Woolworths - Whole Free Range Chicken Plain or With Apricot & Almond Stuffing $4.50/kg (Save $2.49/kg) [NSW, QLD, ACT]

Related Stores

Woolworths

• 

  jv on 10/05/2016 - 11:05

  With Apricot & Almond Stuffing

  yuck !!!

  My local Woolies often has the normal ones sold out with stacks of the Apricot & Almond ones left unsold.

  • 

    Jamiea on 10/05/2016 - 11:18

    +1

    Cool story jv

    • 

      jv on 10/05/2016 - 11:19

      +4

      Thanks.

      The movie will be out later this year…

  • 

    terrys on 10/05/2016 - 11:20

    +2

    Possibly because many foodies will be thinking "Pre-stuffed Chicken - What could possibly go wrong?" $4.50 for chook is good, the same amount for flavoured breadcrumbs…

    • 

      jv on 10/05/2016 - 11:21

      +1

      What could possibly go wrong.

      Try making chicken soup with it…

      • 

        terrys on 10/05/2016 - 11:22

        The apricot doesn't go with the pine-nuts and uneaten pie crusts. A curry OTOH…

    • 

      bargaino on 10/05/2016 - 11:31

      Yes, its so simple and quick to stuff a chicken, I can't imagine why anyone should buy pre-stuffed - yuck.
      (Unless buying a cooked one off the rotisserie, as JV said.)

  • 

    moocher on 10/05/2016 - 11:23

    I usually only buy the normal plain ones, but tried the stuffed one one day because I was lazy and had to feed a family. It was surprisingly good and everyone enjoyed it. May not be to everyone's tastes of course.

    • 

      jv on 10/05/2016 - 11:25

      +1

      I was lazy and had to feed a family

      you can get a whole roast chicken for $8 in the next aisle…

• 

  jv on 10/05/2016 - 11:27

  I did however pat dry the chicken and rub with olive oil and salt and pepper to get it crispier

  Next time, try Jamie Oliver's Beer butt chicken…

• 

  ozmu on 10/05/2016 - 11:27

  Woolies Free range label may be questionable. I prefer the Lilydale range in Coles.

  • 

    jv on 10/05/2016 - 11:29

    Wouldn't surprise me if they're the same product…

• 

  bargaino on 10/05/2016 - 11:28

  +2

  I think a lot of people are deceived by this.
  Unlike egg-farms, meat chickens are never kept in small cages, but always in barns.
  Some farms are much better than others, but "free range" has no legal or practical meaning in Australia.

  There is no reason I can see to believe Macro (http://www.frepa.com.au/) is any better or worse than "rspca approved".

  Either way the chooks "have access" to daylight, but may never have actually left the barn. Depends on their personality I suppose :-)

  • 

    fantombloo on 10/05/2016 - 14:01

    The only reason "meat chickens" are not kept in cages is because there is no compelling economic reason to do so. All animal-ag is driven by economics/utility over animal welfare. Further, all these chickens are physiological freaks, selectively bred and otherwise induced to grow at rates that, in a human context, would have 2 year old kids crippled by an obese 6-foot tall body. Chickens are in chronic suffering for this accelerated growth. Nothing is ever "better" about any chicken farming today.

    • 

      bargaino on 10/05/2016 - 14:44

      +1

      All animal-ag is driven by economics/utility over animal welfare.

      You mean Lilydale is not a holiday resort for chickens?

      and otherwise induced to grow

      What sinister mechanism are you implying? Yes, they are selectively bred to efficiently convert plant feed into yummy meat.

      But you are dishonest. They are not obese, they are muscular. Maybe they can't fly, but they sure can run. They may well develop all sorts of health problems if allowed to live to middle age, but that doesn't happen, does it?

      There are good farms and bad, but there is nothing intrinsically bad about the breeds. They do not suffer if cared for properly.
      You should be looking at pet dogs if you want to see what bad breeding can do.

      • 

        fantombloo on 10/05/2016 - 16:36

        Yes you are right - obese is the wrong word. My intent was to vividly portray their size.

        You say they develop health problems if allowed to live to middle age - not true. Mortality spikes soon after their saleable age. In fact, their saleable age is not so much determined by their weight (they'd be bred even heavier if possible for more $) but at a point where increased mortality offsets the weight gains of remaining birds. This is nowhere near middle age; chickens can live 10 years, some up to 20 years, these birds are killed at 50 days. Mortality is the end of distress and suffering - heart attacks, collapsing of their legs, etc. - they don't just "drop dead" instantly. And this is with medications and other supplements in their feed that is designed to keep them going as long as possible.

        The following table shows that in the last century chickens have increased in weight by 250% yet are killed at less than half the age they used to be. People have bred franken-chickens with no regard for their welfare, only for their utility as meat machines.

        http://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/sta…

        They can never be cared for properly while they are one in a sea of thousands of birds in a shed. These days people consume ten times the amount of chicken flesh they did a hundred years ago and there are less individual farmers. You can tell yourself anything but the fact is these chickens have horrible lives.

      • 

        NosDan on 10/05/2016 - 17:18

        +1

        @thevofa:

        Mortality spikes soon after their saleable age.

        yea, for about 99% of them, then they get packaged up and we eat them :)

      • 

        bargaino on 10/05/2016 - 18:07

        +2

        @thevofa:

        Has it occurred to you that those mortality numbers are very low? FAR lower than in the wild.
        There are still 3rd world countries where humans do worse.
        These are healthy, happy birds, compared to any wild animals.

        And less than two pounds of feed for one pound of bird - that's amazing efficiency.

      • 

        fantombloo on 10/05/2016 - 18:39

        -1

        @manic: 5% of chickens die in the barn die before they are 50 days old. The remaining 95% die at the slaughterhouse. That's lower than what?

        Look at what your saying: Birds destined to die as infants - less than 50 days old - are better off than those in the wild. Birds crammed in sheds with tens of thousands of others, without their mothers, usually getting no sunlight, no communal pecking order, no possibility for privacy, no dustbaths, no semblance at a natural life are better off than those in the wild. If you didn't have to justify your exploiting them would you actually believe that? You mentioned dogs previously - if dogs were bred in such conditions (I know they have their own hells) and destined for slaughter when they were pups there would be an outrage.

        This appeal to comparison with wild animals is just rubbish. Wild animals are left to their own devices and do what they want. We could place you in a straight jacket in a hospital prison with a thousand other people and pump you all with medications and keep you alive till you were 150 years old or whatever best saleable age - so what? Your life is not your own and hardly worth living. Less than 3% of all warm blooded animals on earth are "wild" - the rest are humans and our "livestock." The average age of a livestock animal is skewed by the 50+billion chickens killed per year - 50 days. There's nothing happy about that compared to animals that are free to live according to their own volition.

        And BTW that efficiency is 50% less than what I achieve every day without even thinking about it.

      • 

        bargaino on 10/05/2016 - 20:00

        What are you ranting about? I clearly said the infant mortality, which you claim to be so shocking, is actually better than wild birds. You are tearing off on several tangents.

        @thevofa:

        efficiency is 50% less than what I achieve every day without even thinking about it.

        Congratulations - but I don't think it would be ethical to clone and eat you.

      • 

        fantombloo on 10/05/2016 - 20:22

        @manic: I'm always bamboozled how people make light of killing innocent animals for pleasure. The things we do for money…. and chicken.

        Laterz.