On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 22:10:44 -0500, pltrgyst > wrote:

>On 11/25/15 6:56 AM, wrote:
>
>> Me too but if I want some then I would throw in the food processor,
>> mine does a job that's just as efficient as a grinder with less clean
>> up.
>
>Sorry, but that's not true for everybody. A food processor tears the
>meat, creates wildly unevenly sized chunks with more surface area, and
>is very difficult to time repeatedly for a particular result.
>
>A decent grinder has plates for a wide range of sizes of meat "pellets",
>produces a much more consistent result, and is perfectly repeatable. And
>it can easily grind twenty pounds of meat in minutes.
>
>Plus my grinder is considerably easier to clean and takes up less room
>in the dishwasher than my food processor, even though it has one more
>piece -- 5 vs. 4.
>
>As an example, chili made with a food processor is just horrible. Chili
>made with my largest grinder plate, with 1/2 inch holes, saves me a
>half-hour of cubing beef by hand, and is terrific.
>
>FWIW, for about ten years, I've been using a Maverick, from pleasanthill
>grains.com:
>http://pleasanthillgrain.com/maverick-5501-meat-grinder
>$82 and well worth every penny.
>
>-- Larry

What on earth are you two nattering about now? This is the perfect
example of why groups should be moderated.

--
Barbara J Llorente 71 Cerritos Ave San Francisco, CA 94127.