|
Beef Prices
As we all know, beef prices have risen to the moon in the past couple of
years. Prices were up 20% in 2011, and there is a projected 9% price rise this year. There is a drought in texas, as severe as anything since 1935. Look at the following article from the Wall Street Journal just published. I've been think about tofu for some time. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...DS=beef+prices Kent |
Beef Prices
Nixtamalized corn. Rice and beans. There are other ways to get protein.
Jerry -- "I view the progress of science as being the slow erosion of the tendency to dichotomize." Barbara Smuts, U. Mich. |
Beef Prices
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:14:57 GMT, "l, not -l" > wrote:
> >On 13-Feb-2012, Jerry Avins > wrote: > >> Nixtamalized corn. > >I'll take pork instead. And so will lots of other people and that will drive the price of pork up -- also chicken and other proteins. We will have to cut back on portion size of protein Janet US |
Beef Prices
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:25:19 -0700, Janet Bostwick
> wrote: >On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:14:57 GMT, "l, not -l" > wrote: > >> >>On 13-Feb-2012, Jerry Avins > wrote: >> >>> Nixtamalized corn. >> >>I'll take pork instead. > >And so will lots of other people and that will drive the price of pork >up -- also chicken and other proteins. We will have to cut back on >portion size of protein Yeah. Start eating the amount we should have been all along. Lou |
Beef Prices
On 2012-02-13, Janet Bostwick > wrote:
> And so will lots of other people and that will drive the price of pork > up -- also chicken and other proteins. We will have to cut back on > portion size of protein > Janet US It's called "overpopulation" and is a worldwide problem. We need a really good (bad!) influenza. nb -- Fight internet CENSORSHIP - Fight SOPA-PIPA Contact your congressman and/or representative, now! http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/ vi --the heart of evil! |
Beef Prices
On Feb 13, 1:38*am, "Kent" > wrote:
> As we all know, beef prices have risen to the moon in the past couple of > years. *Prices were up 20% in 2011, and there is a projected 9% price rise > this year. There is a drought in texas, as severe as anything since 1935. > Look at the following article from the Wall Street Journal just published.. > I've been think about tofu for some time. I get my beef and pork from the Amish or from friends here locally. Prices are going up, but much less than on the commodities markets. Buy from local sources, whenever you can. You'll generally have lower prices and will often get better quality. |
Beef Prices
On 2012-02-13, l, not -l > wrote:
> That's fine with me; I'd rather pay more for any meat than eat that nasty > nixtmalized corn (my opinion, I don't expect, or care, for all to agree). I don't expect you to agree, but to characterize nixtamale as "nasty" is jes plain stupid. I'm still trying to learn the proper method of producing fresh nixtamal, it being the epitome of pozole soup and menudo. Canned hominy (pozole) is nothing like fresh nixtamaled corn and its unique flavor is what makes the dish. If you dislike it, that's your problem and no concern of mine, but it's certainly not "nasty". nb -- Fight internet CENSORSHIP - Fight SOPA-PIPA Contact your congressman and/or representative, now! http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/ vi --the heart of evil! |
Beef Prices
On Monday, February 13, 2012 11:58:05 AM UTC-5, Mike Muth wrote:
... > I get my beef and pork from the Amish or from friends here locally. > Prices are going up, but much less than on the commodities markets. > Buy from local sources, whenever you can. You'll generally have lower > prices and will often get better quality. Unfortunately, meat at the Amish markets accessible to me costs considerably more than meat at the supermarket. The quality justifies the higher price to those not on a budget. Jerry -- "I view the progress of science as being the slow erosion of the tendency to dichotomize." Barbara Smuts, U. Mich. |
Beef Prices
Kent wrote:
> > As we all know, beef prices have risen to the moon in the past couple of > years. Prices were up 20% in 2011, and there is a projected 9% price rise > this year. There is a drought in texas, as severe as anything since 1935. Plus a lot more corn is fermented into ethanol for fuel and that means less to feed to the cows. |
Beef Prices
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:59:12 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
> wrote: >Kent wrote: >> >> As we all know, beef prices have risen to the moon in the past couple of >> years. Prices were up 20% in 2011, and there is a projected 9% price rise >> this year. There is a drought in texas, as severe as anything since 1935. > >Plus a lot more corn is fermented into ethanol for fuel and that means >less to feed to the cows. don't forget that last year the weather was unseasonably cold and wet in the mid-west. Many farmers were unable to get into their fields to plant. This year the upper mid-west is concerned about lack of moisture. There has been a global shift in the jet stream, no telling how long it will last. Janet US |
Beef Prices
On 13-Feb-2012, Janet Bostwick > wrote: > don't forget that last year the weather was unseasonably cold > and wet in the mid-west. And drought conditions prevailed across much of the plains states. -- Mike |
Beef Prices
"Jerry Avins" > wrote in message news:20791716.1923.1329134016684.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbjk3... > Nixtamalized corn. Rice and beans. There are other ways to get protein. > > Jerry > -- Eat fish. Chicken. Pork. Jill |
Beef Prices
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:51:55 GMT, "Mike Muth"
> wrote: > >On 13-Feb-2012, Janet Bostwick > wrote: > >> don't forget that last year the weather was unseasonably cold >> and wet in the mid-west. > >And drought conditions prevailed across much of the plains >states. very true. Our growing regions did not do well last year. Janet US |
Beef Prices
In article >, Doug Freyburger >
wrote: > Kent wrote: > > > > As we all know, beef prices have risen to the moon in the past couple of > > years. Prices were up 20% in 2011, and there is a projected 9% price rise > > this year. There is a drought in texas, as severe as anything since 1935. > > Plus a lot more corn is fermented into ethanol for fuel and that means > less to feed to the cows. which means MORE DDGS to feed the cows |
Quote:
Then again, I cook to make the meat/fat flavor things like veggies, rice, lentils. yeah, I'll make steaks now and again; but a great pot roast is heaven, too. that and the fat you reserve from good meats is of higher quality, as are the bones. I can buy half a beef for $2.50/lb. butchered. yes, that means bone and such. That bones makes broth that is unreal. I've also found the beauty of cooking with marrow. Oh my goodness!! |
Beef Prices
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:21:17 GMT, "l, not -l" > wrote:
> >On 13-Feb-2012, Lou Decruss > wrote: >> Yeah. Start eating the amount we should have been all along. >> >> Lou > >I long ago cut back as much as I am willing to. A average meat portion for >me is four ounces, with the exception of sausage which I keep to two ounces. > > >Even when eating out, I go for the smallest meat serving one; of the >(lesser) benefits of retirement is no longer having to put up with guff from >workmates when I order the "petit cut". My job required travel, therefor >eating out, at least 2 weeks per month; I could never understand how the >other guys could put away 12-18 ounce steaks for dinner - that is just too >much of a good thing. I think 3-4 oz. is what's recommended. 4 is fine for me but occasionally I'll splurge on a good steak and eat more but not often. I don't eat meat everyday either. Lou |
Beef Prices
Lou Decruss > wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:21:17 GMT, "l, not -l" > wrote: > >> >>On 13-Feb-2012, Lou Decruss > wrote: > >>> Yeah. Start eating the amount we should have been all along. >>> >>> Lou >> >>I long ago cut back as much as I am willing to. A average meat portion for >>me is four ounces, with the exception of sausage which I keep to two ounces. >> >> >>Even when eating out, I go for the smallest meat serving one; of the >>(lesser) benefits of retirement is no longer having to put up with guff from >>workmates when I order the "petit cut". My job required travel, therefor >>eating out, at least 2 weeks per month; I could never understand how the >>other guys could put away 12-18 ounce steaks for dinner - that is just too >>much of a good thing. > >I think 3-4 oz. is what's recommended. 4 is fine for me but >occasionally I'll splurge on a good steak and eat more but not often. >I don't eat meat everyday either. You're all full of doodoo... if yoose eat so little how come yer all so freakin' fat... I've never seen anyone order a 4 ounce steak, there is no such cut anyway, unless yer talking the happy meal. That typical 12 ounce steak doesn't contain nearly 12 ounces of edible meat, after shrinkage from cooking and with trimming fat, bone, and gristle you're lucky to have 6 ounces of edible meat, usually less... an 18 ounce steak contains not much more edible meat than two nekid quarter pounders. Those menu weights are raw weight, and restos don't serve well trimmed beef... they look big because they use smaller dinner plates than folks use at home. I don't order steak at restos anymore, even the fanciest serve crap... if I want steak I'll pick my own and cook my own. Maybe you never ate a porterhouse steak, it's nearly 1/3 bone and 1/3 fat and gristle, only about 1/3 edible meat. Btw, beef is more than 80% water, cooked medium rare a steak loses 20% of it's weight just in cooking. Restos much prefer to serve bloody rare, the steak serves up much larger on the plate. A 12 ounce steak is diet size. Yer obese from all the appetizers, devouring two baskets of bread and extra butter, from mopping up as much gravy as possible, from slathring your potato with sour cream AND butter, wining and cocktailing like it's a bottomless fountain, and then eating two desserts. You haven't eaten a four ounce steak since you outgrew your highchair. |
Beef Prices
On 13-Feb-2012, Gorio >
wrote: > I can buy half a beef for $2.50/lb. > butchered. yes, that means bone and such I pay around $2. Part of that goes to the farmer and part goes to the butcher. Basically, when I decide to stock up on pork or beef, I contact someone I know who raises the appropriate animals. I'll go in with one or more people, so we split the butchering costs. Sometimes there will be three of us and we each take a quarter of a beef and pay the butcher with the rest. Then, we wind up paying just the farmer. These guys will sell to us for what they get, which is less than the commodity price. So, I don't pay more than $2 and sometimes as little as $1.75. For smaller amounts, the Amish/Mennonite butcher shop we go to usually charges us about $0.25 per pound less than Walmart would - and the quality is much better. This is also the butcher we take our animals to. In hunting season, it's hard to get a time slot to have an animal butchered. They're usually ovwhelmed with deer brought in by local hunters. Going to the local butcher also allows us to get flavorful sausage which isn't loaded with preservatives. -- Mike |
Beef Prices
On 2/14/2012 12:33 PM, Lou Decruss wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:21:17 GMT, "l, not > wrote: > >> >> On 13-Feb-2012, Lou > wrote: > >>> Yeah. Start eating the amount we should have been all along. >>> >>> Lou >> >> I long ago cut back as much as I am willing to. A average meat portion for >> me is four ounces, with the exception of sausage which I keep to two ounces. >> > >> Even when eating out, I go for the smallest meat serving one; of the >> (lesser) benefits of retirement is no longer having to put up with guff from >> workmates when I order the "petit cut". My job required travel, therefor >> eating out, at least 2 weeks per month; I could never understand how the >> other guys could put away 12-18 ounce steaks for dinner - that is just too >> much of a good thing. > > I think 3-4 oz. is what's recommended. 4 is fine for me but > occasionally I'll splurge on a good steak and eat more but not often. > I don't eat meat everyday either. I keep hearing the rule of thumb that portion size of meat is the size of the palm of your hand. |
Beef Prices
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:44:16 -0500, Cheryl >
wrote: >On 2/14/2012 12:33 PM, Lou Decruss wrote: >> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:21:17 GMT, "l, not > wrote: >> >>> >>> On 13-Feb-2012, Lou > wrote: >> >>>> Yeah. Start eating the amount we should have been all along. >>>> >>>> Lou >>> >>> I long ago cut back as much as I am willing to. A average meat portion for >>> me is four ounces, with the exception of sausage which I keep to two ounces. >>> >> >>> Even when eating out, I go for the smallest meat serving one; of the >>> (lesser) benefits of retirement is no longer having to put up with guff from >>> workmates when I order the "petit cut". My job required travel, therefor >>> eating out, at least 2 weeks per month; I could never understand how the >>> other guys could put away 12-18 ounce steaks for dinner - that is just too >>> much of a good thing. >> >> I think 3-4 oz. is what's recommended. 4 is fine for me but >> occasionally I'll splurge on a good steak and eat more but not often. >> I don't eat meat everyday either. > >I keep hearing the rule of thumb that portion size of meat is the size >of the palm of your hand. I've got huge hands, no leather dress gloves fit me, I have to wear work gloves. I have a problem with shoes too, I wear a 10 1/2, normal right, but a 5E width is snug for me. If I go to a regular shoe store all they have that fits is the box. 90% of the time I wear LLBean boots (low cut), their 2E width fits: http://www.llbean.com/llb/shop/22812...ue_0=Tan/Brown |
Beef Prices
> I keep hearing the rule of thumb that portion size of meat is the size > of the palm of your hand. I always heard the portion size of meat is the size of a deck of playing cards. |
Beef Prices
Michael OConnor > wrote:
>> I keep hearing the rule of thumb that portion size of meat is the size >> of the palm of your hand. >I always heard the portion size of meat is the size of a deck of >playing cards. What is the deal with this north American obsession with not weighing ingredients? Steve |
Beef Prices
On Feb 14, 7:18*pm, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:44:16 -0500, Cheryl > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >On 2/14/2012 12:33 PM, Lou Decruss wrote: > >> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:21:17 GMT, "l, not > *wrote: > > >>> On 13-Feb-2012, Lou > *wrote: > > >>>> Yeah. *Start eating the amount we should have been all along. > > >>>> Lou > > >>> I long ago cut back as much as I am willing to. *A average meat portion for > >>> me is four ounces, with the exception of sausage which I keep to two ounces. > > >>> Even when eating out, I go for the smallest meat serving one; of the > >>> (lesser) benefits of retirement is no longer having to put up with guff from > >>> workmates when I order the "petit cut". *My job required travel, therefor > >>> eating out, at least 2 weeks per month; I could never understand how the > >>> other guys could put away 12-18 ounce steaks for dinner - that is just too > >>> much of a good thing. > > >> I think 3-4 oz. is what's recommended. *4 is fine for me but > >> occasionally I'll splurge on a good steak and eat more but not often. > >> I don't eat meat everyday either. > > >I keep hearing the rule of thumb that portion size of meat is the size > >of the palm of your hand. > > I've got huge hands, no leather dress gloves fit me, I have to wear > work gloves. *I have a problem with shoes too, I wear a 10 1/2, normal > right, but a 5E width is snug for me. *If I go to a regular shoe store > all they have that fits is the box. *90% of the time I wear LLBean > boots (low cut), their 2E width fits:http://www.llbean.com/llb/shop/22812...trValue_0=Tan/... And I have very small hands, compared to my height, and I crave protein. --Bryan |
Beef Prices
On 14/02/2012 8:36 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
> Michael > wrote: > >>> I keep hearing the rule of thumb that portion size of meat is the size >>> of the palm of your hand. > >> I always heard the portion size of meat is the size of a deck of >> playing cards. > > What is the deal with this north American obsession with not weighing > ingredients? > > Steve Would the word obsession not be better applied to weighing? |
Beef Prices
|
Beef Prices
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:21:25 -0800 (PST), Michael OConnor
> wrote: > >> I keep hearing the rule of thumb that portion size of meat is the size >> of the palm of your hand. > >I always heard the portion size of meat is the size of a deck of >playing cards. Those portion sizes are for 300 pound couch potatoes who are hoping to lose a few pounds while remaining in their inert comatose state... makes more sence to hook up to a feeding tube. |
Beef Prices
Sqwertz wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:58:05 -0800 (PST), Mike Muth wrote: > >> I get my beef and pork from the Amish or from friends here locally. >> Prices are going up, but much less than on the commodities markets. >> Buy from local sources, whenever you can. You'll generally have lower >> prices and will often get better quality. > > Local independent beef here is 2-3x the cost of mass produced/marketed > beef from the Big 4 (Tyson, JBS, Cargill, National Beef). And I'm sure > that's the case in most locales. > > -sw I'd rather eat good meat very rarely than bad meat once. -- Jean B. |
Beef Prices
jmcquown wrote:
> > "Jerry Avins" > wrote in message > news:20791716.1923.1329134016684.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbjk3... >> Nixtamalized corn. Rice and beans. There are other ways to get protein. >> >> Jerry >> -- > Eat fish. Chicken. Pork. > > Jill I dunno about fish. Too many are in plight. And I am not into farm-raised fish. -- Jean B. |
Beef Prices
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:22:01 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote: >On 14/02/2012 8:36 PM, Steve Pope wrote: >> Michael > wrote: >> >>>> I keep hearing the rule of thumb that portion size of meat is the size >>>> of the palm of your hand. >> >>> I always heard the portion size of meat is the size of a deck of >>> playing cards. >> >> What is the deal with this north American obsession with not weighing >> ingredients? >> >> Steve > >Would the word obsession not be better applied to weighing? Any sort of measuring is an obsession... I know how much meat to eat, every meal is different, depending on how many calories I feel I've burned that day and what other foods are a part of a meal. Many days I eat no meat, sometimes I prefer to get protein from dairy and veggies. I never prepare food based on a precise amount, I always prepare *enough*, I'm not at all averse to left overs, in fact I'm very disappointed when there are no left overs, that's why I always prepare *enough*. I decided not to cook my roast today, I have a guest for tomorrow. Today I ate no meat, I subsisted quite nicely on nuts, twigs, and dairy; ate a full cup of muesilli with whole milk and brown sugar for brunch, so filling that all I ate for dinner were two apples and an orange. But I never measure, I eat until I had enough. |
Beef Prices
sf > wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 01:36:48 +0000 (UTC), >> Michael OConnor > wrote: >> >> I keep hearing the rule of thumb that portion size of meat is the size >> >> of the palm of your hand. >> >> >I always heard the portion size of meat is the size of a deck of >> >playing cards. >> >> What is the deal with this north American obsession with not weighing >> ingredients? >Steve, when you really push the "weighers" about how they do it... >they aren't as accurate as they try to portray. AFAIC, it's two >different methods to get the same result except the Europeans are >holier than thou about theirs. I don't mind going back and forth >between them, depending on the cookbook. Hang on. We're talking about a portion of meat. Almost all recipes, even if they are from north America, will specify the amount of meat by weight. It would be quite a PITA to, say, measure ground beef by the cup or chicken thighs by the gallon. Even if one is so anti-European as to have no kitchen scale, the package of meat already says how much it weighs. So there is no need to guestimate "deck of card-sized" and whatnot. (I suppose this argument does not apply if you are shooting/harvesting/ slaughtering your own meat.) Steve |
Beef Prices
"Jean B." wrote:
> >I'd rather eat good meat very rarely than bad meat once. How do you define good/bad meat? To me so long as it's wholesome it's good meat... I can prepare any cut so that it tastes sublime. What cuts used to be po' folk meat not very long ago are now very chi chi pricy cuts. So long as it's not preground mystery meat I'll choose fresh ground chuck/round meat loaf over rib steak every time. Even chuck is no longer inexpensive, have you priced a chuck roast recently, costs more than a gallon of gas a pound.... can easy cost $25 to feed a family of four pot roast. |
Beef Prices
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 04:13:29 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote: > sf > wrote: > > >On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 01:36:48 +0000 (UTC), > > >> Michael OConnor > wrote: > > >> >> I keep hearing the rule of thumb that portion size of meat is the size > >> >> of the palm of your hand. > >> > >> >I always heard the portion size of meat is the size of a deck of > >> >playing cards. > >> > >> What is the deal with this north American obsession with not weighing > >> ingredients? > > >Steve, when you really push the "weighers" about how they do it... > >they aren't as accurate as they try to portray. AFAIC, it's two > >different methods to get the same result except the Europeans are > >holier than thou about theirs. I don't mind going back and forth > >between them, depending on the cookbook. > > Hang on. We're talking about a portion of meat. Almost all > recipes, even if they are from north America, will specify > the amount of meat by weight. It would be quite a PITA > to, say, measure ground beef by the cup or chicken thighs > by the gallon. I was responding to your statement about "obsession with not weighing *ingredients*. Estimating the size of a piece of meat or any other thing on your plate is easy once you train your eye.... it's only an estimate though and could be a little off, which won't make or break anything. > > Even if one is so anti-European as to have no kitchen scale, the > package of meat already says how much it weighs. So there is no > need to guestimate "deck of card-sized" and whatnot. > > (I suppose this argument does not apply if you are shooting/harvesting/ > slaughtering your own meat.) > > > Steve -- Food is an important part of a balanced diet. |
Beef Prices
sf > wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 04:13:29 +0000 (UTC), >> >> Michael OConnor > wrote: >> >> >> >> I keep hearing the rule of thumb that portion size of meat is the size >> >> >> of the palm of your hand. >> >> >> >> >I always heard the portion size of meat is the size of a deck of >> >> >playing cards. >> >> >> >> What is the deal with this north American obsession with not weighing >> >> ingredients? >> >> >Steve, when you really push the "weighers" about how they do it... >> >they aren't as accurate as they try to portray. AFAIC, it's two >> >different methods to get the same result except the Europeans are >> >holier than thou about theirs. I don't mind going back and forth >> >between them, depending on the cookbook. >> >> Hang on. We're talking about a portion of meat. Almost all >> recipes, even if they are from north America, will specify >> the amount of meat by weight. It would be quite a PITA >> to, say, measure ground beef by the cup or chicken thighs >> by the gallon. > >I was responding to your statement about "obsession with not weighing >*ingredients*. Right. In my view, not knowing by weight how much meat is going into what you're cooking must be the result of an anti-weighing obsession, given that -- even in north America -- recipes specify meat ingredients by weight. Whereas not weighing flour, butter, etc. could just result from familiarity mostly with recipes where these are specified by volume. So it is more excusable. Steve |
Beef Prices
|
Beef Prices
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 04:13:29 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote: >sf > wrote: > >>On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 01:36:48 +0000 (UTC), > >>> Michael OConnor > wrote: > >>> >> I keep hearing the rule of thumb that portion size of meat is the size >>> >> of the palm of your hand. >>> >>> >I always heard the portion size of meat is the size of a deck of >>> >playing cards. >>> >>> What is the deal with this north American obsession with not weighing >>> ingredients? > >>Steve, when you really push the "weighers" about how they do it... >>they aren't as accurate as they try to portray. AFAIC, it's two >>different methods to get the same result except the Europeans are >>holier than thou about theirs. I don't mind going back and forth >>between them, depending on the cookbook. > >Hang on. We're talking about a portion of meat. Almost all >recipes, even if they are from north America, will specify >the amount of meat by weight. It would be quite a PITA >to, say, measure ground beef by the cup or chicken thighs >by the gallon. > >Even if one is so anti-European as to have no kitchen scale, the >package of meat already says how much it weighs. So there is no >need to guestimate "deck of card-sized" and whatnot. Yeah, and if there's one chicken leg too many the pinheads toss it in the trash... WTF does anyone need to measure their meat... I have never looked at the weight on a package of meat, I judge how much I want by eyeball... what I look for is quality[period] I see that most folks just grab a package and never look at it to check its condition.. they're the jerks who think resto steaks are wonderful. I've seen how most folks buy produce, they just grab whatever never looking to see it it ain't rotten/damaged on the other side. |
Beef Prices
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 05:07:03 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote: >sf > wrote: > >>On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 04:13:29 +0000 (UTC), > >>> >> Michael OConnor > wrote: >>> >>> >> >> I keep hearing the rule of thumb that portion size of meat is the size >>> >> >> of the palm of your hand. >>> >> >>> >> >I always heard the portion size of meat is the size of a deck of >>> >> >playing cards. >>> >> >>> >> What is the deal with this north American obsession with not weighing >>> >> ingredients? >>> >>> >Steve, when you really push the "weighers" about how they do it... >>> >they aren't as accurate as they try to portray. AFAIC, it's two >>> >different methods to get the same result except the Europeans are >>> >holier than thou about theirs. I don't mind going back and forth >>> >between them, depending on the cookbook. >>> >>> Hang on. We're talking about a portion of meat. Almost all >>> recipes, even if they are from north America, will specify >>> the amount of meat by weight. It would be quite a PITA >>> to, say, measure ground beef by the cup or chicken thighs >>> by the gallon. >> >>I was responding to your statement about "obsession with not weighing >>*ingredients*. > >Right. In my view, not knowing by weight how much meat is going into >what you're cooking must be the result of an anti-weighing obsession, >given that -- even in north America -- recipes specify meat ingredients >by weight. I've never in my life chose to cook a hunk of meat by weight... whatever it weighs it weighs and all gets cooked in its intirety, and I don't want any recipe, I do ALL measuring by eyeball, I don't cook by vernier caliper... only determinent is that it fits the cookware... and if too big I got bigger cookware. I'm visualizing some of yoose keyboard kooks gonna roast a chicken but it weighs four ounces over what's stipulated in your fercocktah recipe so you give it a masectomy. LOL-LOL Ahahahahahahahaha. . . . |
Beef Prices
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:44:32 -0800, sf > wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 05:07:03 +0000 (UTC), >(Steve Pope) wrote: > >> sf > wrote: >> >> > >> >I was responding to your statement about "obsession with not weighing >> >*ingredients*. >> >> Right. In my view, not knowing by weight how much meat is going into >> what you're cooking must be the result of an anti-weighing obsession, >> given that -- even in north America -- recipes specify meat ingredients >> by weight. > >I think meat recipes depend on personal preference and the weights >given are more of a suggestion, so the cook can get a general idea of >what the finished recipe should be like, rather than a dictate as the >weights in baking are. For instance, my latest experiment was >unstuffed cabbage rolls. I knew there was going to be a lot of sauce >so I used more meat initially and kept the amount of cabbage pretty >close to what was called for. We both thought there was way too much >sauce so I increased the amount of meat again and used practically >twice as much cabbage when I repeated the recipe. That try was pretty >good and both of us liked it. The only part I didn't like was all >those leftovers. I'll work on reducing the sheer volume next time. If you knew how to cook you'd know before you started that there'd be too much sauce just from perusing the recipe... if you knew how to cook rather than keep adding ingredients (extra meat which you'd not have, proving you made this all up) you'd have froze the excess sauce... but you've never actually cooked anything... you cook like paint by numbers, that's not cooking. |
Beef Prices
On Feb 15, 11:02*am, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
.... > WTF does anyone need to measure their meat... ;-) John Kuthe... |
Beef Prices
On 2/14/2012 9:41 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:21:25 -0800 (PST), Michael OConnor > > wrote: > >> >>> I keep hearing the rule of thumb that portion size of meat is the size >>> of the palm of your hand. >> >> I always heard the portion size of meat is the size of a deck of >> playing cards. > > Those portion sizes are for 300 pound couch potatoes who are hoping to > lose a few pounds while remaining in their inert comatose state... > makes more sence to hook up to a feeding tube. The reason for portion control of the meat part of your meal is so that you fill up the rest of the way on veggies, fruits and whole grains. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:45 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter