Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hybrids are GMOs. Just by hand-selection instead of molecular insertion. The GMO scare is a load of hogwash. None of the birds we eat have the same genome as the birds being eaten 2000 yrs back. They are all genetically modified (which, after all, is a relative term).
Now, overcrowded conditions, birds crammed in and not seeing natural light, and birds pumped with veterinary medications - I'm with you on that.
Nope, hybrids don't have their genes changed. They're selected, but not changed. They're all chicken genes.
GMOs are clinically modified, hybrids are just modified by selection. Hybrids have been around for centuries, it's what's changed a wild dog into a chihuahua. GMOs have the genes changed and they will even occasionally cross species lines which wouldn't work in a hybrid.
It's more popular in the plants, you'll find a plum mixed with an apricot to make a 'pluot' which wouldn't happen without intervention. Cross pollinization would not create a lot of the new plants. Genes from one species is introduced into the other. Which then basically becomes a new species, I think. If the genes are changed, it should breed true. A hybrid will not breed true. Which is why when you save seeds from a hybrid and plant them again, you won't get the same plant that the seed came from.
Hmm, a self pollinated GMO plant should produce another of the same plant.
AFAIK, the standard industrial chickens raised in the big poultry houses are not GMO. However, I'm sure they're fed GMO feed, not sure how that would affect their flesh.
In some of his recipes, he also mentions it's difficult to find small whole chickens at about 3 pounds. Seems to me when I was growing up, there wasn't any such thing as chicken "pieces" and all chickens were whole chickens. I remember my mom having to cut them up to get legs, thighs, and breasts. Or maybe they were just cheaper that way.
My mom grew up on a farm and sent many a chicken to the hereafter. She and my aunt would gross us out on how the chickens would run around without their heads. Speaking of which, here's something I read the other day:
Once upon a time, there was a Count. This Count was very rich and the peasants were very poor. One day the peasants caught the Count and demanded he give them all his money. The Count refused, so the peasants took him to the guillotine. As the blade came down, the Count cried out, "OK! OK! I'll give you my money!" But it was too late and the Count lost his head. The moral of the story is: Don't hatch your Count before he chickens.
Seems like the majority are fine with sawdust-dry meat of all kinds! ☺
You're not wrong, everyone is entitled to have an opinion.
I would, however, double check any recipe that you're following. If your chicken is ending up "sawdust-dry" then something is not right in your cooking methods.
Sure I've mistakenly overcooked chicken, steak, pork, fish and it ended up dry. I didn't make that mistake again.
Seems like the majority are fine with sawdust-dry meat of all kinds! ☺
No, I don't think anyone likes "sawdust-dry" meat of any kind. I know I don't. I don't cook it that way and I certainly wouldn't eat it that way. You don't have to have skin on chicken for it to taste good and not be dry. I eat chicken both ways, depending on what I'm making - sometimes with skin and other times without. It's never dry and never tastes like sawdust.
You're not wrong, everyone is entitled to have an opinion.
I would, however, double check any recipe that you're following. If your chicken is ending up "sawdust-dry" then something is not right in your cooking methods.
Sure I've mistakenly overcooked chicken, steak, pork, fish and it ended up dry. I didn't make that mistake again.
I mean yeah, I am by no means a great cook.
But the way lots of chicken and other meat is being butchered/prepared nowadays...........most pork has WAY too much fat trimmed from it, and skinless chicken, especially skinless chicken-breasts, bleech.
Am I the only one who still loves chicken-skin (meat-soup with sproingy chicken-skin is to die for)?
Am I the only one who is noticing that more and more packages of chicken is of the degloved variety???
I go into the grocery-store today and, wahlah, just about all the chicken, not just the breasts, have the skin removed. I know this is being done for a reason.......something kooky, toxins, continuation of the
saturated-fat scare, shoppers having an aversion to bleechy skin, some other weird reason??????
Is anybody else noticing this nightmarish trend and are you also FURIOUS about it?
I think the reason you are only finding skinless birds is that most people share your love of the skin and leave the nekkid chicken on the shelf. Ask the meat dept what day, or what time of day, they restock and get there first.
But it's true that a lot of the toxins in factory-farmed chicken collect in the fat, and of course to many dieters fat is the devil. If you're not a dieter, buy Amish-raised chicken or certified-organic chicken and you should be in the clear.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
