Article excerpts:
<<Based on the same CR report
(see above and FSnet passim) boutique birds were found to be more
contaminated with bacteria than those from big brands like Perdue and
Tyson. >>
<<George Oppenheimer,
general manager of Wellington Farms Free Range, based in Mechanicsburg,
Pa., was cited as candidly agreeing with both hypotheses. (Wellington
Farms was the only free-range bird tested; the other three are
premium-priced.)>>
Am I correct that this sweeping conclusion about free range birds is based
on ONE product? Seems like a pretty small sample to be making general
statements about free range products.
I think samples from other growers, plus additional data, needs to be
assessed before attempting to draw this type of conclusion about these
growing styles.
For instance, I'd also like to see information on the amount of antibiotics
used at each location; some assessment of whether Wellington really has
natural environment(s); etc. It might be possible, for instance, that in a
truly natural environment, birds are kept healthier by aligning with
natural systems and don't need as much antibiotics, etc. I'd also love to
see some measure of the vitality of the meat - taste, but more. I can
really tell the difference in the vitality of the free range meat I eat,
and even more so in the few times I've had wild meat. For me, these are
the types of things that would give me meaningful information about how
healthy this meat is.
Best regards -
Patricia Dines
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".