Locally Procured Wild Game Culinary Trends in the US: A Study of the Ruffed Grouse as Entrée and Accompanying Nutritional Analysis

Introduction

A recent and growing trend in the United States has been an increase in consumers who are seeking and buying meat based on personal health concerns, ethical treatment of animals, and environmental awareness. They are looking for meat from animals that have not been treated with antibiotics or hormones and that are fed a more natural grass-based diet. Animal welfare is also of concern and consumers want assurances that the animals are treated well, have the ability to free range, and that the farming practices are sustainable and promote environmental conservation (Ellison and Brooks, 2017). Meat is being sold with consumer labels such as “Animal Welfare Approved”, “All Natural Grass-fed”, “Free Range”, “Cage Free”, “No Antibiotics or Hormones”. This consumer desire for healthy, free-range meat has created an uptick in people interested in hunting for their meat as wild game meat represents the epitome of this consumer trend (Tidball, 2016; Demartini et al., 2018). Beyond the health and environmental benefits presented by consumption of wild game meats, there is a concurrent trend toward gourmet treatment of wild fish and game, and the culinary game movement continues to trend upward in terms of interest and participation (see for example http://www.culinarytrends.net/Getting%20into%20the%20Game.html and https://www.eater.com/2017/10/25/16537266/arbys-venison-game-meat-popular-trend-elk-deer).

In the United States, hunter participation is critical to wildlife and habitat conservation as state and federal funding depends on hunting license revenue and excise taxes paid on hunting equipment. Wild game meat is free of medicines, is able to live freely, lives in harmony with its environment, and is reasonably available on public lands. The nutritional health benefits of wild game meat are largely assumed from observation of leanness; however, many wild game species do not have research based nutritional analysis listed in the USDA/NDL (Tidball et al., 2014b). In response to this culinary trend of meat consumption and missing nutritional data, the authors sought to fill information gaps of popularly hunted wild game and fish species in the northeast area of the USA. They received grant funding from the United States Department of Agriculture's National Institute for Food and Agriculture to collect nutritional information for Brook Trout (Tidball et al., 2017), Canada Goose, and Ruffed Grouse. This paper focuses on Ruffed Grouse.

Ruffed Grouse meat is very lean white meat with a delicate flavor. Often referred to as “road chicken” the meat can be cooked in very similar fashion to chicken and is an epicurean delight. The 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends consuming lean meats and poultry as a healthy source of dietary protein (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2015). Accordingly, consumption of chicken meat has risen exponentially in the USA over the past few decades with the perception that lean chicken meat is a healthier option than more fat laden red meat. Up until the study this paper describes, there was no way of knowing if Ruffed Grouse meat was nutritionally comparable to lean, domestic chicken. The authors of this study set to find out if Ruffed Grouse meat could definitively be considered a lean source of meat protein by calculating the nutritional profile of Ruffed Grouse.

With the rise of discerning consumer demand for healthy meat, it's important to have nutrition information about wild caught game and fish. Nutrition labeling helps consumers identify healthy food choices and now some food manufacturers are voluntarily including easy to read nutrition information on the front of packages to help inform consumers food choices (Lim et al., 2020). According to the U.S.A. Health and Diet national consumer survey conducted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 77% of U.S. adults reported using the Nutrition Facts label always, most of the time, or sometimes when buying a food product and 79% of adults reported using the label often or sometimes when buying a product for the first time. When the label was used, it was most often used to discover the nutrient contents of a product or to compare nutrient contents between products (Lin, 2014). Nutrition knowledge supports food label use (Soederberg Miller and Cassady, 2015). An area that warrants further investigation involves the extent to which labeling, and comprehension of that labeling, influences meat consumption choices. Much of the labeling on meat packaging in retail outlets exists for marketing purposes to help consumers with decisions, such as “Animal Welfare Approved” or “95% lean”. One study, using national USA survey data, showed a majority of respondents thought that it was very important that meat labels contain information regarding nutrition, ingredients, health claim, and production process, respectively; this labeling information informed purchases of meat and consumption (Rimal, 2005). Wild-caught game and fish are assumed to have many health attributes, but recipes using wild-caught game and fish are mostly unable to be labeled for consumers. Additionally, having the nutritional profiles for wild game and fish species provides the ability to know the nutrition content and compare it to other meat choices.

Hunting as a Part of Local Food Systems

Reports suggest that interest in consuming food that is grown, raised, produced, or harvested locally has increased substantially (Cotler, 2009; Tidball et al., 2013; Stedman et al., 2017). This “locavore” interest has attracted attention in popular circles [see for example Pollan (2006), Cotler (2009), and Cerulli (2012)]. Similar narratives appear in print media such as newspapers (Ruth-McSwain, 2012) and magazines (Andres, 2014). A recent review of popular media and use of the term “locavore” in conjunction with the word “hunting” (using internet search engines) yielded >53,600 search results (Tidball, 2016). This growth of interest in local foods has outpaced researchers' knowledge about who is motivated by local foods and what influences their preferences and behavior. Nevertheless, some important insights are beginning to emerge (Tidball et al., 2014a; Stedman et al., 2017).

Embedded in a larger food-related movement, local food preferences are expressed by consumers and producers who desire a healthier, more sustainable lifestyle via utilization of localized food systems (see Applewick, 2007; Coit, 2008; Starr, 2010; DeLind, 2011; Ikerd, 2011; Tidball et al., 2013). For some, eating locally sourced food is related to personal ethical beliefs and a rejection of mass-produced or chemically enhanced produce, meat, fish, and poultry (Pollan, 2006; Cerulli, 2012). Others are attracted by perceived safety and higher nutritional quality (Tidball et al., 2014a) of home grown foods, and a strong desire to support small farms and rural communities (Nie and Zepeda, 2011; Byker C, 2012; Stanton et al., 2012). However, because some local food sources can be inconvenient, expensive, or difficult to find, accessibility can be a barrier to local food consumption (Lockeretz, 1986; Eastwood et al., 1999; Nie and Zepeda, 2011). Increased recognition of the personal health and conservation benefits associated with consumption of wild-caught, locally harvested fish and game has moved thinking about local foods beyond its agricultural crop and livestock roots. Many who express preferences for eating locally sourced foods include local wild fish and game in their diets (Pollan, 2006; Zepeda and Li, 2006; Bruckner, 2007; Tidball et al., 2014a).

Ruffed Grouse

The Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus), or “partridge” is a prized game bird of mixed and northern hardwood forests in the United States and Canada (Figure 1). They are the most widely distributed game bird on the continent, found in 38 states and 13 Canadian provinces (Aldrich, 1963). Ruffed Grouse prefer a combination of openings, brush, and mixed forests. The birds are associated with disturbed forest habitats, and respond well to successional changes on abandoned farmlands, or logging activities in forests (Bump et al., 1947; Gullion, 1977a). The border between a forest and field creates an edge effect, and this ecotone is attractive to grouse and other wildlife. Good grouse habitat also benefits woodcock (Scolopax minor), cotton-tailed rabbits (Sylvilagus floridanus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and many songbird species.

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. The Ruffed Grouse game bird, with extravagant display, including erecting long neck feathers to create a black “ruff” and fanning the tail, exposing a dark band near the tip. Photo courtesy of Lucas Bobay, Macaulay Library, Cornell University Lab of Ornithology.

In northern areas where snow covers the ground from late November to early April, the continental distribution of Ruffed Grouse closely coincides with the distribution of aspen (Populus tremuloides, P. grandidentata) cover (Gullion, 1977b). Staminate flower buds and catkins of mature aspen serve as an important winter food resource (Svoboda and Gullion, 1972). It is in these aspen forests that grouse are often most abundant. The aspen ecosystem also provides important habitat for many other forest wildlife species (Flack, 1976) and occurs on about 25% of the forested lands in North America north of Mexico (Gullion, 1977a).

Typical of forest grouse, Ruffed Grouse are primarily browsers, foraging on the buds, twigs, leaves, and fruits of various forest herbs, shrubs, and trees. In non-aspen forest types, the density and quality of understory vegetation determines the potential use as Ruffed Grouse habitat. If the density of tall shrubs is >2,000 stems per acres, the area is often attractive to grouse, even in northern hardwood or conifer stands (DeStefano et al., 2001). Shrubs that provide important food and cover for grouse include speckled alder (Alnus incana), common winterberry (Ilex verticillata), red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), hazelnut (Corylus americana), and prickly ash (Zanthoxylum americanum).

Ruffed Grouse are non-migratory, and spend their lives in a small area, as little as 6 to 10 acres (Gullion, 1977b). Males are known for “drumming,” a rapid wing beat males use to attract females during the breeding season. Hens mate once per year in spring, and she will select a nest site, incubate her eggs, and rear the chicks with no assistance from the male grouse. Hens typically lay around 10 eggs and incubate them for about 3 weeks. Once the chicks hatch and are dried, the hen leaves the nest site and raises the young for 8 to 10 weeks. Usually only 3 or 4 chicks from a brood will survive the summer months. Mortality is high during winter, and only about 45% of the young grouse alive in September will survive until spring.

Grouse hunters love the formidable sporting challenge that these birds present. Thousands of hunters are drawn to the woods each fall, as grouse hunting is truly “wild” bird hunting. The birds fly fast in thick cover and present difficult shooting even for experienced hunters. Grouse are often referenced as the “king” of game birds because of the sporting challenge of hunting them and in particular, the Ruffed Grouse because of its distinctive dark feathered neck ruffle.

Eating the Ruffed Grouse

The culinary praises and accolades earned by the Ruffed Grouse are historical and numerous. A letter from an enthusiastic traveler named John Bartram sent to England about 1752 and quoted by George Edwards, an English naturalist and ornithologist, known as the “father of British ornithology”, reports of the Ruffed Grouse that “their flesh is white and good.” John James Audubon, noted American ornithologist, naturalist, and painter opined that the grouse “far surpass, as an article of food, every other land bird except the wild turkey.” Even today in Great Britain, the start of the grouse season is much anticipated and has long been named The Glorious Twelfth (of August). Since the British Game Act passed in 1831, The Glorious Twelfth has been diligently celebrated with much shooting, chasing of grouse, and fancy London restaurants serving it on the menu with keen competition among chefs to be the first to serve grouse at the beginning of the grouse hunting season. The species of grouse hunted in Great Britain is primarily red grouse (Lagopus lagopus scotica) which is a darker meat and more gamey in flavor than the Ruffed Grouse, yet popular press (See for example https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/grouse-shooting-12-facts-about-the-glorious-12th/) extol the red grouse for being a delicacy and having less fat and more protein than roast chicken meat. Grouse is traditionally served in UK restaurants is roasted, slightly rare, and with a bread sauce made of milk, butter, nutmeg, and breadcrumbs. In the United States wild caught grouse cannot be served in restaurants and grouse is very hard and expensive to raise domestically, so the meat can only be acquired through hunting. This rarity makes it even more prized as a culinary treat and also protects the species from over-hunting for market sales.

An adult Ruffed Grouse weighs between 1 to 1½ pounds in feathers and will dress out to serve about 2 people. The L.L Bean Game and Fish Cookbook suggests that “grouse do not come in prodigal numbers” and the “quantity of grouse on hand can be stretched with a hearty hors d'oeuvre course” when serving guests, indicating the culinary treat/rarity it represents. The breast meat is white and can be prepared similar to many chicken recipes, with the cook taking care not to overcook the meat because it is much leaner than chicken breast meat. Sauces and barding (wrapping in bacon or similar fat) help to keep the meat moist and tender. The legs do not have much meat yet can be braised and cooked down to make delectable sauces to serve with the breast meat. Ruffed Grouse is delicious braised with mushrooms and served with toast spread with a liver pate, and there are numerous other gourmet and simple ways to prepare Ruffed Grouse meat.

Safety Considerations

Consumption of Ruffed Grouse poses no significant health or safety concern beyond the precautions that should be taken with any other form of “poultry” or game meat, and the potential hazard to dentition by failing to remove shot pellets from meat to be eaten. However, an interesting caveat is appropriate here. According to Bloom and Grivetti (2001), the anomalous sickness called “partridge poisoning” counted as one of the more notorious forms of food poisoning in eastern North America during the late 1800's and early, 1900's, but it disappeared before its etiology could be properly analyzed. These scholars muse that the circumstances of its departure are still a mystery; that it may be that the conditions for the disease's appearance were terminated by the suppression of winter hunting of Ruffed Grouse, which happened to restrict harvesting of the birds at the time of year they were most apt to feed heavily on toxic mountain laurel plants. There have been no recorded instances of partridge poisoning since the early, 1900's and the last instance of its mention in medical publications was in, 1944 (Christian, 1944).

Methods

Materials and Sampling

The research plan was established by USDA/NDL scientists requiring six different birds to be harvested from three specific geographic regions and detailed collection and field dressing protocols (Appendix A) for the hunters. The Ruffed Grouse were hunted in the legal fall hunting season of, 2012 by wildlife biologists in the states of New York, Minnesota, and Vermont. From these states, 4, 1, and 1 bird, respectively, were obtained. The hunters kept harvested birds on dry ice and provided them to Cornell University staff. Collection of weights, feather and skin removal, and dissection of birds was conducted at Cornell University. Each Ruffed Grouse was carefully dissected to remove the edible portion from the skin and bone. Only boneless, skinless breast samples were used for the study. Each breast portion weight was recorded (Table 1). All breast samples were shipped on dry ice to the Food Analysis Laboratory and Control Center at Virginia Tech University. There the samples were combined by location into two analytical composites composed of 3 birds per composite. Composites were homogenized with liquid nitrogen, placed in jars and stored frozen at −65°C until they were shipped to USDA-appointed analytical laboratories. Samples were analyzed (n = 2) for proximates (moisture, protein, total fat, and ash), calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, zinc, riboflavin, niacin, thiamin, vitamin B6, vitamin B12, cholesterol and fatty acids using Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) or other validated methods (Table 2). Quality assurance was monitored through the use of standard reference materials, in-house control materials, and random duplicate sampling. Analytical data were sent to USDA/NDL where they were thoroughly reviewed for quality control, compiled and released into the USDA food composition database. Full nutrient profiles are available at https://ndb.nal.usda.gov.

TABLE 1

Table 1. Location and dissection data for Ruffed Grouse.

TABLE 2

Table 2. Assay methods used for nutrient analyses of Ruffed Grouse collected in New York, Minnesota, and Vermont, 2012.

Analytical Methods

Macronutrients, vitamins, minerals, were assayed. Standard and/or published methods were used, consistent with the methods of analysis for other foods in the USDA National Food and Nutrient Analysis Program (NFNAP) (Haytowitz et al., 2008). Samples of well-characterized control composites (CC) with established tolerance limits developed for the National Food and Nutrient Analysis Program and/or certified reference materials (CRMs) were included in each analytical run to validate results (Phillips et al., 2006). CRMs were obtained from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST, Gaithersburg, MD) (SRM^® 2383 Babyfood, SRM^® 2387 Peanut Butter) and the Institute of Reference Materials and Methods (Geel, Belgium; purchased from RT Corp., Laramie, WY) (CRM 485 Lyophilized Mixed Vegetables, CRM 431 Lyophilized Brussel Sprouts). Results for the CCs and CRMs analyzed with the samples were compared to the certified ranges (for the CRM) and to established in-house tolerance limits (for the CC) to validate the accuracy of the measurements.

Results

The nutritional content of raw boneless skinless Ruffed Grouse was analyzed and the results are now listed in the USDA food composition databases. The USDA Food Composition Database contains nutrient data for over 8,600 foods. It is considered the authoritative and major source of nutrient data for food products consumed in the United States. Consumers have access to the nutritional content of specific foods on a searchable database that is currently available online at https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/. The following chart is the full report of all nutrients analyzed for Ruffed Grouse meat (Table 3).

TABLE 3

Table 3. Profile for Ruffed Grouse.

Discussion

Fitting with Dietary Guidelines for American's recommendation to consume “lean protein” sources, the results of this study indicate that Ruffed Grouse meat is high in protein and very low in total fat content. Compared to highly consumed domestic, boneless, skinless chicken breast meat, Ruffed Grouse has more protein per 100 gram serving (25.9 g vs. 22.5 g), less calories (112 kcal vs. 120 kcal), and significantly less total fat (0.88 g vs. 2.62 g) and saturated fat (0.13 g vs. 0.56 g). The cholesterol content of grouse is also lower than domestic chicken (40 mg vs. 73 mg), which represents roughly 13% of recommended total daily intake. Much of the vitamin and mineral content of Ruffed Grouse compared to chicken were similar with grouse having slightly higher amounts of iron, magnesium, phosphorous, sodium, riboflavin, and niacin. Chicken meat had slightly higher amounts of potassium, zinc, and Vitamin A (see Table 4). These nutritional differences are likely due to the differing diets and exercise of domestically raised chickens vs. wild, foraging birds, Ruffed Grouse.

TABLE 4

Table 4. Ruffed grouse nutrient content compared to domestically raised chicken meat.

Beyond nutritional health benefits potentially derived from consumers replacing or augmenting their current white meat consumption with Ruffed Grouse meat are the healthful benefits of pursuing and procuring Ruffed Grouse. The, 2017–2018 New York State Grouse hunter study data referenced earlier [New York State Department of Environment Conservation (NYS DEC), 2018] reveal that hunters participating in the survey logged 25 h afield during the, 2017–18 season. They took about 9 trips afield for the season and spent about 3 h afield per trip. If we credit them with a very modest 1.5 mile per hour pace on these walks in the woods with gun in hand to procure Ruffed Grouse, then we can estimate that that these hunters are getting a roughly 4.5 mile walk in each outing. This derivative health and wellness benefit is accrued whether successful in harvesting a grouse or not, and is on top of the multitude of benefits being attributed generally to time spent outdoors (Samson and Pretty, 2006; Abram, 2012).

Consumers of Ruffed Grouse meat will likely be glad to know the nutritional content of the meat that they enjoy, but will the knowledge of the nutritional content of Ruffed Grouse meat create larger consumption of or more acceptance of Ruffed Grouse? This is hard to determine. Recipes often include nutrition information and now these nutritional fact labels can be generated for Ruffed Grouse recipes (example Figure 2). This may add some legitimacy to the idea of consuming this healthful meat for consumers who might otherwise be averse to eating wild game.

FIGURE 2

Figure 2. Braised Ruffed Grouse white nutrition fact label. Source: www.wildharvesttable.com.

Some people object to even trying wild game meats and could be considered “neophobic” eaters who are unwilling to try new or unusual food (Veeck, 2010). One study, suggests that epistemic values can influence consumers' willingness to eat game meat and be positively influenced by curiosity and the desire for knowledge about food (D'Souza, 2022). Perhaps the possibility of adding nutrition information to wild game recipes will contribute to a kind of normalizing of wild game meat, increasing consumer willingness to sample it or accept it. This warrants further study and discussion that is beyond the scope of this particular study.

Grouse meat is also challenging to harvest. During the, 2017/2018 grouse hunting season in New York State, a grouse hunter spent an average of, 19 h of hunting and harvested an average of one bird [New York State Department of Environment Conservation (NYS DEC), 2018]. The most successful grouse hunters have well trained hunting dogs to assist them, making grouse hunting less accessible to the average hunter. Perhaps these challenges in successfully harvesting a bird, help create a sense of preciousness and even more appreciation for the meat. And though one could argue that promoting the healthfulness of grouse meat consumption might increase pressure on grouse populations, state conservation agencies set limits on how many animals can be harvested and at what times of year to avoid over hunting of wild game species. Ruffed Grouse can be part of a healthy diet but is not likely to be eaten in quantity throughout the year.

A final consideration that merits brief discussion has to do with the manner of taking or procuring gamebirds. Generally, game birds are harvested using shotguns that down the flying birds. Flying gamebirds are disabled and dispatched by lead shot. Some of this lead shot remain in the carcass of the harvested bird and should be removed to mitigate ingestion or possible tooth damage. There are ongoing discussions regarding use of lead in procuring game meat (see Streater, 2009; Gerofke et al., 2018), but those discussions are well beyond the scope of this study.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that gaps in nutritional information for wild caught fish and game can be filled using established research and laboratory protocols. The availability of nutritional data for Ruffed Grouse contributes greater scientific understanding in the area of inquiry dealing with nutritional comparison of wild caught vs. domestically raised foods, while addressing a gap in nutritional knowledge. It also adds legitimacy to claims that wild game birds such as the Ruffed Grouse are healthful foods and an important component of rural local food systems. Though nutrition fact labeling is not required for meats, accurate nutrition labels can now be generated for recipes that include Ruffed Grouse. It is now possible to compare the major nutritional components of Ruffed Grouse to other wild and domestic forms of poultry. Still, many game birds that are legal to catch and consume do not have nutritional information in the USDA Food Composition Databases. The satisfaction of procuring your own dinner, knowing exactly where your food comes from, plus the value of nature interaction may add to the nutritional health benefits of hunting and consuming wild game birds (Tidball et al., 2014a,b). Further, because of where Ruffed Grouse are generally found, hunters who seek Ruffed Grouse may develop a greater appreciation of the surroundings within which they thrive and may further engage forest restoration projects and other conservation activities.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Materials. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Ethics Statement

The animal study was reviewed and approved by Cornell University Internal Review Board.

Author Contributions

KT provided overall manuscript supervision, significant writing and literature review, and supporting sample procurement. MT provided nutritional analysis, supervised sample method and analysis, and contributed to manuscript writing. PC provided wildlife biology review and writing on ruffed grouse. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Funding

This work was supported by a joint research under 2011-12-140 and extension program funded by the Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station (Hatch/Multistate funds) and Cornell Cooperative Extension (Smith Lever funds) received from the National Institutes of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Author Disclaimer

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of USDA.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Juhi Williams and Janet Roseland with the USDA Methods and Application of Food Composition Laboratory (formerly Nutrient Data Laboratory) for assistance with nutritional analysis, composition, and compilation of Ruffed Grouse meat samples. We also would like to acknowledge Andy Weik, former field biologist with the Ruffed Grouse Society, for assistance in collecting grouse birds for sampling and analysis.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2022.852163/full#supplementary-material

References

Abram, T. (2012). Health Benefits of Hunting: Hunting has Nutrition and Health Benefits. Michigan State University Cooperative Extension.

Aldrich, J. W. (1963). Geographic orientation of American tetraonidae. J. Wildlife Manag. 27, 529–545. doi: 10.2307/3798463

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Andres, J. (2014). Farmers markets and our future. Natl. Geogr. Available online at: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/chef-jose-andres-on-farmers-markets

Applewick, L. (2007). Oxford Word of the Year: Locavore. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Available online at: http://blog.oup.com/2007/11/locavore/

Association of Official Analytical Chemists. (2011). Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International. 18th ed. Gaithersburg MD: AOAC International. Available online at: https://buffalo.extension.wisc.edu/files/2011/01/A-Landowner-Guide-to-Woodland-Wildlife-Management.pdf

Google Scholar

Bloom, K. J., and Grivetti, L. E. (2001). The Mysterious History of Partridge Poisoning. J. Hist. Med. Allied Sci. 56, 68–76. doi: 10.1093/jhmas/56.1.68

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bruckner, D. W. (2007). Considerations on the morality of meat consumption: hunted game vs. farm-raised animals. J. Social Philos. 38, 311–330. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9833.2007.00381.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bump, G., Darrow, R. W., Edminster, F. C., and Crissey, W. F. (1947). Ruffed Grouse: Life History-Propagation-Management. Albany, New York, USA: New York Conservation Department. 915pp.

Google Scholar

Byker, C, Shanks, J, Misyak, S, and Serrano, E. (2012). Characterizing farmers' market shoppers: a literature review. J. Hunger Environ. Nutr. 7, 38–52. doi: 10.1080/19320248.2012.650074

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cerulli, T. (2012). The Mindful Carnivore: A Vegetarian's Hunt for Sustenance. Berkeley: Pegasus Books.

Google Scholar

Christian, H. A. (1944). The Principles and Practice of Medicine, Originally Written by Sir William Osler. New York, NY: Appleton-Century.

Google Scholar

Coit, M. (2008). Jumping on the next bandwagon: An overview of the policy and legal aspects of the local food movement. J. Food Law Policy. 4. Retrieved from: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jflp/vol4/iss1/4

Google Scholar

Cotler, A. (2009). The Locavore Way: Discover and Enjoy the Pleasures of Locally Grown Food. North Adams, Massachusetts: Storey.

Google Scholar

DeLind, L. (2011). Are local food and the local food movement taking us where we want to go? Or are we hitching our wagons to the wrong stars? Agricult. Human Values. 28, 273–283. doi: 10.1007/s10460-010-9263-0

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Demartini, E., Vecchiato, D., Tempesta, T., and Gaviglio, A. (2018). Consumer preferences for red deer meat: a discrete choice analysis considering attitudes towards wild game meat and hunting. Meat Sci. 146, 168–179. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.07.031

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

DeStefano, S., Craven, S. R., Ruff, R. L., Covell, D. F., and Kubisiak, J. F. (2001). A Landowner's Guide to Woodland Wildlife Management with Emphasis on the Ruffed Grouse. Publication #G3578, University of Wisconsin-Extension, Madison, Wisconsin. 55pp.

Google Scholar

D'Souza, C. (2022). Game meats: consumption values, theory of planned behaviour, and the moderating role of food neophobia/neophiliac behaviour. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 66, 102953. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.102953

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Eastwood, D. B., Brooker, J. R., and Gray, M. D. (1999). Location and other market attributes affecting farmer's market patronage: the case of Tennessee. J. Food Distrib. Res. 30, 63–72.

Google Scholar

Ellison, B., and Brooks, K. (2017). Which Livestock Production Claims Matter most to Consumers? Agricul. Human Values. 34, 819–831. doi: 10.1007/s10460-017-9777-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Flack, J. A. D. (1976). Bird populations of aspen forests in western North America. Ornithol. Monogr. 19, 1–97. doi: 10.2307/40166754

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gerofke, A., Ulbig, E., Martin, A., Müller-Graf, C., Selhorst, T., and Gremse, C. (2018). Lead content in wild game shot with lead or non-lead ammunition—Does state of the art consumer health protection require non-lead ammunition? PLoS ONE 13, e0200792. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200792

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gullion, G. W. (1977a). Forest manipulation for Ruffed Grouse. Transac N Am Wildlife Nat Resour Conf. 42, 449–458.

Google Scholar

Gullion, G. W. (1977b). Improving your Forested Lands for Ruffed Grouse. Rochester, New York, USA: Briddon Press, Inc. 34pp.

Haytowitz, D. B., Pehrsson, P. R., and Holden, J. M. (2008). The National Food and Analysis Program: a decade of progress. J. Food Compos. Anal. 21, S94–S102. doi: 10.1016/j.jfca.2007.07.006

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ikerd, J. E. (2011). Local food: revolution and reality. J. Agricult. Food Inf. 12, 49–57. doi: 10.1080/10496505.2011.540557

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lim, J. H., Rishika, R., Janakiraman, R., and Kannan, P. K. (2020). Competitive effects of front-of-package nutrition labeling adoption on nutritional quality: evidence from facts up front–style labels. J. Market. 84, 3–21. doi: 10.1177/0022242920942563

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lin, C-. T. J. (2014). FDA Health and Diet Survey Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Food and Drug Administration. (Contact: Chung-Tung.Lin@fda.hhs.gov).

Lockeretz, W. (1986). Urban consumers' attitudes towards locally grown produce. Am. J. Altern. Agricult. 1, 83–88. doi: 10.1017/S0889189300000941

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

New York State Department of Environment and Conservation (NYS DEC). (2018). Cooperator Ruffed Grouse and American Woodcock Hunting Log. Available online at: https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/grouselogrpt17.pdf

Nie, C., and Zepeda, L. (2011). Lifestyle segmentation of U.S. food shoppers to examine organic and local food consumption. Appetite. 57, 28–37. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2011.03.012

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Phillips, K. M., Patterson, K. Y., Rasor, A. S., Exler, J., Haytowitz, D. B., Holden, J. M., et al. (2006). The role of quality control and reference materials in the National Food and Nutrient Analysis Program. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 384, 1341–1355. doi: 10.1007/s00216-005-0294-0

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pollan, M. (2006). The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. New York: Penguin Press.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Rimal, A. (2005). Meat labels: consumer attitude and meat consumption pattern. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 29, 47–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00374.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ruth-McSwain, A. (2012). Eating green: coverage of the locavore movement. J. Exten. 50, Art 7.

Google Scholar

Samson, C., and Pretty, J. (2006). Environmental and health benefits of hunting lifestyles and diets for the Innu of Labrador. Food Policy 31, 528–553. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.02.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Soederberg Miller, L. M., and Cassady, D. L. (2015). The Effects of Nutrition Knowledge on Food Label Use. A Review of the Literature, Appetite, Vol 92. p. 207–216, ISSN 0195-6663, 05, 029. Available online at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666315002743

Google Scholar

Stanton, J. L., Wiley, J. B., and Wirth, F. F. (2012). Who are the locavores? J. Consum. Market. 29, 248–261. doi: 10.1108/07363761211237326

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Starr, A. (2010). Local Food: A social movement? Cult. Stud. Crit. Methodol. 10, 479–490. doi: 10.1177/1532708610372769

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Stedman, R. C., Larson, L. R., Tidball, K. G., Tidball, M., and & Curtis, P. D. (2017). Hunting and the local food movement: Insights from central New York State. Wildlife Soc. Bull. 41, 720–728. doi: 10.1002/wsb.802

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Streater, S. (2009). Wild Meat Raises Lead Exposure: Tests by the CDC show that eating venison and other game can raise the amounts of lead in human bodies by 50 percent. Sci. Am. Newslett. 28, 2009. Available online at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wild-game-deer-venison-condors-meat-lead-ammunition-ban/

Svoboda, F. J., and Gullion, G. W. (1972). Preferential use of aspen by Ruffed Grouse in northern Minnesota. J. Wildlife Manag. 36, 1166–80. doi: 10.2307/3799245

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tidball, K. G. (2016). A New Orion—Locavore, Hipster, Hunger Games Survivor? Who are the Next Generation of Hunters? Available online at: http://tidballatcornell.blogspot.com/2016/03/cce-summer-internship-work-new-orion.html (accessed April 25, 2022).

Tidball, K. G., Tidball, M., Larson, L. R., Curtis, P., Poindexter, L., and Stedman, R. C. (2014a). Locavore preferences for wild fish and game: Implications for wildlife recreation in New York State. Ithaca, NY, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University: Human Dimensions Research Unit Series Publication.

Google Scholar

Tidball, K. G., Tidball, M. M., and & Curtis, P. (2013). Extending the Locavore Movement to Wild Fish and Game: Questions and Implications. Nat. Sci. Educ. 42, 185–189. doi: 10.4195/nse.2013.0024

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tidball, M. M., Exler, J., Somanchi, M., Williams, J., Kraft, C., Curtis, P., and Tidball, K. G. (2017). Addressing Information Gaps in Wild-Caught Foods in the US: Brook Trout Nutritional Analysis for Inclusion into the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference. J. Food Compos. Anal. 60, 57–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jfca.2017.03.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tidball, M. M., Tidball, K. G., and Curtis, P. (2014b). The Absence of Wild Game and Fish Species from the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference: Addressing Information Gaps in Wild Caught Foods. Ecol. Food Nutr. 53, 142–148. doi: 10.1080/03670244.2013.792077

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

U.S. Department of Health Human Services U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2015). 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 8th Edition. Available online at: https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/

Google Scholar

Veeck, A. (2010). Encounters with Extreme Foods: Neophilic/Neophobic Tendencies and Novel Foods. J. Food Prod. Market. 16, 246–260. doi: 10.1080/10454440903413316

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zepeda, L., and Li, L. (2006). Who buys local food? J. Food Distrib. Res. 37, 1–11.

Google Scholar