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

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.

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

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

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!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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

"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

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

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

Me, too. The quicker you learn to buy clean local stuff, the quicker you'll get clean meat, and better tasting meat. The beef I buy from a local farmer comes from animals that graze (rotationally) and taste like heaven. Amish chickens that don't have "10% solution added", pork from a farmer that has the flavor of pork that seems lacking at the food stores that buy crap.

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!!

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

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.

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

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.

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

> 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.

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

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

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?

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 01:36:48 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> 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.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

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.

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.

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.

On 2/14/2012 9:38 PM, sf wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 01:36:48 +0000 (UTC),
> (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, 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.

I used to go to this restaurant where you asked for a portion
size of whatever piece of beef you wanted, and an experienced
person would cut it and sure enough, it would be the exact
weight!

In real life, I'm not cutting my dinner off a larger piece
of meat and cooking it. I try to eat only so much, but I'm
not going to slap my steak on a scale and cut away until it's
only 3 ounces. Never mind if there's bone involved. Nothing
wrong with a visual to remind you how much you should eat.

nancy

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.

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

"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.

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.

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

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.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

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.

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. . . .

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.

On Feb 15, 11:02*am, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
....
> WTF does anyone need to measure their meat...

;-)

John Kuthe...

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.