Is chicken dodgier than other meats?

Pretani

I would like to gauge other peoples opinion on using chicken than other meat, especially for soups. My last two experiences have been bad experiences and what's most puzzling is that the first one was a free range and the second one was a cheap supermarket one. The first chicken soup (free range) tasted the better, but the soup went off the next day (which makes me think it was probably on it's last legs, which was unlucky to say the least)

The second chicken (a cheapy from supermarket) smelled nice and fresh, but wasn't as nice a taste. Unfortunately around 2 hours later, 2 of our family members had upset stomachs (nothing severe, just stomach pains and a quick spell in the toilet) and I've yet to ask our guest how he faired, as I'm embarrassed to.

My recent experience with chickens for soup has worried me, I eat chicken breasts regularly and have no problems, but really need some convincing that whole chickens for soup are safe.

Can anyone help?

Pink.

It sounds like your recent experience with chickens has been unfortunate. I've been using whole chickens to make soup and other dishes for well over twenty years and never had any problems at all.

I think it will depend on how the chicken has been stored (both prior to and after buying) If its been kept well chilled according to food safety guidelines and is within it's use by date there shouldn't be a problem. Likewise with the soup. Did you chill it and refridgerate it immediately?

If the chicken is stored correctly and cooked thoroughly (so that there is no pink coloured meat and the juices run clear) then I don't think it is likely to cause any more problems than any other type of meat.

Pink

Pretani

as for the storage of the birds, they're in the fridge.

The free range chicken was the last chicken on the shelf, this made me think about it's longevity after I cooked it. The cheap supermarket chicken was well dated, it smelled nice, but it may have been responsible for making 2 of my family ill. In fact, I believe it was responsible, yet it smelled nice.

Pink.

If despite it smelling fine, being within date and assuming it was cooked properly, you believe it was responsible for making your family ill perhaps you should contact the shop that sold the chicken to see if they had any other problems with that batch.

Pink

HariboJunkie

Pretani wrote: »

The cheap supermarket chicken was well dated, it smelled nice, but it may have been responsible for making 2 of my family ill. In fact, I believe it was responsible, yet it smelled nice.

If it smelled ok and appeared fresh and yet you are SURE it caused the illness in your family, then I'm afraid it was more likely that undercooking was the problem. In that sense, chicken IS dodgier than other meats because, like pork, it should always be thoroughly cooked.

Pretani

Pink-winged wrote: »

If despite it smelling fine, being within date and assuming it was cooked properly, you believe it was responsible for making your family ill perhaps you should contact the shop that sold the chicken to see if they had any other problems with that batch.

Pink

That's something we have thouht about, but the shop is well known.

HariboJunkie

Pretani wrote: »

That's something we have thouht about, but the shop is well known.

If it's well known and popular then all the more reason to take it back and ensure no one else becomes sick with chicken that is off but gives no outward indication that it is so. Not sure what else we can say about it.

Penelope_Penguin

Pretani wrote: »

.....it may have been responsible for making 2 of my family ill. In fact, I believe it was responsible, yet it smelled nice.

You have to be careful in confusing consequence (something that happened BECAUSE of something else) with subsequence (soemthing that happened AFTER something else, but was a coincidence). If the chicken smelt OK, chances are that it was.

Please look away now if you're squeamish :eek: The only way to tell is to take stool samples from the poorly people, along with samples of the chicken soup, and have them analysed. Public Health at your local Authority may be able to help you there

You can look again, now I've been making stocks from all sorts of cooked and raw meats for decades now (though possibly not quite as long as Pink :whistle: ) and we never have stomach upsets so I'm not sure how you can be so sure it was the chicken

I'll move your post to the Consumer Vent Board, where there may be others with similar experiences and more people may learn from your experience.

Penny. x

SaraSeahorse

just wanted to add that you should not rely on the smell of meat alone.

Foods can smell okay but still carry pathogens / cause illness

moonrakerz

Pretani wrote: »

I would like to gauge other peoples opinion on using chicken than other meat, especially for soups. My last two experiences have been bad experiences and what's most puzzling is that the first one was a free range and the second one was a cheap supermarket one. The first chicken soup (free range) tasted the better, but the soup went off the next day (which makes me think it was probably on it's last legs, which was unlucky to say the least)

The second chicken (a cheapy from supermarket) smelled nice and fresh, but wasn't as nice a taste. Unfortunately around 2 hours later, 2 of our family members had upset stomachs (nothing severe, just stomach pains and a quick spell in the toilet) and I've yet to ask our guest how he faired, as I'm embarrassed to.

My recent experience with chickens for soup has worried me, I eat chicken breasts regularly and have no problems, but really need some convincing that whole chickens for soup are safe.

Can anyone help?

If either chicken was "off", assuming you cooked it for the soup you would have killed any nasties in it anyway.
If you were in the loo 2 hours after eating something, the reason for your visit was not the food. It takes far longer for food to pass through your digestive tract than two hours. If there had been something wrong with what you ate you would have been throwing up, not sitting on the loo within two hours.

uktim29

moonrakerz wrote: »

If you were in the loo 2 hours after eating something, the reason for your visit was not the food. It takes far longer for food to pass through your digestive tract than two hours. If there had been something wrong with what you ate you would have been throwing up, not sitting on the loo within two hours.

Exactly what I was going to say.

People make things up a lot. Either it's an assumption it was the chicken or they didn't feel well the day after. People will often dramatically reduce the time it got to make them ill when they tell others, so they can pin point a food they think it might have been for example saying here it was two hours after eating when infact it might have been ages.

Either way the op needs to get their facts exact. Exactly how long was it since they had the chicken? Two hours?.........then it wasn't the chicken.

They want to be looking at what they had 8 to 24 hours ago at least.