erring on the side of caution but they had no proof of actual cancers caused by Roundup. This is common among studies and ignores being "fooled by randomness". When 2 teenagers (city kids) developed testicular cancer (rare as it is) a lawsuit blamed chicken litter containing the droppings of birds fed an Alabama produced additive that contains very small amounts of arsenic. It's not even detectable in fields where litter is spread. The "expert" hired was dismissed under the Daubert Rule since her research was challenged by the defense. The case fell apart. And not a single case of TC has occurred since to the best of my knowledge, at least in that town or even county.

That is the trouble with attributing toxic impacts from rare events and conditions. Flip a coin100 times and do it repeatedly and it is going to vary as to the results. This one might be 50/50 and the next might be 47/53, on and on.