(chicken contract growers’ claims in bankruptcy denied – promissory estoppel claims lacked legal merit; in spite of contact language indicating otherwise, growers' claimed recovery from debtor for investment in chicken houses based on oral statements made to growers by debtors’ employees that each grower “would receive chickens as long as he met the company’s requirement” and that debtor was “here for the long haul” (debtor terminated production contracts with growers and filed bankruptcy due to downturn in poultry industry); as such, growers' claimed statements meant that contracts would remain in effect for a time period long enough for each grower to earn enough income under the contract to cover their cost of rendering performance under each contract; however, subject of statements must have been express elements of contracts; contracts specific and complete and specify that type of damages growers’ claim based on alleged oral promises not recoverable because contracts specified that either party could terminate the contract without cause between flocks (4-9 weeks), and debtor could terminate contract at any time for cause or economic necessity).