Most people born before the 1980s can easily recall the childhood aspirations of chicken. For many families, eating chicken two or three times a year is quite good. The United States has a similar situation. In 1960, Americans consumed an average of 28 pounds of chicken (about 454 grams per pound), 60 pounds of pork, and 65 pounds of beef per year. By 2006, the per capita annual consumption of chicken increased to 87 pounds, beef was flat, and pork was reduced.
The most important reason why chicken is so favored is the price advantage. Compared to more than 40 years ago, the overall price of food in the United States has increased by nearly 6 times, while chicken has only increased by more than 2 times. Now, the whole chicken in many American supermarkets is less than a dollar per pound, which is cheaper than most vegetables. In addition, compared with "red meat" such as pork, beef, and mutton, chicken is considered superior in terms of nutrition. Cheap and affordable, nature is also more popular.
Why is American chicken so cheap?
First of all, from the perspective of "long meat," chickens are more efficient. If we use livestock as a "bioreactor" - the role is to convert feed such as grain and grass into meat, then we can use "transformation efficiency" to compare different livestock. Protein is the most interesting ingredient in meat, so people often use how many kilograms of grain produce one kilogram of meat, or how much plant protein is converted into animal protein for comparison. The models and data used by different scholars are slightly different, and the specific values ​​obtained are slightly different. A typical set of results is: to obtain 1 kg of beef, pork and chicken, the required grains are 7 kg, 4 kg and 2 kg respectively; while cattle, pigs and chickens, the efficiency of converting vegetable protein into animal protein is 6 %, 9% and 18%. In other words, chickens have the highest production efficiency in common meat, and cattle have the worst performance.
In fact, this is only a rough average estimate. Different animals, different breeds, different feeds, and different farming methods have different efficiencies. "Organic" and "traditional" farming methods have a much lower utilization rate of natural resources. In addition to less than 2% of "organic chickens" and "walking chickens", the United States is basically a large-scale "broiler." In terms of production efficiency and cost, the advantage of broilers is that other meat can not match. In the United States, the requirements for “organic chickens†and “walking chickens†are not very clear. We may wish to refer to EU regulations: “Organic rearingâ€, where the activity space of each chicken is more than 2 square meters and the growth period is greater than 81 days; “1†and 56 days respectively; and “broilers†can raise 15 to 20 eggs per square meter, and the growth period is generally within 6 weeks.
In addition to the "broiler chicken" farming method, the large scale is also the reason for the low cost of American chicken. There are only 20,000 chicken farms across the United States, producing nearly 9 billion chickens each year. A medium-sized chicken farm produces more than 400,000 a year and only needs one family to operate. The vast majority of these chicken farms are only part of the chain of chicken production and distribution. Chickens and feed are provided by distribution companies, and chicken farmers pay for venues, labor, electricity, water and so on. Because of the large scale, the cost of breeding each chicken is as low as 20-30 cents, and the chicken farmer can still accept it.
For many Chinese people, the chicken produced in this way is no longer the "chicken" in mind. In the "flavor of chicken", it is not as good as a traditional chicken. The scent of chicken is largely determined by the “taste nucleotides†in it, while “kind†and “chews†are determined by the collagen and elastin in the meat. These ingredients that determine flavor and taste are related to the growing period of the chicken. The shorter the growth time, the lighter and more tender the "chicken flavor". However, these ingredients that affect taste and taste have nothing to do with nutrition. From a food science perspective, broiler meat is still a good food.
In the world, there are only a few things that are pleasing to the left and right. The production methods of broilers naturally have controversial places. It greatly improves the space utilization rate, but the house is very congested, which inevitably results in poor air quality. The high concentration of ammonia in the exhaust gas is likely to cause damage to the eyes and respiratory tract of chickens. A large number of chickens squeezing together can easily lead to infectious diseases and therefore have to use antibiotics. Now that the antibiotic technology has made great progress, the controversy over the environmental and ecological impact has continued.
These technical problems can also be solved through technological improvements. The criticism of animal welfare further complicates the issue. For example, to prevent chickens from fighting each other, they will cut their tips. Because the light does not move, their bodies grow rapidly and the chicken legs are so weak that they cannot afford their own weight. In addition, lack of exercise also affects joint and heart health. To put it bluntly: Broilers are not healthy animals, but are just overworked "chicken production lines." For animal welfare workers who respect nature and respect animal life, it is difficult to accept.
However, this is the reality that humanity faces. There are more and more people on Earth, and people also want to eat more meat. At present, the average Chinese consumes less than 10 kilograms of chicken each year. Compared to 20 or 30 years ago, it was a great improvement. But if you want to reach the level of consumption in the United States, chicken production will almost need to increase by 4 times. According to the "traditional" way of raising chickens, how can our natural resources bear?
It does not make sense to take "organic" "traditional" chickens and broilers "individually." As individuals, of course, we can make more money to buy "fat" chicken with high production costs. If we look at the height of the whole society, we can only eat some chickens without raising the efficiency of chicken production.
To illustrate this issue, you may wish to simplify the problem:
In a village of 100 people, except for roads, houses, food, and playgrounds, only a small plot of land can be used to raise chickens, such as 10 square meters. According to EU standards, if you raise "organic chickens", you can raise 20 chickens a year. If you raise chickens, you can raise 60 chickens a year. If you raise chickens, you can raise 1,000 or more chickens a year. If you are the richest man in the village, you may be able to buy all 20 chickens and let others watch you eat. But if you are just an ordinary villager, are you seeking to eat only a few "good" chickens every year? Or do you choose to eat 10 broilers that are "not so good in taste," but no difference in nutrition?
The current broiler production method is far from perfect, and it can even be said that there are many problems from technology to industry. However, these defects may be gradually improved through technological progress and industrial optimization. For consumers, unless they are satisfied with the "happiness" of eating chicken meat several times a year, they will indulge in the "previous chicken" and remember the happiness brought by a bicycle 30 years ago. .
About the Author:
Uncerebly Cloud, Bachelor of Chemical Engineering, Master of Biochemistry, Ph.D. in Food Engineering, Purdue University, Tsinghua University, Member of the Scientific Squirrel Society, Senior Member of the American Food Technology Association. Currently engaged in research and development of food raw materials in the United States. In the "Oriental Weekly", "China Weekly", "Reader Original" "Guangzhou Daily" "Fashion Parenting" and other media to open a personal column. Published the personal collection "The Truth About Eating," "The Truth About Eating 2" and the collection of four people entitled "Don't Fear". It is also one of the authors of the scientific squirrel collection "Cold Romance."