From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Poultry (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poultry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poultry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
  • "A whole lot of stuffing going on". Computing (magazine). January 5, 2006.  ()

Nested birds, old and new[edit]

We're not quite in medieval times yet, but the Yorkshire Christmas pie, which might well deserve its own article, pushes the turducken timeline back about a century before the rôti sans pareil.

Also, I wasn't able to incorporate this little tidbit in the article, but it's too good to pass up. Grimod de La Reynière cites the following humorous little tale from Les Étrennes de la Saint Jean, given below:

Il y avoit une fois un honnête Boucher, qui avoit bien plus d'argent que d'esprit, duquel il fit l'usage qui s'ensuit. On l'avoit invité de faire une Galanterie à sa Maitresse ; il rêva donc si long-tems, que le Mardi-Gras arriva ; comme il n'y avoit plus de tems à perdre, il imagina de lui envoyer un Bœuf, dans lequel il y avoit un Cochon, qui renfermoit un Veau, où étoit contenu un Mouton, où l'on avoit mis un Poulet - d'Inde, lequel contenoit un Chapon du Mans, garni en dedans d'une Bartavelle, où se trouvoit un Ortolan ; & ainsi toujours en diminuant, l'un dans l'autre, jusqu'à une petite Moviette, dans laquelle , pour finir, il avoit écrit un Billet de Déclaration, en ces termes : "Si le contenu du présent Billet est agréable à Mademoiselle, je préfererois la Moviette à l'Ortolan, Perdrix, Chapon, Dindon, Mouton, Veau & Cochon, & je m'estimerois plus heureux que ce Bœuf gras."

Les Étrennes de la Saint Jean. 1751. "Galanteries nouvelles d'un Marchand Boucher à sa Maîtresse." p. 122-123. [1]

Also, could someone more familiar with English cooking flesh out the paragraph on three-bird roasts? (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

New Developments[edit]

The Turducken is now widely available in canada, so the last line of the first paragraph of this article needs to be changed, since it is no longer a dish only available in the Southern US. See for evidence of it's availability in canada.Mrleaffan (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

November 2006 discussions[edit]

I am surprised that no one has mentioned the popular introduction of the Turducken---long before John Madden--during the annual Thanksgiving broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition when it was hosted by Bob Edwards. Broadcast annually since 1993, was a fantasy "pot-luck" dinner hosted by Bob to which the invited Julia Childs, Wolfgang Puck, Meta Heater, Craig Claibourne and Paul Proudhomme. Each brought a course with the piece de resistance being Proudhomme's Turducken. Here is a link an NPR page for one of the broadcasts which, unfortunately, I was unable to play. Perhaps it is no longer live now that Edwards no longer hosts the show. 22:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Block quote

I'm not sure I believe the Osturducken--as far as I can tell, there's a lot of talk around the net about it, but no pictures or direct evidence that this has ever been done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

The osturducken, pigturducken, Churkendoose (chicken, turkey, duck, and goose), qua-duc-ant —quail (quail, duck, and pheasant), Roast a l’Imperatrice - all get mentioned in articles but I have yet to see evidence that they are actually produced enmasse. Articles also mention the ancient Roman tetrafarmacum.--Wowaconia (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, has anyone ever heard of a successful Osturduckencorpheail? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I think an ostrich would be a couple orders of magnitude too large to be stuffed with any other living bird, with the possible exception of other saurian monsters such as the cassowary or the emu... and then -those- would still be too big to fit a turkey into without it rattling around inside.

I think there is a lot of inaccuracy here and it should really be under Three Bird Roast, a turducken is just a portmandeau of its constituant birds, like gooducken. --BMT86 09:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That's true but the Turducken is the most commonly seen combination.--Swuster 06:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I unlinked chimerical, but if anyone believes it ought to be relinked, I recommend aiming it at the wiktionary, not the disambiguation page. If you just want to copy-paste it, here it is: chimerical. -- Tiresias BC 06:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A special on the History Channel about meats just said that, in Roman times, a version of layered cooking existed which went even farther than the Turducken (chicken inside duck inside goose inside pig inside cow). I don't know any details, but this is perhaps something that should be researched/mentioned. If nothing else, it contradicts the stance presented in the article that layering can only be traced back to the Middle Ages. Here's a link I found fairly quickly, which mentions the same thing: Hossenfeffer 06:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

My web logs tell me that this paged linked to my Easter Turducken post, thanks to someone named Fabartus (rev 31 Aug). Not being much of a Wikipedia editor, I'm not sure the link belonged there, but the explanation of its removal confuses me. It was removed on 20 Nov by "" who claimed that (s)he "removed unrelated music link, inactive links, and ad driven links". Since my Easter Turducken post was none of those (though the page was down briefly on 20 Nov), I wonder if this removal was accidental. WWordman 15:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Just another multi bird roast[edit]

This article ought to be part of a bigger one on multi bird roasts. This type of thing has been done for centuries in England (and doubtless elsewhere) with game birds, you simply place the smallest into the next smallest bird like a Russian doll. I would say almost obvious, not novel. Certainly far from uniquely American as the article suggests. The ugly name is nasty, but like other mixed breed names, always attracts journo types who like playing with words in headlines.

The header could use some work,[edit]

-- 21:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

maybe just remove the quote from the top, because everything after that looks more pro.

Medieval Time[edit]

This comment belongs to talk untill ref is found.--Hq3473 03:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC) (Just a brief note: This type of recipe was apparently known at banquets in medieval times. There are references to swans being stuffed with other birds, and quails have been used as the smaller bird. Sorry no references to hand, I'll come back later)

Popular Culture[edit]

Some anonymous editor keeps deleting mentions of turducken in popular culture. Why? Lots of other articles have pop culture sections, why shouldn't turducken? And it's not like the list was becoming unwieldly. --Htmlism 15:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing "On the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, he remarked on thanksgiving eating habits by saying 'How fat are we getting when we look at a turkey and say that's not enough?!", I know for a fact that he said it on a day or two before thanksgiving. I don't know how to do refrence links so could someone else put it on. You could probibly find it on

Um, why does it mention michael moore as one of things sarge stuffs the birds in? hes a real person and not a turkey. 21:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I know it's a little late, but that's because Moore was the "another turkey". BioTube (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the reference article. John Madden DID NOT invent the turducken as claimed within this section. It may be at least more accurate to state that he popularized it. -- (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this statement needs some reworking: "John Madden...presented a turducken to the viewers, then began carving it with his bare hands." How does one "carve" something with their bare hands? Maybe you could carve it if you had BEAR hands, but not BARE hands. Now, Wolverine, he could carve a turd-duck-hen with his bare hands. But they're not really hands, anyway, they're adamantium claws. So unless John Madden has some adamantium claws I'm not aware of, this needs to be rephrased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

the picture makes this article[edit]

With that said, is there a chance that one of you turducken aficionados could take a cross-section photo the next time you prepare on of these delicious looking beasts? Alas I have not been able to have one yet (and can't cook worth a damn, this looks like an advanced dish). --A Good Anon 01:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I just found and bought a pre-assembled one of these monstrosities locally, and I'll do my best to get some decent pics of it when I get the nerve and time to actually cook it. I've already got a good photo of it wrapped in it's packaging but clearly visible, if anybody thinks that that would be a worthy addition. - Pacula 04:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Added a nice cross-section photo of a roasted and quartered turducken to the article. This wasn't the only photo I took, but seemed to be the clearest in terms of showing the layers. - Pacula 21:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

what happened to the Black Table reference?[edit]

According to Black Table, this was once a reference: I don't see it in edit history/or any discussion about it. (Was it here and deleted?). I think it would make a better EL than a ref, but I do not know much about turducken.-Cindery 23:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't edit the page[edit]

Probably for good reason, too. What I wanted to fix is "commerical", toward the end of an early paragraph. (Please delete this once it's fixed.)

Regards, nb Nikevich 00:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


Completely fake. The only reference presented for this section bears no mention whatsoever of emus being used for food, left alone 'emuturducken'. A google search presents only a handful of hits, all of which refer back to this article. I'll delete it. If anyone objects, feel free to reinstate it and provide some better references and/or reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaos95 (talkcontribs) 06:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Unfortunately, I don't have time to edit this right now, but I just want to point out that we need a reference to gluttony here. For lots of folks, just mentioning Turducken provokes a gag-reflex -- not so much because of the flavors -- but because of the orgiastic excess. I'll try to add something once things calm down in a couple of months, but it would be even better if some else could take care of it by writing a sentence or two sooner (especially before Thanksgiving!)!

Orgiastic Excess, you got it in one, that's exactly how I feel about Turducken. It's ridiculous. -dhymers —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Nutrition information[edit]

I removed from the Nutrition section the passage that read:

  • Note: This nutrition information comes from a website that does not specify a recipe or the weight of any of the component birds. Both serving size and nutritional component per slice should be viewed as a very rough estimate. Also note that nutrition will vary depending on how the bird is sliced; e.g., the first slice is almost certainly 100% turkey.

The link provided in the footnote does indeed refer to a recipe and component birds. The URL leads from to the detailed nutrition information for that recipe. --Horse Badorties (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the issues with providing nutrition information is that this dish is made different by many people. Paul Prudhomme's recipe for example adds shrimp, andouille sausage and other potentially fatty, high calorie, cholesterol items, while others may not use them at all. I thus, find this information to be highly problematic.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The nutrition information corresponds with a recipe that itself corresponds with the description of a turducken given in the first sentence of this article: "A Turducken is a partially de-boned turkey stuffed with a de-boned duck, which itself is stuffed with a small de-boned chicken."
You are certainly correct to say that adding or removing ingredients would affect the nutritional information. Someone could add Twinkies, for example. Can the turducken even be defined? Can any dish? --Horse Badorties (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Well the lack of a concrete ability to define a dish is ample reasoning not to give misleading information on any dish, other than one created in a factory such as a Twinkie. I would easily support the inclusion of nutritional information for a Twinkie in that article, however I am sort of against the inclusion of this information in any other culinary dish. I would no sooner ask for the nutritional information for Cassoulet for the same reason.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
So, herein lies the rub: the lack of a concrete ability to define this dish would lead us to remove almost everything that's said about the turducken, not just the nutritional information, right? It could not be accurately described as a "partially de-boned turkey stuffed with a de-boned duck, which itself is stuffed with a small de-boned chicken," because of all of the other ingredients that could be added/removed. I don't know.
I'm not wedded to this particular nutritional information remaining. It's an improvement over what was there before though. --Horse Badorties (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The notion that "1/12 of a recipe" is a serving is laughable. 1/12 of a turkey alone would be a pretty good meal, neverminding the trimmins and dessert. But add a 12th of a duck AND a 12th of a chicken to that and still coming up with 1 serving of turucken defies credulity. The 30-pounder in the picture would yield 12 2.5-pound servings. Who came up with the "1/12 of a recipe" serving size? What a joke. You have all been had by a troll. (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Please read the discussion to find the recipe that the nutritional information refers to. --Horse Badorties (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I saw it. What I am saying is that it's ridiculous. So I'm ridiculing it, along with people who think it's reasonable to call 2 1/2 pounds of meat "1 serving". (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
According to the USDA, a serving of meat is 2-3 ounces. So the stated serving of turducken is 13 to 20 times bigger than what someone will read on the nutrition information label of whatever food they care to compare with this article's absurdity. I know you found it on the Web and didn't write it yourself before adding it to this article, but, when you're shown that a source is suspect, do you continue to defend it, or do you grow up? As far as I'm concerned, it's original research on the part of whoever wrote the other webpage. Just because it is sourced from some random website somewhere else does not mean that Wikipedia must, should, or will perpetuate that nonsense. (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I don't know how I missed that but you are correct this information is dubious. As stated before, I see no point to adding this nutritional information to begin with, even worse the way it is presented is misleading. The recipe is very POV because it is one website's take on the dish, and the portion size is not appropriate. On top of this, the nutrition information is completely against the Wikipedia policy WP:Original Research--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 06:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


A lot of "junk" seemed to be added in this section today. I'd like to see references for these, otherwise I think they should be removed because some of them sound like nonsense, which were added by unregistered editors.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There's been some unsupported nonsense in this article for about two years, judging by the history. I think somebody was taking the piss and now the names they made up are on blogs and other websites. Not all of them, though. They need to be eliminated if they cannot be sourced. --Dhartung | Talk 00:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The Roti Sans Pareil does have references for its existance - I listed some. The Bloomsbury article was the first to conclusively state that the last bird was Garden Warbler (others listed it as a "bec-figue"), so I reasoned they had found it independantly and been able to do further research on it. Prior to the Bloomsberry article, the WP article referred to the last bird as a "passerine" (the best translation of "bec-figue" I could find) - so any article which uses the word bec-figue has been sourced from elsewhere than the WP article. Some other sources: It has also been mentioned in UK national newspapers prior to the WP article. The "Bustergophe.." name is not sourced, but is only "made up" in the sense that I applied the same rule used to generate the name "Turducken" to the new data. Although it is an amusing fact, I was not "taking the piss". Hyphz (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Honestly the whole section should be deleted as the varied stuffed animal within an animal did not originate from the 20th century dish known as a Turducken. Turducken could be argued as a variation of these other dishes prepared in the the Roman empire banquets as well as the Middle Ages.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


Doesn't it bother anyone that the name begins with "Turd". And it's not even in the order of the layers. Proper order: TURkey, stuffed with CHicken, stuffed with dUCK = TURCHUCK. It should be called a Turchuck. (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

But Turchuck sounds... odd too. Marlith T/C 03:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
It is in the right order, Turkey stuffed with duck, stuffed with chicken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
If it were a brand name it would never get through the focus groups. And yes, I think my nephew noticed that right away. If some reliable source has criticized the name, we could cite it. --Dhartung | Talk 07:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Fortunately it's probably the most heavily meat-based meals out there, so there's no temptation to make it with a Tofurkey. The end result would of course be the Tofucken. :D75.111.57.176 (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So what is turducken?[edit]

Admittedly, i only skimmed this article as it's unbelievably technical. But alas, there seems to be no clear explanation as to what turducken is. I can only imagine it is some combination of turkey and duck. (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You should probably read the article defining and outlining this culinary phenomenon, rather than just skimming it, then asking stupid questions. ---Dorfner (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe people edited the article, somewhere between the 9 months I posted that comment and you insulted me, to explain what turducken is? (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

removal of pop culture section[edit]

Though detailed, nothing in the pop culture sections amounts to much more than "the turducken appears occasionally in popular culture." It seems far too trivial for inclusion here. I propose removing it, though I see above there may be some strong opinion against that. Please comment. Cmprince (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Update External Links[edit]

The current link to the BBC yields a 404, and a search of the site does not reveal the linked page. An alternate, also UK link is which discusses the funky tradition in detail.Guavagirl 04:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guavagirl (talkcontribs)

Additional multi-animal roasts[edit]

"A traditional Bedouin ceremonial feast features a roasted dinner of eggs stuffed into chickens stuffed into a goat or lamb stuffed into a camel. Having never seen this dish and there being a shortage of camels in Maine, the recipe won’t be included here."

Reference -

Non copyrighted Re-write:

Other multi-animal roasts are known to exist. One Bedouin ceremonial tradition involves a camel stuffed with a goat or lamb, stuffed with a chicken, stuffed with an egg. For lack of a proper name, we will go with Cam-go/la-chi-gg.

This would be a rather interesting additional thread to this article. Sorry for the techno crudeness, this is my first wiki interaction.

--polishsausag Polishsausag (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Cyclic reference[edit]

Reference [7] on this page may be cyclic; the content of the referenced link shows strong signs of having been duplicated from an earlier version of the Wikipedia article. Hyphz (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Why de-boned[edit]

I don't see why it says the outer Turkey is de-boned. That may be the cause, but not always, and not even in the picture shown at top (unless they somehow removed the bones, while leaving the skin intact). --Rob (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

They are deboned as it would otherwise be a nightmare to carve. I assume the pics all show deboned birds (except wingtips). Efficacious (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Include Warning about Toxic Substances Found Within Turducken[edit]

This evening I was served Turducken for the first time and after a near-fatal ingestion of toxic substance, I came here to wikipedia to find out if there was any possiblity that I might have been warned about the presence of toxic material in the Turducken. I found no such warning here, and believe the article should include mention of the fact that at least in some commercially-prepared Turducken, the internal organs such as liver, heart, kidneys, gizzards and testicles are included in the "stuffing", so the notion that it's a simple matter of a bird within a bird within a bird is inaccurate. The foul, inedible and toxic organs of these dead animals are also included in the recipe. Luckily I survived as I have a well-developed gag-reflex and was able to spew the foul stuff out of my mouth before I actually swallowed it, but the next person may not be so lucky. I think a warning to anyone foolish enough to try to eat this gastronomic frankenstein ought be be given so as to provide unwitting gluttons at least a fighting chance at survival.Jonny Quick (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  • So what was the actual toxic substance within the bird you had. Because I've eaten turkey liver, gizzards, heart, and kidneys (testicles are not included in any collection of turkey organs I've ever encounterd, same for brains, lungs, intestines) for most of my life without any ill effects. The only one in my family that could survive any of these organs is my father who is allergic to liver. Furthermore it's not a case of every turducken recipe calls for the use of internal organs, though modern recipes do use a stuffing that stuffing may vary as to what goes into it. A stuffing and dirty rice stuffing may include liver whereas a cornbread stuffing may have no organs of any kind in it.

This warning sounds less like a warning and more like you didn't like something so you are saying to warn folks of a toxic substance without much proof of such substance. -annonymous 6/2/2012 2:45 AM EST — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Gastric Passage[edit]

Should be changed to "body cavity". The birds' viscera have been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1280:21EA:ECE7:8D0C:C672:4B45 (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)