Daily Mail (August 2011)
Forget free-range - the tastiest chickens are the intensively farmed birds
By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent (July 2008)
Food scientists assessed the quality of birds raised in a variety of conditions and found those that were intensively farmed had the best flavour, while those reared under organic guidelines were the least tasty.
Their findings contradict claims by campaigners who insist that organic and free-range chickens produce tastier, healthier meat because they have more freedom to move around and are given better food.
A panel of 10 taste experts sampled meat from 120 intensively farmed, maize-fed, organic or free-range birds. They found the intensively farmed chicken meat the least acidic, though it had a less attractive colour than other types. Dr Paul Warriss, who led the study at Bristol University's school of veterinary science, said: "In general, higher ratings were given for texture, juiciness, flavour and overall preference for meat from the birds reared in the standard system."
Retail analysts said earlier this year that sales of free-range chickens were increasing twice as fast as sales of standard chickens, though the free-rangers cost up to three times more.
While organic producers point to research that shows their birds contain higher levels of vitamins and other nutrients, others claim that just as many studies have found no added benefit.
A spokesman for the group said: "Many people believe organic food tastes better but there are other reasons, including animal welfare, why people choose organic chicken.
"Unlike intensively-reared birds, organic chickens can't be given routine doses of antibiotics which weaken their natural immune system... and are also linked to creating antibiotic-resistant superbugs with serious human health implications.”
Free-range eggs 'are no healthier than battery ones' as cholesterol and nutrient levels 'identical'
By Sophie Borland, 30 August 2011
Their richly coloured yolks certainly make them more appealing to the eye and have led some to believe they are more nutritious. But free-range eggs are no better for us than the battery farmed alternative, scientists have found. It means that while many reasons may remain for buying free-range – such as the welfare of the hens – health benefits are not among them.
Researchers discovered that the two types of eggs contained almost identical levels of vitamins and cholesterol. Poultry expert Dr Kenneth Anderson compared the nutritional content of 500 eggs produced by the different methods over two years. The samples were collected on three occasions and sent to laboratories which analysed the levels of certain vitamins and fats. The U.S. team found that although the yolks of free-range eggs were darker, they were not actually healthier. Levels of vitamin A, needed for healthy skin and bones, and vitamin E, which is essential for protecting the body's cells, were the same.
Price
Price comparison between conventional and free-range eggs is difficult since the USDA does not collect data on free-range egg prices or sales. The closest egg category the USDA tracks to free-range is organic eggs. Like free-range eggs, National Organic Program regulations require that organically raised hens have outdoor access; however, additional regulations concerning the animals' feed and other aspects of care can drive prices for organic eggs above those for free-range eggs (see References 2). According to 2006 data collected by the USDA, conventional eggs cost, on average, $1.36 per dozen. Organic eggs, on the other hand, cost an average of $3.99 per dozen that year. Between March 2006 and March 2011, egg prices in general increased 33 percent, according to Consumer Price Index data
Animal Welfare
Egg-laying hens confined to cages do not have space to move, stretch or engage in natural behaviors, which causes them to engage in repetitive or destructive behaviors, such as feather-pulling or pecking at their neighbors. Caged hens show more fearful behavior and become prone to skeletal problems because of captivity. Because free-range hens are allowed outdoor access, more space to move around and more opportunities to engage in natural behaviors, free-range eggs are generally regarded as a more humane alternative to conventionally produced eggs. However, regulations on the use of the term "free-range" do not specify the amount of time outdoors or space the hen must have, nor do they indicate that the hen must have access to a pasture diet (
Nutrition
In addition to being healthier for the planet, free-range eggs are often healthier for you too. In 2007, Mother Earth News collected nutritional data from the eggs produced by 14 flocks of free-range pastured hens and compared that with data provided by the USDA for conventional eggs. The study revealed that the free-range eggs, on average, contained one-third less cholesterol and one-quarter less saturated fat, in addition to higher levels of vitamin A, beta-carotene, vitamin E and omega-3 fatty acids. One important distinction is that all hens in the Mother Earth News study were pasture-fed, which is not required by the USDA for free-range eggs, so it's possible the improved nutrition was a result of the diet, and not the housing conditions.
(January 2008)
Sure, it might be cruel, but intensive farming saves lives
It's easy for some of us to buy free-range, but the lauding of farmers' markets ignores those for whom cheap food is essential
A couple of years ago, during the recording of a food quiz on Radio 4, I listened to food writer and TV personality Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall declare that he thought nobody should eat meat unless it had been reared in a completely free-range manner. One of the other contestants - Stephen Fry, as it happens - pointed out that free-range meat is very expensive and that not everybody could afford it. 'Well,' Fearnley-Whittingstall said confidently, 'there are always the cheaper cuts.'
Indoor rearing of chickens which provides 95 per cent of the birds we eat in this country and in favour of free-range methods. Intensive rearing of chickens is an ugly business and by setting up his own poultry shed, complete with 17 birds per square metre, he brought the reality of that right into our sitting rooms.
Time and again during last week's programme, the issue of price was raised and the best he could do was argue that the difference - £6 for the free-range bird against £3 for the intensively reared - really wasn't that great. It was left to a marvellously stroppy single mother called Hayley from the housing estate in his local market town of Axminster to give him a reality check. 'You can afford to eat free range,' she said. 'I can't.'
'Prior to the 1950s, large numbers of people died because of tuberculosis due to a simple lack of nourishment,' says Hugh Pennington, emeritus professor of bacteriology at Aberdeen University and an expert on food contamination and nutritional issues. 'The wide availability of cheap animal proteins, both chicken and fish, has put an end to that.' The availability of those intensively reared chickens that go from egg to slaughter in just 39 days without ever seeing daylight is, therefore, not merely a question of taste to be pursued doggedly by a lovable TV chef. It's a question of basic human health.
'Only intensive farming' will feed Britain
· David Adam, environment correspondent
· The Guardian, Wednesday 18 April 2007
Britain must continue to intensify its farming practices to meet soaring demand for cheap food and prevent shortages, a leading agricultural expert said yesterday. Demand for biofuels, booming economies of developing countries and climate change will put demand on food supplies that can only be met by intensive techniques, said Professor Bill McKelvey, head of the Scottish Agricultural College. Prices could soar and future generations in the UK may find they can no longer take plentiful food for granted.
At a London briefing, Prof McKelvey defended intensive techniques and said alternatives such as organic farming would not cope with predicted growth in population. "There is a need to continue to intensify farming. Organic farming has a place but it will never feed the growing population of the world," he said.
Media criticism of modern farming techniques after the bird flu outbreak at the Bernard Matthews turkey farm in Suffolk had been unfair, he said, adding that intensive farming protects the environment because it reduces the amount of land used for agriculture. Europe would also have to overcome its "illogical" opposition to genetically modified crops to help boost yields, he said.
"In the UK, we are becoming less self-sufficient in food. I think it's possible in the next 25 to 50 years that there will be food shortages in the UK." The proportion of average British family income spent on food might double from 10% to 20%, he said. The UK currently provides 60% of its own food, and imports were increasing, said Prof McKelvey, who advises industry and the government.
With world population forecast to grow from 6bn to 8.5bn in 50 years, he warned that countries such as New Zealand that export food to Britain were likely to switch attention to China and India. Food demand there is increasing sharply and meat consumption in China has doubled in the last decade. Prof McKelvey said the solution was farmers producing more food on the same amount of land. Wheat production increased four-fold in the last 50 years and in the next 50 years would probably have to rise by the same level again, despite a shortage of suitable land. "There are only two ways to do that. We either take land from rain forests or we intensify existing farms. We will protect the wild environment by making better use of farms."
Plant breeding - conventional and using genetic modification - was the best way to produce more food from the same amount of land. Although very little is grown commercially in Europe, millions of hectares of GM crops have been grown across the world in recent years.
"Europe is going to have to face up to using GM crops," he said. Climate change is also expected to put pressure on food supplies, despite an initial boost in productivity for some crops.
Prof McKelvey said great swathes of agricultural land would be lost to desert, with the effects already felt in areas such as southern Spain. Bio-fuels, a suggested solution to global warming, could bring added problems for food production.
Patrick Holden of the Soil Association, which promotes organic farming, said "business as usual" intensive farming would not be possible in future because of the fossil fuel costs and the greenhouse gas emissions associated with nitrogen fertilisers. Organic farming could equal and sometimes even exceed the yields of chemical intensive farming systems. "The challenge that global agriculture confronts today is to research and develop these systems, because we are on the threshold of a post-fossil fuel era."