AgriCulture: The Verdict from the Turkana Test Kitchen
Posted by: Rural Intelligence
Posted on: Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Comments
Bold, italics, strong, emphasis, and block quote tags are allowed in comments.
Notify me of follow-up comments?
Comment Guidelines
As we believe it promotes responsibility, civility and neighborliness, we encourage Commenters to use their real names unless there is compelling reason not to. In any case, profanity, personal attacks and unsubstantiated or excessive criticism of people or places will not be tolerated and will be deleted. By completing this form you are agreeing to abide by these rules and all terms laid out in the Rural Intelligence User Agreement.
For questions concerning the use of personally identifiable information, please refer to our Privacy Policy.
IMPORTANT: You must be a member of Rural Intelligence and logged into the site to post comments. Already a member? Click here to login. Want to become a member? Click here to register.
Please enter the word you see in the image below:
Full Article
AgriCulture bloggers Peter Davies and Mark Scherzer are the owners of Turkana Farms in Germantown, NY. This week, Mark writes:
When Peter wrote last week about the nutritional advantages of heritage breeds of chicken, I could see he was inexorably leading to a conclusion that we should adjust our own chicken production away from the fast-growing Cornish crosses that had been our mainstay and toward a more slow-growing variety, a shift we had already begun by raising a batch of Freedom Rangers last summer. That shift seems a reasonable and responsible one to me in theory, but I had the gnawing feeling that we still hadn’t fully done our homework. If we were going to give up the ease, speed, and efficiency of raising the Cornish crosses, shouldn’t we be sure we would not be sacrificing the flavor and texture that had made these birds so popular with us and our customers?
To be sure, we had heard back from some folks who had bought some of each, and their reactions seemed to be similar to our impression. Most said they could not discern a significant difference between the two birds. But those reports and our impressions were not based on simultaneous tasting of both. We had planned to do a side by side taste test comparing Cornish cross with the Freedom Ranger, and suggested to our customers that they also do it. But we had never gotten around to it ourselves. So last weekend I suggested we finally cross that “ t”. I love suggesting menus, knowing that it is generally Peter who will do the cooking. But he readily agreed.
It was not hard to decide how to prepare the birds. We needed to use a recipe that would not overwhelm the flavor of the bird with the flavors of sauces or other ingredients. To that end, we agreed on the simple roast chicken recipe in the Chez Panisse cookbook that really lets the bird’s own flavor shine through. I selected two chickens, one of each variety, relatively close in weight. Peter prepared them exactly the same way and roasted them side by side.
We made it a Turkana Farms meal, with our own potatoes mashed with the last of our celeriac and our own fresh brussels sprouts from last year’s garden. The stalks that were standing erect last fall had their sprouts demolished by freezing weather, but those that were bent over close to the ground and got blanketed with snow early offered up sweetly intact green sprouts once the snow melted away.
And what did the side by side comparison show us? The first difference that was readily apparent was body conformation. Where the Cornish Cross (top photo, right of the plate) was rounded—you might call it the chicken equivalent of butterball—the Freedom Ranger (top photo left) was more elongated. Where the skin and flesh of the Cornish Cross were yellow and white, those of the Freedom Ranger were redder and pinker. The skin of the Cornish cross was tightly stretched on its body, the Freedom Ranger’s hung looser. And though the Cornish cross was about a half pound heavier than the Freedom Ranger, its legs were shorter (bottom photo, right leg bone), sticking out almost sideways from the torso, as opposed to the nearly perpendicular angle of the longer legs of the Freedom Ranger. We could easily recall how this conformation was reflected in the way the two birds moved—the waddle of the Cornish cross as opposed to the firm upright stride of the Freedom Ranger. This body conformation obviously has a lot to do with the mobility, or lack thereof, of the two breeds.
Our test was conducted by each of us taking portions comprised of two drumsticks, one from each bird, plus a few slices of breast meat from each. And here I must digress slightly. I heard Joe Donohue conduct a radio interview on WAMC a few weeks ago with the author of a new book on euphemisms. The author told the story of Winston Churchill when he was a dinner guest of some well bred society family in the American South. At table, he politely asked that someone pass him some of the ”chicken breast.” His hostess equally politely informed him that it was not their way to speak of the chicken’s body parts, but that they preferred the term “white meat.” The following day Churchill, who apparently could not resist the opportunity to puncture the hyper-propriety of his Southern hostess, sent a lovely corsage to her with a gracious thank you note suggesting that she pin the corsage on her “white meat.”
All right already. Enough with the jokes. You really want to know how they tasted. Was there a discernible difference? Peter and I agreed, to my surprise, but not his, that there was a difference, a subtle one. It’s not a difference you would be likely to notice if you weren’t eating them side by side or in such a simple recipe, but it was definitely apparent in our test. The Cornish Cross had the crisper skin but the Freedom Ranger had a grainier texture. Peter and I agreed the Freedom Ranger had a different flavor. Peter called it a “more complex flavor.” I described it as just more flavor, but as I reflect on it I would have to agree with him that “complexity” is a good term—as if there were layers of chicken flavor as compared to the simpler flavor of the Cornish Cross. Of course, there was no way in a taste test that we could tell differences in nutritional value. For that we have to rely on the studies Peter excerpted last week. But it seems safe to assume that the slower growing chicken that did more grazing, that is the Freedom Ranger, probably had a higher proportion of omega 3 fatty acids and lower overall fat content per serving.
I would not denigrate the Cornish Cross. I’ve delighted in eating the ample leftovers all week, and their quick growth gets them to market size faster and, we think, at less cost. But I am relieved and pleased that when we switch to raising slower growing, grazing-oriented chickens—be they the modern, French-developed Freedom Ranger breed or, if we can obtain them, actual heritage breed meat chickens—we will not be sacrificing, but rather enhancing, both taste and nutritional value. And from our point of view, we will be enhancing the “raising experience” as well, since the actively grazing Freedom Rangers had far more entertaining personalities and, as a result, enhance the farm environment.
For the complete archive of past AgriCulture blogs, click here.
