0

votes

Bone Broth - chicken feet

Commented on April 10, 2015
Created April 02, 2015 at 1:59 PM

Question - does it make much of a difference whether or not chicken feet used for bone broth is organic? ??My local asian market sells non-organic for $2/lb, however the organic butcher sells them for $4.50/lb (the butcher said straight up that it is more expensive than usual because they don't get a lot of chicken feet in). ??Wondering if it's worth the additional cost (which I'm willing to pay if it makes sense).

Any inputs would be appreciated - thanks!

  • 9f03220fb4240da5aa05d40238f073f6

    asked by

    (0)
  • Views
    2K
  • Last Activity
    1507D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

5 Answers

1
4e184df9c1ed38f61febc5d6cf031921

(5005)

on April 04, 2015
at 07:43 AM

I wouldn't worry about whether or not the feet are organic. I search out organic everything when I can, but the feet??I'd use anyway. They are full of collagen, calcium and will make the stock fabulous. Interesting article here

http://hubpages.com/hub/Is-There-Any-Benefits-in-Eating-Chicken-Feet

Medium avatar

on April 04, 2015
at 12:19 PM

Why wouldnt the feet be able to store antibiotics, pesticides, and heavy metals like most other body parts? There is no reason feet are not as important to buy organic as any other body part is.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on April 04, 2015
at 03:19 PM

@foodrevolution, do you have anything but hand-wavey arguments that organic is so superior to non-organic? Quantify your claims. 

Medium avatar

on April 08, 2015
at 01:50 PM

@Matt_11 Its hardly any secret that industrial non-organic food production utilizes pesticides and antibiotics, among other things, and that these are carried over into the final product to at least some extent. And chicken production is the worst of all, at least that is the case in here in Europe and I hardly believe the US is much better in that respect (on the contrary, rather). We at least have caps on antibiotics use in our meat production, for example. The US doesnt. 

Medium avatar

on April 08, 2015
at 01:53 PM

@Matt_11 

"New study finds significant differences between organic and non-organic food In the largest study of its kind, an international team of experts led by Newcastle University, UK, has proved that organic crops and crop-based foods are up to 60% higher in a number of key antioxidants than conventionally-grown crops. Analysing 343 studies into the compositional differences between organic and conventional crops, the team found that a switch to eating organic fruit, vegetable and cereals – and food made from them – would provide additional antioxidants equivalent to eating between 1-2 extra portions of fruit and vegetables a day. The study, published today in the prestigious British Journal of Nutrition, also shows significantly lower levels of toxic heavy metals in organic crops. Cadmium, which is one of only three metal contaminants along with lead and mercury for which the European Commission has set maximum permitted contamination levels in food, was found to be almost 50% lower in organic crops than conventionally-grown ones. Newcastle University’s Professor Carlo Leifert, who led the study, says: “This study demonstrates that choosing food produced according to organic standards can lead to increased intake of nutritionally desirable antioxidants and reduced exposure to toxic heavy metals”."

http://research.ncl.ac.uk/nefg/QOF/page.php?page=1

0
Medium avatar

on April 10, 2015
at 01:43 PM

Another reason to be picky about the source of your bone broth ingredients:

http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/kdaniel/bone-broth-and-lead-contamination-a-very-flawed-study-in-medical-hypotheses/

"Several other studies have investigated the levels of lead found in the muscles and organs of conventionally raised chickens. ?? In each case, the lead appeared where it would be expected ??? i.e.?? in the bones, with much less in the skin and cartilage.62,63

Will any good come out of the shoddy Medical Hypotheses broth/lead study??? Yes, if it prompts more tests and better studies. ?? As Dr.?? Campbell-McBride puts it: ?? ???Many other practitioners now will test their meat stock and bone broth and the whole issue will receive a lot of attention, which in time will give us the full picture.???64

To that end, we would like to announce the results of testing performed by The National Food Lab on bone broth from grass-fed beef and pastured chicken from California.65 These two broths were prepared in stainless steel soup pots by the Three Stone Hearth Co-op in Berkeley.?? As tested on February 14, 2013 at a Minimum Detection Level of 10 parts per billion and again on March 1, 2013 with an MDL of 5 parts per billion, ??the results were as follows:

Grassfed beef broth. ?? No lead detected
Pastured chicken broth:?? No lead detected
Reverse osmosis water:?? No lead detected
The Weston A. Price Foundation plans to do further testing of broth, and it encourages consumers to know their farmers and the living conditions under which poultry and animals are raised.

The takeaway??? Dr. Campbell-McBride sums it up nicely.?? ?? ???As a whole, my position is unchanged:?? meat stock and bone broth are healing foods and they need to be made from the best quality grass-fed ecologically clean animals. . .??? 66 In other words, take care with the source of your broth."

0
Medium avatar

on April 08, 2015
at 01:53 PM

@Matt_11 (and anyone else interested)

 

"New study finds significant differences between organic and non-organic food In the largest study of its kind, an international team of experts led by Newcastle University, UK, has proved that organic crops and crop-based foods are up to 60% higher in a number of key antioxidants than conventionally-grown crops. Analysing 343 studies into the compositional differences between organic and conventional crops, the team found that a switch to eating organic fruit, vegetable and cereals and food made from them would provide additional antioxidants equivalent to eating between 1-2 extra portions of fruit and vegetables a day. The study, published today in the prestigious British Journal of Nutrition, also shows significantly lower levels of toxic heavy metals in organic crops. Cadmium, which is one of only three metal contaminants along with lead and mercury for which the European Commission has set maximum permitted contamination levels in food, was found to be almost 50% lower in organic crops than conventionally-grown ones. Newcastle University??s Professor Carlo Leifert, who led the study, says: This study demonstrates that choosing food produced according to organic standards can lead to increased intake of nutritionally desirable antioxidants and reduced exposure to toxic heavy metals."

http://research.ncl.ac.uk/nefg/QOF/page.php?page=1

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on April 08, 2015
at 03:11 PM

So a meta-analysis (aka we're too cheap to do our own study) of plants found that there was some difference between organic and non-organic. That's not surprising though. The question is the significance of it. Is the dose found in non-organic foods sufficient to cause a harmful effect relative to organic foods? And again, that goes for the benefits of more nutrition. Do the additional "nutrients" in organic foods  have documented benefit versus the baseline found in non-organic food. 

Much of the argument for organic food relies on a potentially fallicious 'naturalistic arguement'. 

 

And when it comes down to it, nutrition trumps optimization every day of the week. The magnitude of effect when it comes to getting a complete diet over an incomplete one is orders beyond comparing an organic diet versus a non-organic diet. 

Medium avatar

on April 10, 2015
at 10:52 AM

From Wikipedia:

"In statistics, meta-analysis comprises statistical methods for contrasting and combining results from different studies in the hope of identifying patterns among study results, sources of disagreement among those results, or other interesting relationships that may come to light in the context of multiple studies.[1] Meta-analysis can be thought of as "conducting research about previous research." In its simplest form, meta-analysis is done by identifying a common statistical measure that is shared between studies, such as aneffect size, and calculating a weighted average of that common measure. This weighting is usually related to the sample sizes of the individual studies, although it can also include other factors, such as study quality.

The motivation of a meta-analysis is to aggregate information in order to achieve a higher statistical power for the measure of interest, as opposed to a less precise measure derived from a single study."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis

Medium avatar

on April 10, 2015
at 10:51 AM

@Matt_11

"So a meta-analysis (aka we're too cheap to do our own study) of plants found that there was some difference between organic and non-organic. That's not surprising though. The question is the significance of it."

Lol. Meta-analyses are considered to yield more precise and more robust findings than single studies. Claiming that they conduct meta-analyses becuase they are "too cheap" and not understand the real significance of meta-analyses is to be scientifically illiterate. Meta-studies are often considered the most accurate and considered as decisive when authorities and others make up their minds about stuff, whether about nutrition or in any other field. They are thus way more powerful than a single study. And they contend in this study that the difference is (statistically) significant, this is the actual result of the study. However, translating it to one´s own context will entail a bunch of trade-offs and preferences (such as if one can or is willing to pay a premium or not). In my opinion, it is to err to dismiss low level but chronic exposure as irrelevant, especially given the fact that we have multiple sources of exposure these days, synergies between different toxic compounds, and accumulation (especially of such stuff as heavy metals, which happen to accumulate in bones, the stuff you make bone broth of).

And no, there is no fallacy at play here unless we count the fact that you dismiss science by claiming that the statement it provides factual backing to is "fallacious" and doing so without any evidence of your own. Now, that is a fallacy, kid.

Paleo is, as opposed to LCHF, to a large extent about food security and food quality and given much of conventional production methods, especially if you buy stuff produced from for example pollution-riddled China or American meat products full of antibiotics which kill your gut microflora (antibiotics use is severely restricted in certified organic production), I say sticking to certified organic foodstuffs is a good investment to make. And it is a decision that is all about nutrition. Contrary to what you seem to claim (at least implicitly), "nutrition" is not only about the ratio of macronutrients, but also about micronutrients and antinutrients and toxins and a lot more, which is very much a key issue in regards to buying certified organic food or not. It has, for example, been shown that certified organic foodstuffs are higher in micronutrients. Organic foodstuffs are thus more nutrient-dense and contain less compounds that can act as anti-nutrients and toxins. Are you claiming this is not relevant in terms of nutrition? 

Medium avatar

on April 10, 2015
at 01:44 PM

Another reason to be picky about the source of your bone broth ingredients:

http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/kdaniel/bone-broth-and-lead-contamination-a-very-flawed-study-in-medical-hypotheses/

"Several other studies have investigated the levels of lead found in the muscles and organs of conventionally raised chickens. ?? In each case, the lead appeared where it would be expected ??? i.e.?? in the bones, with much less in the skin and cartilage.62,63

Will any good come out of the shoddy Medical Hypotheses broth/lead study??? Yes, if it prompts more tests and better studies. ?? As Dr.?? Campbell-McBride puts it: ?? ???Many other practitioners now will test their meat stock and bone broth and the whole issue will receive a lot of attention, which in time will give us the full picture.???64

To that end, we would like to announce the results of testing performed by The National Food Lab on bone broth from grass-fed beef and pastured chicken from California.65 These two broths were prepared in stainless steel soup pots by the Three Stone Hearth Co-op in Berkeley.?? As tested on February 14, 2013 at a Minimum Detection Level of 10 parts per billion and again on March 1, 2013 with an MDL of 5 parts per billion, ??the results were as follows:

Grassfed beef broth. ?? No lead detected
Pastured chicken broth:?? No lead detected
Reverse osmosis water:?? No lead detected
The Weston A. Price Foundation plans to do further testing of broth, and it encourages consumers to know their farmers and the living conditions under which poultry and animals are raised.

The takeaway??? Dr. Campbell-McBride sums it up nicely.?? ?? ???As a whole, my position is unchanged:?? meat stock and bone broth are healing foods and they need to be made from the best quality grass-fed ecologically clean animals. . .??? 66 In other words, take care with the source of your broth."

0
Medium avatar

on April 04, 2015
at 12:17 PM

Of course it makes a BIG difference. Especially with stuff like bone and feet which are able to accumulate a lot of toxins, heavy metals, and stuff. Therefore you want your bone broth ingredients to be of as high quality as possible. If you can buy organic, then do it! Only caveat to that is to make sure that "organic" actually means certified organic and held to certified organic standards (as a minimum). Pastured, etc, is even more preferable.

Another caveat: buying stuff from China? Then you cant even be sure about the stuff that is certified organic (they systematically cheat and the environment there is alreadys o polluted as is).

0
9a1bb3dc5955d3dfb5798ec25eef6477

on April 03, 2015
at 12:32 PM

Of course it makes a difference, why would it not? The feet are a part of the bird just like the breast, wings, legs etc. In fact, the feet contain mostly fat which houses any undesirable toxins that may be found in conventional meat as opposed to leaner cuts.??

I would go with the organic, if you can swing it, for 2 reasons: 1. $2/lb isn't much of a deal for feet. That's pretty much the going rate. 2. I tend to steer clear of Asian meats. They have much lower standards for livestock than even our factory industry here in the US. If you can't afford $4.50 I can assure you you can find regular USDA feet for ~$2 elsewhere if you look hard enough.??

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!