[HN Gopher] Today we're eating the winners of the 1948 Chicken o...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Today we're eating the winners of the 1948 Chicken of Tomorrow
       contest
        
       Author : vikrum
       Score  : 79 points
       Date   : 2021-06-16 20:35 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (modernfarmer.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (modernfarmer.com)
        
       | shrubble wrote:
       | A farmer friend of mine told me that the chickens must sent to
       | the slaughterhouses at a certain time, since beyond that, the
       | chickens have heart attacks... the heart can't support the load
       | placed on it.
        
         | chrisco255 wrote:
         | I somehow doubt that. My mom raises chickens for eggs and they
         | live a couple of years. She used to free range them but lost
         | too many to coyote attacks, so now she keeps them cooped.
        
           | shrubble wrote:
           | Sorry for not being specific: I am referring to those
           | chickens that are factory-farmed under confinement rather
           | than free range.
        
           | VoiceOfWisdom wrote:
           | The chickens kept in a factory farm are different from what
           | most people keep at home.
        
           | slacktide wrote:
           | The ENTIRE point of the story is that industrial meat farmers
           | raise a breed of chicken which has been engineered to only
           | live a short lifespan before consumption. Laying hens are a
           | completely different breed, so your mother's experience is
           | not relevant.
        
       | blakesterz wrote:
       | If this story is interesting to you, Gastropod did a really
       | interesting episode on this a while back: The Birds and The Bugs
       | 
       | https://gastropod.com/the-birds-and-the-bugs/
        
       | beebeepka wrote:
       | I gave up on chicken years before I went vegie. They we treat
       | these creatures is disgraceful and disgusting.
       | 
       | Now, I am not the type to advertise my diet unless it comes up at
       | lunch with people who don't know me or something like that. But I
       | am not ashamed to share that cultured meat is something I've been
       | looking forward to with great interest for all sorts of reasons.
       | 
       | Do what usually happens is there's at least one person to point
       | how unnatural cultured meat sounds and that I will never work
       | because it's disgusting.
       | 
       | Can't help but lol every time. I guess eating sick young
       | chickens, who have never seen the sun, is more natural an
       | healthy.
       | 
       | But I know I am not the crazy one. They are
        
       | HuShifang wrote:
       | Here I thought this was going to be a literally true headline,
       | i.e. a report on a taste test of a new cell-ag product wherein
       | preserved tissue samples from the 1948 chickens were used for the
       | cell line that was cultured into the reporter's meal. It'd be a
       | happier story, too.
       | 
       | (One of the chickens who contributed tissue for Eat Just's
       | cultured chicken product lived out his life at an animal
       | sanctuary near the Bay Area. But due to the breeding practices
       | referenced in the article, it was, sadly, a short life.)
        
       | seanwilson wrote:
       | > And that life keeps getting shorter and shorter - four to seven
       | weeks, to be exact. In the 1950s, a broiler chicken lived a full
       | 16 weeks. The faster and heavier method that won the contest was
       | amplified by confinement, and while the chickens come out of
       | those cages fatter, they tend to get sicker, too. They have
       | insatiable appetites, which leaves them stressed, as evidenced in
       | their poor reproduction capabilities, cardiovascular failure and
       | skeletal problems. They've been pumped with so many antibiotics,
       | they've developed resistances. The chickens' weak legs and
       | overworked hearts strain every week their lives are extended.
       | 
       | Chickens are meant to be able to live to around 10 years old as
       | well which makes this even worse to me. There's nothing humane or
       | natural about it. I think consumers need to take more personal
       | responsibility in what kind of practices their wallets are
       | supporting.
        
         | codeulike wrote:
         | Its so fast now, we're killing 50 billion chickens per year to
         | eat. 136 million per day. 1585 per second. More than 1 chicken
         | per millisecond. Start the stopwatch on your phone and watch
         | those milliseconds fly by. Living breathing creatures raised in
         | tiny cages and never seeing the sky or scratching dirt with
         | their feet.
        
           | oftenwrong wrote:
           | I don't doubt it, but what is the source of this figure?
        
             | MattGaiser wrote:
             | https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/chart-of-the-day-
             | this....
        
           | kapp_in_life wrote:
           | We can barely get people to care about their fellow man, I'm
           | pessimistic about getting people to care about the genocide
           | we commit towards animals on an hourly basis.
           | 
           | Edit: And for the record I'm vegan.
        
           | qq4 wrote:
           | Sometimes I wonder how many microorganisms I kill when I wash
           | my hands.
        
             | amirkdv wrote:
             | I get that this is probably mostly sarcastic humour, and
             | I'm not trying to dispute the kernel of truth. No serious
             | person loses sleep over our mass murder of malaria-carrying
             | mosquitoes.
             | 
             | But there is a line _somewhere_ on the natural spectrum of
             | life forms, from microorganisms, to plants, to bugs and
             | vermin, to dogs, pigs, primates, and humans, where our
             | attitude about loss of life and/or a miserable life
             | changes. Where are you suggesting we put that line?
             | 
             | EDIT: wording
        
             | codeulike wrote:
             | Well at least those microorganisms had a chance of a normal
             | life, and you did the killing yourself. What gets me about
             | factory farming is the complete hopelessness of an animal
             | born into a factory, reduced by us to being an inconvenient
             | ingredient and nothing more, and how all of that is hidden
             | from the consumer as much as possible, outsourced to a
             | faceless machine.
             | 
             | Here you go; the chicken scene from Baraka
             | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFQhn8RW0Nk
        
               | qq4 wrote:
               | What's a normal life? I've seen the chicken scene, and
               | I've killed a chicken with my bare hands. I've clubbed a
               | fish and cleaned it. I'm not afraid of where my food
               | comes from. Chickens don't have hope, and I don't project
               | that feeling onto them, just like I don't with
               | microorganisms. Why do you think what you're saying is
               | negative? If this trend tends to infinity we raise
               | chickens instantly and vaporize them into cooked chicken
               | in a blink of an eye.
        
               | codeulike wrote:
               | Chickens want things. They want to walk around the
               | scratch the ground. If you make a noise they'll run away
               | from you - they dont want to get eaten by a fox.
               | 
               | Your comment about microorganisms is about 'where to draw
               | the line' and your comment about 'tend to infinity'
               | implies you like the 'appeal to extremes' form of
               | argument.
               | 
               | I'm interested in what we're doing in the world now and
               | I'm happy to suggest where a line should be drawn. I'm
               | not worried about absolutes.
        
               | qq4 wrote:
               | > Your comment about microorganisms is about 'where to
               | draw the line' and your comment about 'tend to infinity'
               | implies you like the 'appeal to extremes' form of
               | argument.
               | 
               | I would say that's accurate. I think extremes can bring
               | out honest positions in an argument. Where would you
               | suggest we draw a line? How long should a chicken live
               | before we decide to kill it?
        
               | codeulike wrote:
               | We could do a lot worse than go with EU Regulation
               | 889/2008 (i.e european definition of organic)
               | 
               | See Article 12 for poultry. There are details about how
               | they should be kept, density, materials (e.g. straw or
               | turf), lighting conditions, access to perches, access to
               | outside space. Minimum age at slaughter is 81 days.
               | 
               | https://eur-
               | lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:...
        
               | slacktide wrote:
               | I say we engineer a breed of Mike the Headless Chickens.
               | Just enough brain stem to stay alive, not enough brain to
               | care.
               | 
               | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_the_Headless_Chicken
        
               | codeulike wrote:
               | Or, Lab grown meat would be a good solution.
        
               | slacktide wrote:
               | Sure, you let me know when we can grow a decent drumstick
               | in a petri dish.
        
         | tlarkworthy wrote:
         | Chicken is relatively friendly to climate. I would consider it
         | a good thing if people ate more chicken and less red meat. They
         | are our top animal protein source at scale for least greenhouse
         | gas emissions [1].
         | 
         | [1]
         | https://extension.uga.edu/publications/detail.html?number=B1...
        
           | codeulike wrote:
           | Even the most sustainable meat is worse for the environment
           | than plant-based protein
           | 
           | https://www.fastcompany.com/90461008/this-graph-will-show-
           | yo...
        
             | moistbar wrote:
             | Do plant-based proteins have the B vitamins that most of
             | the world is deficient in?
        
               | jfengel wrote:
               | Ummm... yes.
               | 
               | https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/impossible-
               | burger#what-...
               | 
               | The Impossible Burger is supplemented with a ton of B
               | vitamins (for thiamine, several weeks' supply).
               | 
               | Most vegans eat lots of other B containing foods,
               | including yeast (which is after all how plant-eating
               | animals manufacture B vitamins in the first place, by
               | fermentation during digestion). But for those who want to
               | get it along with their protein source, the plant-based
               | meat-simulacra also contain it.
        
               | trainsplanes wrote:
               | Vitamin B12 is produced only by bacteria. Not yeast.
               | 
               | It's incredibly difficult to get sufficient quantities of
               | B12 outside of meat products or manufactured supplements.
        
               | kapp_in_life wrote:
               | This is silly. The solution to a vitamin deficiency is
               | vitamins. Clearly they're deficient while eating meat
               | too, so that doesn't seem like a strong argument against
               | plant based proteins.
        
             | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
             | Yes, except that's not practical. I don't want to give up
             | meat but I'll give up beef and pork.
        
               | estaseuropano wrote:
               | That does not seem to be a matter of 'practical' but
               | rather a matter of eating preferences.
               | 
               | Honestly our food habits are just out of whack. If you go
               | to any Asian or African country (outside the touristic
               | areas) you'll find how many classical/common dishes taste
               | great without meat. From Chinese noodle soups to Thai
               | curries to Ethiopian bean dishes or Indian anything, you
               | miss neither nutrients nor flavour without meat.
               | 
               | I would argue the vegetarian movement has made a huge
               | impact in reawakening many 'western' recipes which
               | disappeared when near became cheap. From beetroot to
               | Brussels sprouts to pickles to lentil stews and grilled
               | vegetables - lots of things are back on the plate.
               | 
               | All that long said for a short message: yes it can be
               | very practical if we collectively (or individually) want
               | it to be.
        
               | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
               | I already cut meat out of my lunch and I don't eat a
               | breakfast during the week. No thanks.
               | 
               | It's not practical to demand the entire planet become
               | vegan.
        
               | snet0 wrote:
               | So it's not practical _and_ you don 't want to do it
               | anyway?
        
               | throwaway20234 wrote:
               | You get slammed for people not liking your response, but
               | yet your point is spot on. The number of vegetarians has
               | been pretty steady over the last decades in the US.
               | Hoping people become all vegetarien isn't practical. If I
               | was a dictator I'd ban meat eating, but I am not and
               | that's good.
               | 
               | As always: it's not allowed to ask for better people! We
               | need to create a system that makes the wrong people do
               | the right thing.
        
               | AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
               | People aren't liking the response because it seems like
               | it is saying "it isn't practical for me to take on this
               | tiny inconvenience for the betterment of the world".
        
               | nitrogen wrote:
               | _We need to create a system that makes the wrong people
               | do the right thing._
               | 
               | Or even better, a system that makes the "wrong" thing
               | right (e.g. lab-grown meat).
        
           | mantenpanther wrote:
           | That's a simple and too narrow take. In my area (mountains)
           | it makes a lot of sense to cultivate cattle.
        
         | brutal_chaos_ wrote:
         | > I think consumers need to take more personal responsibility
         | in what kind of practices their wallets are supporting.
         | 
         | Consumers aren't making the choice to treat the animals that
         | way, the business are. And (most likely) without regulation,
         | that will not change. Not enough people/consumers have enough
         | discretionary spending to make a change (I believe). I for one
         | don't even know where I can buy meat from well-treated
         | chickens. Sure I can look it up, but most consumers will need
         | to as well, which will probably not happen. It's about high
         | time we stop putting things on the consumer (see recycling) and
         | make the businesses do better for our ecosystem. I hope not to
         | add too many more regulations, the fewer the better IMHO, but
         | damn, there still needs to be some.
        
           | jfim wrote:
           | That's the price we pay for making everything an
           | interchangeable commodity.
           | 
           | If you go to the grocery store, there might be some organic
           | chicken and non organic chicken, but not that much of a
           | choice otherwise. There's no real way to know whether the
           | place treats their chickens and workers well, what kind of
           | feed or environment the chickens live in, if it's a local
           | farm or a mega factory, and so on.
           | 
           | On the upside, the prices are lower and we get any kind of
           | produce year round. On the downside, that produce might come
           | from across the world, be specific breeds that survive
           | shipping well and look good at the expense of taste, and
           | generally not come from local farms but rather large factory
           | farms.
        
           | mosseater wrote:
           | Consumers are totally making the choice. You could make the
           | same argument that the consumer's demand for lots of meat is
           | causing the businesses to have to do this.
           | 
           | In reality it's a chain of choices made by multiple groups of
           | people. The consumers, the industry, and whatever
           | governmental regulatory bodies are involved. One group can't
           | just give up responsibility of the choices they are making.
           | 
           | In the end, consumers drive the market. If there's no
           | consumers of unethical meat, no one will unethically raise
           | meat. Out of the groups of people involved, it's only the
           | consumers participation that keeps the cycle alive.
           | 
           | Eating meat isn't a required activity for humans. If the
           | treatment the chickens are going through doesn't seem ethical
           | to you, continuing to eat it is hypocritical. You can totally
           | reduce your meat consumption in order to afford eating
           | ethically raised meat, or just not eat meat at all.
        
             | oivey wrote:
             | Consumers have driven the market into a race to the bottom.
             | There is effectively no way for the consumer to really know
             | about the comparative difference in living conditions
             | between two packs of meat. There is really no way at all to
             | know the provenance of chicken from a restaurant. Expecting
             | consumers to either do this research or not eat chicken at
             | all is completely unrealistic. If we want to fix this
             | problem it will have to be through regulation. A start
             | would be nasty labeling on unethically generated foods,
             | like the surgeon general's warning on cigarettes.
        
             | N1H1L wrote:
             | No they are not making the choice. There is way too little
             | information to make that choice. Which chicken package
             | tells you how many weeks the chicken lived?
             | 
             | And this type of demand is pretty inelastic. You can make a
             | pound of chicken 25 cents cheaper or expensive an demand
             | won't budge at all.
             | 
             | What you are subscribing to is market fetishism - something
             | that works only in Econ 101 classrooms, not the real world.
             | 
             |  _Consumers want rainforests to not be destroyed for
             | example. But how many consumers know that they are
             | destroyed due to palm oil production? And which customer
             | has the ability to track down globalized supply chains when
             | choosing an ice cream, when their kids are screaming
             | nearby?_
        
             | mattmanser wrote:
             | There are literally 10s of thousands of little things like
             | this in your life. Most of them you will not be aware of.
             | Some of them require huge amounts of effort to figure out.
             | 
             | On top of that what you're saying isn't true for huge
             | swathes of the population. They can't afford to eat
             | ethically raised meat, they can't afford to not eat meat
             | protein, and even if there is some (probably imaginary) way
             | for them to do that, it requires a disproportionate amount
             | of effort for them to do so.
             | 
             | Most people will think chicken is just chicken. They may be
             | peripherally aware that there's some sort of intensive
             | farming going on, but not really what that entails, or how
             | horrific it is.
             | 
             | And so some governments around the world have stepped in
             | and stopped those practices.
             | 
             | But not the US. Hence the trade arguments you may have
             | heard about chlorinated chicken. It's not the chlorination
             | that's the problem, it's WHY they need to be chlorinated.
             | Because you need to do that to chicken to make it safe to
             | eat if you grow them in those sort of horrific conditions.
             | 
             | So next time you think about blaming the consumer, stop and
             | think. You've been dead wrong once. Government intervention
             | works.
             | 
             | Are you wrong again?
        
               | kapp_in_life wrote:
               | >they can't afford to not eat meat protein, and even if
               | there is some (probably imaginary) way for them to do
               | that, it requires a disproportionate amount of effort for
               | them to do so.
               | 
               | Didn't know eating beans instead of meat for protein was
               | a disproportionate amount of effort. It's even cheaper to
               | boot. Those people are not invalids, they just don't care
               | about the lives of farm animals. They may say they do,
               | but their actions prove otherwise.
        
               | jimmygrapes wrote:
               | While you are not wrong about beans as a protein source,
               | this argument always strikes me as a sort of "let the
               | poor people eat bland mush their entire life, and if they
               | want better food they can get rich like me and have meat
               | from ethical sources." A large part of why factory
               | farming exists is to drive down costs as demand rises,
               | but you gotta keep in mind that the demand rises because
               | eating beans and rice for every meal your entire life is
               | _miserable_.
        
               | kapp_in_life wrote:
               | I'm a vegan so they would be eating the same food I do. I
               | never eat out and barely ever try the expensive vegan
               | faux-meats.
               | 
               | Adding a few spices and a can of tomatoes make beans and
               | rice delicious. Chana masala, black bean bowls, navy bean
               | soup, the number of dishes you can create from a base of
               | rice and beans is innumerable and they're all relatively
               | simple.
               | 
               | The same could be said about unseasoned chicken meat on
               | rice.
        
         | hourislate wrote:
         | Just changing that around a little kind of reflects what's
         | happening in the office the past few decades.
         | 
         | >amplified by confinement, and while the developers come out of
         | those cubes fatter, they tend to get sicker, too. They have
         | insatiable appetites, which leaves them stressed, as evidenced
         | in their poor reproduction capabilities, cardiovascular failure
         | and skeletal problems. They've been pumped with so many
         | antibiotics, they've developed resistances. The Developers weak
         | legs and overworked hearts strain every week their lives are
         | extended.
        
         | gwbas1c wrote:
         | It's just one step on the way to growing muscle tissue in a
         | controlled environment without the actual animal.
         | 
         | But, not be pedantic, but chicken evolved as a domesticated,
         | food-producing animal. They're "meant" to make food, either via
         | eggs or meat, not to have a specific lifespan.
        
           | amirkdv wrote:
           | > They're "meant" to make food, either via eggs or meat, not
           | to have a specific lifespan.
           | 
           | By this standard, there is no such thing as abusing a
           | domesticated species. They're "meant to" satisfy human need
           | X, and everything else is irrelevant.
        
           | woodruffw wrote:
           | > But, not be pedantic, but chicken evolved as a
           | domesticated, food-producing animal. They're "meant" to make
           | food, either via eggs or meat, not to have a specific
           | lifespan.
           | 
           | I think it's slightly more complicated than that. The history
           | of domestication is one of long-term relationships: we have
           | historically bred animals not only to produce food, but also
           | to serve roles (foodwaste removal, fertilizing, haulage) that
           | aren't necessarily best served by rapid growth. Industrial
           | agriculture has removed the need for most of those roles, but
           | they're still very visible in the selected features of
           | popular breeds.
        
             | gruez wrote:
             | >I think it's slightly more complicated than that. The
             | history of domestication is one of long-term relationships:
             | we have historically bred animals not only to produce food,
             | but also to serve roles (foodwaste removal, fertilizing,
             | haulage) that aren't necessarily best served by rapid
             | growth.
             | 
             | What can you do with a pig other than eating it? As for
             | chickens/cows, I'm fairly certain that the males are
             | basically only useful for meat.
        
               | woodruffw wrote:
               | Pigs have historically served foodwaste and sanitation
               | roles. But you bring up a great point, and it's one that
               | anthropologists have remarked on as a potential source
               | for religious taboos around pork (pigs just aren't _that_
               | useful compared to other animals).
               | 
               | Male cows are best known in their neutered form (a
               | surprising number of people think that oxen are their own
               | species). They're instrumental beasts of burden. But
               | again, industrialized agriculture doesn't have much use
               | for them.
        
         | Broken_Hippo wrote:
         | " I think consumers need to take more personal responsibility
         | in what kind of practices their wallets are supporting"
         | 
         | Ok. So, has the market gotten to the point that even in small
         | towns, people can choose more humane meat? They have "free
         | range eggs", and I pay for, basically, "free range plus", but
         | these aren't _really_ humane, only better: Are there other
         | commonly available options? (I _m personally pescetarian
         | leaning heavily into vegetarian: I don 't know about meat
         | options available)
         | 
         | I don't think everyone is going to go vegan (it is hard to
         | balance the nutrition) and even vegetarian isn't going to be
         | everywhere if there is a culture of meat-eating, so the best
         | thing we can do is _less* meat, and the meat we have is humane.
         | 
         | But we are back at the beginning: There is realistically no way
         | to speak with your wallet since a lot of places simply have no
         | choice - and no way to verify claims (they might be as
         | misleading as free range eggs).
         | 
         | This pretty much put us at the point where if you are moneyed
         | enough, you can source it: Everyone else has to hope that
         | government changes rules enough so that everyone can choose
         | humanely produced meat.
        
           | codeulike wrote:
           | _So, has the market gotten to the point that even in small
           | towns, people can choose more humane meat?_
           | 
           | Yes, at least in Europe. Organic meat comes with certain
           | rules about the treatment of the animals.
           | 
           | edit: see Article 12 of EU Regulation 889/2008 for organic
           | poultry standards - https://eur-
           | lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:...
        
           | jghn wrote:
           | I get my meat/eggs as a monthly farm share. The animals are
           | treated humanely. One can visit the farm if they so desire,
           | to see the conditions.
           | 
           | The downside? It's expensive. Most people, even those who
           | care in principal, don't care enough to pay 2x, 3x, or more
           | than the grocery store prices.
        
         | mc32 wrote:
         | Chickens can achieve the age of ten under special circumstances
         | (pet chicken protected from predators)
         | 
         | Chickens in their wild habitat will live a year, two maybe
         | three before succumbing to predators or disease.
         | 
         | So if you have a hen and it's over 3 years old, it's older than
         | most chickens in the wild. You should feel as guilty as a fox
         | feels if you have it for dinner.
        
       | rdtwo wrote:
       | If you have ever killed and eaten a laying hen you would know how
       | tough that meat is. We definitely bred some mighty tasty
       | chickens. I do think we could maybe refine them a bit for flavor
       | and extend the time a bit more or less to get a more or less
       | gamey flavor depending on preference.
       | 
       | Also air chilled chicken is where it's at. So much better than
       | the water bath cooled ones
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | narrator wrote:
       | Aurochs[1] were large wild cattle that went extinct. The meek
       | domesticated chicken on the other hand has done extraordinarily
       | well, evolutionarily speaking. The same goes for corn, which
       | couldn't survive in its current state without human cultivation.
       | If rhinos and other threatened species were somehow domesticated
       | to be used for food or leather, like cattle, we'd probably have a
       | lot more of them around.
       | 
       | [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs
        
         | snet0 wrote:
         | I am not sure that the lens of what you label "evolutionary
         | success" is useful in any way. Would you rather a billion
         | humans in Elysium or a trillion humans in Hades?
        
           | chrisco255 wrote:
           | The big question: did we cultivate agriculture or did
           | agriculture cultivate us? There wouldn't be 7 billion humans
           | without industrial agriculture. You wouldn't exist. I
           | wouldn't exist.
        
           | narrator wrote:
           | Ants have a symbiotic fungus in their gut that they use to
           | digest food. We have corn that we use to digest sunlight.
           | Chickens that could not survive on their own now are the way
           | we can turn carbohydrates into protein. Computers turn
           | electricity into cognition. We will probably take chickens
           | and corn with us to other planets.
        
       | breput wrote:
       | Mystery Science Theater 3000 riffing on the Chicken Of Tomorrow
       | documentary:
       | 
       | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1G0stojwYjI
        
       | guardiangod wrote:
       | A result from today's fast-grown chickens is the epidemic of
       | 'woody' chicken breast.
       | 
       | https://holistickenko.com/woody-chicken-breast/
       | 
       |  _An increase in size and growth rate has caused the meat of the
       | muscles to become harder and rigid in texture, giving a
       | distinctive bulge to the breast and becoming known as woody
       | breast chicken. The chicken, even when cooked well, is harder and
       | chewy._
       | 
       |  _The white stripes that occur visually look like white lines
       | running across the breast, tendons and thigh. A woody breast will
       | feel firmer, like an incredibly tough muscle. When touching
       | regular chicken breast the flesh is soft, you can press into it.
       | Woody breast is simply firm to the touch, you cannot press into
       | it (Kuttappan, V.A., et al., 2016). Occurrences of the woody
       | chicken breast, as well as white stripes on chicken, have
       | increased from around 1.4-8.7% in 2012 to a shocking 25.7-32.3%
       | in 2015._
        
         | ianlevesque wrote:
         | It's really hard to avoid. It seems like every package of
         | chicken has one of these thrown in with a few good ones. I
         | usually end up checking them all and throwing the bad one out.
         | It's terrible.
        
         | bsagdiyev wrote:
         | After learning about this and how to look at it I look at
         | chicken closely now before buying. Most of the time I can't
         | even get chicken that isn't woody, just less woody than the
         | other packages around it. Even the more expensive "organic"
         | chicken seems to suffer from it.
        
       | daniellarusso wrote:
       | I really miss the print edition of 'Modern Farmer'.
        
       | InsaneOstrich wrote:
       | The past's chicken of tomorrow is the chicken of today
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-06-16 23:01 UTC)