I came across a Popular Science magazine from 1931. In it was an article
about the "scientific" testing of beef cooking methods. They were
roasting various cuts from various breeds raised under various
conditions and having a panel of "experts" judge the results -- tender,
tough, juicy, moist, etc. Note that this is dry roasting, not braising
or other wet methods.

They mentioned that one of the variables they were experimenting with
was the temperature at which they pulled the roast from the oven --
"rare" was 140 F, "medium" was 160 F, and "well done" was 180 F.

Those are certainly not the temperatures called for in most contemporary
sources, and for my self, I "rarely" let a roast of beef get above about
130-132 F before I pull it from the oven. I consider a 140 degree roast
an unfortunate mistake, 160 as inedible, and 180 -- well, I've never
done it that way (though I suspect my dearly departed mother did,
although she never even owned a meat thermometer so there's no way to
know).

So the question is, why were "proper" temperatures so much higher back
then? Was it due to the far less sanitary methods of butchering and
distribution? Or just "public preference"? Or what?

And when did the "proper" temperatures begin to drop towards where they
are today?

Isaac

On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 12:39:25 AM UTC-6, isw wrote:
> I came across a Popular Science magazine from 1931. In it was an article
> about the "scientific" testing of beef cooking methods. They were
> roasting various cuts from various breeds raised under various
> conditions and having a panel of "experts" judge the results -- tender,
> tough, juicy, moist, etc. Note that this is dry roasting, not braising
> or other wet methods.
>
> They mentioned that one of the variables they were experimenting with
> was the temperature at which they pulled the roast from the oven --
> "rare" was 140 F, "medium" was 160 F, and "well done" was 180 F.
>
> Those are certainly not the temperatures called for in most contemporary
> sources, and for my self, I "rarely" let a roast of beef get above about
> 130-132 F before I pull it from the oven. I consider a 140 degree roast
> an unfortunate mistake, 160 as inedible, and 180 -- well, I've never
> done it that way (though I suspect my dearly departed mother did,
> although she never even owned a meat thermometer so there's no way to
> know).
>
> So the question is, why were "proper" temperatures so much higher back
> then? Was it due to the far less sanitary methods of butchering and
> distribution? Or just "public preference"? Or what?


I would guess that it would have been a preference thing, as of 1931. I wonder if people gave any thought to calibration back then? Or did they just trust the numbers on the dial?

On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 4:39:25 PM UTC+10, isw wrote:
>
> So the question is, why were "proper" temperatures so much higher back
> then? Was it due to the far less sanitary methods of butchering and
> distribution? Or just "public preference"? Or what?

Probably just a difference in what we call "rare" and "medium".

The article is page 50 in http://books.google.com/books?id=3ScDAAAAMBAJ

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 10:39:25 PM UTC-8, isw wrote:
> I came across a Popular Science magazine from 1931. In it was an article
> about the "scientific" testing of beef cooking methods. They were
> roasting various cuts from various breeds raised under various
> conditions and having a panel of "experts" judge the results -- tender,
> tough, juicy, moist, etc. Note that this is dry roasting, not braising
> or other wet methods.
>
> They mentioned that one of the variables they were experimenting with
> was the temperature at which they pulled the roast from the oven --
> "rare" was 140 F, "medium" was 160 F, and "well done" was 180 F.
>
> Those are certainly not the temperatures called for in most contemporary
> sources, and for my self, I "rarely" let a roast of beef get above about
> 130-132 F before I pull it from the oven. I consider a 140 degree roast
> an unfortunate mistake, 160 as inedible, and 180 -- well, I've never
> done it that way (though I suspect my dearly departed mother did,
> although she never even owned a meat thermometer so there's no way to
> know).
>
> So the question is, why were "proper" temperatures so much higher back
> then? Was it due to the far less sanitary methods of butchering and
> distribution? Or just "public preference"? Or what?
>
> And when did the "proper" temperatures begin to drop towards where they
> are today?
>

Two things strike me: where the temperature was taken may be different,
and the beef itself may be different. Even when I was a boy, every roast
had a nice fat cap which is ruthlessly trimmed away today. Further, the
cooking time might vary according to effects of the cattle's diet amd
activity level.

Here's a fattening ration from 90 years ago:
2.5 lb cotton seed meal
4.4 lb clover hay
14.4 lb shelled corn
27.7 lb corn silage

On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 23:12:21 -0800 (PST), Christopher Helms
> wrote:

> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 12:39:25 AM UTC-6, isw wrote:
> > I came across a Popular Science magazine from 1931. In it was an article
> > about the "scientific" testing of beef cooking methods. They were
> > roasting various cuts from various breeds raised under various
> > conditions and having a panel of "experts" judge the results -- tender,
> > tough, juicy, moist, etc. Note that this is dry roasting, not braising
> > or other wet methods.
> >
> > They mentioned that one of the variables they were experimenting with
> > was the temperature at which they pulled the roast from the oven --
> > "rare" was 140 F, "medium" was 160 F, and "well done" was 180 F.
> >
> > Those are certainly not the temperatures called for in most contemporary
> > sources, and for my self, I "rarely" let a roast of beef get above about
> > 130-132 F before I pull it from the oven. I consider a 140 degree roast
> > an unfortunate mistake, 160 as inedible, and 180 -- well, I've never
> > done it that way (though I suspect my dearly departed mother did,
> > although she never even owned a meat thermometer so there's no way to
> > know).
> >
> > So the question is, why were "proper" temperatures so much higher back
> > then? Was it due to the far less sanitary methods of butchering and
> > distribution? Or just "public preference"? Or what?
>
>
> I would guess that it would have been a preference thing, as of 1931. I wonder if people gave any thought to calibration back then? Or did they just trust the numbers on the dial?

Not commenting on the lack of redness, but they had a good chance of
being juicy back then because they had more fat. Remember that USDA
meat grading was downgraded back in the '80s or '90s so less fat was
require to make the grade. It was around the same time that the size
of women's clothing was bumped down so women could think they were
still wearing the same size they wore 20 years before and bra cup
sizes were increased to placate the thinking of dirty old men like
Sheldon.

--
A kitchen without a cook is just a room.

On 2/11/2015 2:23 AM, Timo wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 4:39:25 PM UTC+10, isw wrote:
>>
>> So the question is, why were "proper" temperatures so much higher back
>> then? Was it due to the far less sanitary methods of butchering and
>> distribution? Or just "public preference"? Or what?
>
> Probably just a difference in what we call "rare" and "medium".
>
> The article is page 50 in http://books.google.com/books?id=3ScDAAAAMBAJ
>
Interesting article, thanks for finding it.

Jill

On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 00:10:15 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 10:39:25 PM UTC-8, isw wrote:
>> I came across a Popular Science magazine from 1931. In it was an article
>> about the "scientific" testing of beef cooking methods. They were
>> roasting various cuts from various breeds raised under various
>> conditions and having a panel of "experts" judge the results -- tender,
>> tough, juicy, moist, etc. Note that this is dry roasting, not braising
>> or other wet methods.
>>
>> They mentioned that one of the variables they were experimenting with
>> was the temperature at which they pulled the roast from the oven --
>> "rare" was 140 F, "medium" was 160 F, and "well done" was 180 F.
>>
>> Those are certainly not the temperatures called for in most contemporary
>> sources, and for my self, I "rarely" let a roast of beef get above about
>> 130-132 F before I pull it from the oven. I consider a 140 degree roast
>> an unfortunate mistake, 160 as inedible, and 180 -- well, I've never
>> done it that way (though I suspect my dearly departed mother did,
>> although she never even owned a meat thermometer so there's no way to
>> know).
>>
>> So the question is, why were "proper" temperatures so much higher back
>> then? Was it due to the far less sanitary methods of butchering and
>> distribution? Or just "public preference"? Or what?
>>
>> And when did the "proper" temperatures begin to drop towards where they
>> are today?
>>
>
>Two things strike me: where the temperature was taken may be different,
>and the beef itself may be different. Even when I was a boy, every roast
>had a nice fat cap which is ruthlessly trimmed away today. Further, the
>cooking time might vary according to effects of the cattle's diet amd
>activity level.
>
> Here's a fattening ration from 90 years ago:
> 2.5 lb cotton seed meal
> 4.4 lb clover hay
>14.4 lb shelled corn
>27.7 lb corn silage

I've had a challenge cooking frozen grass-fed steaks from TJs, very
lean (and very tasty!), not even sure what the best procedure is
supposed to be but I've been trying to wing it just doing it in a
large covered pan. Can barely even tell what my procedure is, but it
doesn't involve a thermometer - I get it where I think it's close,
then cut it in half to check, and give it another minute or two as
necessary. But it's worked great for me two out of three times, heh.

J.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 22:39:20 -0800, isw > wrote:

>I came across a Popular Science magazine from 1931. In it was an article
>about the "scientific" testing of beef cooking methods. They were
>roasting various cuts from various breeds raised under various
>conditions and having a panel of "experts" judge the results -- tender,
>tough, juicy, moist, etc. Note that this is dry roasting, not braising
>or other wet methods.
>
>They mentioned that one of the variables they were experimenting with
>was the temperature at which they pulled the roast from the oven --
>"rare" was 140 F, "medium" was 160 F, and "well done" was 180 F.
>
>Those are certainly not the temperatures called for in most contemporary
>sources, and for my self, I "rarely" let a roast of beef get above about
>130-132 F before I pull it from the oven. I consider a 140 degree roast
>an unfortunate mistake, 160 as inedible, and 180 -- well, I've never
>done it that way (though I suspect my dearly departed mother did,
>although she never even owned a meat thermometer so there's no way to
>know).
>
>So the question is, why were "proper" temperatures so much higher back
>then? Was it due to the far less sanitary methods of butchering and
>distribution? Or just "public preference"? Or what?
>
>And when did the "proper" temperatures begin to drop towards where they
>are today?
>
>Isaac

Excellent questions!

All I can add is that as a kid, my preference was generally for much
more well done meat, even perfectly done medium-rare or medium didn't
sway me. Don't know how much of that was me, or kids, or the times,
or the kitchen, applied at home or anywhere I went.

Frankly, even now I wonder about rarer results, no matter how tasty,
but I do shoot for rare middle and seared outside for steaks.
Hamburger, now, because of the e-coli scares, I usually ask for
well-done, and it seldom arrives as well-done as I'd like.

J.

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 8:39:25 PM UTC-10, isw wrote:
> I came across a Popular Science magazine from 1931. In it was an article
> about the "scientific" testing of beef cooking methods. They were
> roasting various cuts from various breeds raised under various
> conditions and having a panel of "experts" judge the results -- tender,
> tough, juicy, moist, etc. Note that this is dry roasting, not braising
> or other wet methods.
>
> They mentioned that one of the variables they were experimenting with
> was the temperature at which they pulled the roast from the oven --
> "rare" was 140 F, "medium" was 160 F, and "well done" was 180 F.
>
> Those are certainly not the temperatures called for in most contemporary
> sources, and for my self, I "rarely" let a roast of beef get above about
> 130-132 F before I pull it from the oven. I consider a 140 degree roast
> an unfortunate mistake, 160 as inedible, and 180 -- well, I've never
> done it that way (though I suspect my dearly departed mother did,
> although she never even owned a meat thermometer so there's no way to
> know).
>
> So the question is, why were "proper" temperatures so much higher back
> then? Was it due to the far less sanitary methods of butchering and
> distribution? Or just "public preference"? Or what?
>
> And when did the "proper" temperatures begin to drop towards where they
> are today?
>
> Isaac

Times have changed. My mom used to cook a turkey and it used to take almost 4 hours. I can cook a turkey in about an hour in a moderate oven. Back then, overcooking food was the norm. These days we cook stuff barely enough. Just pick anywhere within that range and your food will probably still be edible.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 23:12:21 -0800 (PST), Christopher Helms
> wrote:

>On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 12:39:25 AM UTC-6, isw wrote:
>[...]
>>
>> So the question is, why were "proper" temperatures so much higher back
>> then? Was it due to the far less sanitary methods of butchering and
>> distribution? Or just "public preference"? Or what?
>
>
>I would guess that it would have been a preference thing, as of 1931. I wonder if people gave any thought to calibration back then? Or did they just trust the numbers on the dial?

It is STILL the preference in some parts of Texas and Oklahoma. And
yes, I suspect that Popular Science had heard of calibrating a
thermometer, though I expect that it did not have a dial.

On 2/11/2015 1:39 AM, isw wrote:

> So the question is, why were "proper" temperatures so much higher back
> then? Was it due to the far less sanitary methods of butchering and
> distribution? Or just "public preference"? Or what?
>
> And when did the "proper" temperatures begin to drop towards where they
> are today?
>
> Isaac
>

The beef, if anything like commercial hogs, was different. Probably
more fat. Breeding has changed things considerably.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 20:31:23 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 2/11/2015 1:39 AM, isw wrote:
>
>> So the question is, why were "proper" temperatures so much higher back
>> then? Was it due to the far less sanitary methods of butchering and
>> distribution? Or just "public preference"? Or what?
>>
>> And when did the "proper" temperatures begin to drop towards where they
>> are today?
>>
>> Isaac
>>
>
>The beef, if anything like commercial hogs, was different. Probably
>more fat. Breeding has changed things considerably.

There is no proper temperature for cooking beef, USDA Inspected beef
is safe to eat raw unless it's preground mystery meat... and if you
grind beef yourself you can eat it raw.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 12:13:23 -0500, Brooklyn1
> wrote:

>There is no proper temperature for cooking beef, USDA Inspected beef
>is safe to eat raw unless it's preground mystery meat... and if you
>grind beef yourself you can eat it raw.

What about parasites?

I know that pork trichnosis is just about disappeared, and cows have
always been a lot safer than pigs anyway, BUT there are no guarantees.

One of the reasons I don't eat more sushi is the very real risk of
parasites - most of which are mostly harmless, but even so. Even the
sushi I do eat is thus certainly much more risky than raw beef would
be - and yet, I wouldn't recommend people make a habit of eating raw
beef.

Heck, mad cow can make it through the spotty "inspections" of the
USDA, they *forbid* slaughterhouses from doing more inspection, so who
knows what else.

Y'know what drives me crazy is the fad for "seared" fish, especially
ahi tuna. In a sushi bar the fish is sliced very small and thin and
inspected, not so in Joe's Diner serving "seared" ahi. Well, the
sushi bar ahi is almost always fresh and Joe's is almost always
frozen, so maybe the freezing will kill some parasites, anyway.

Don't want to be paranoid about this stuff, but not complacent either.

J.

JRStern wrote:
>
> Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> >There is no proper temperature for cooking beef, USDA Inspected beef
> >is safe to eat raw unless it's preground mystery meat... and if you
> >grind beef yourself you can eat it raw.
>
> What about parasites?
>
> I know that pork trichnosis is just about disappeared, and cows have
> always been a lot safer than pigs anyway, BUT there are no guarantees.
>
> One of the reasons I don't eat more sushi is the very real risk of
> parasites - most of which are mostly harmless, but even so.

I agree with you. There is always a risk involved in eating raw meat
of any kind.

I never do but it's because I prefer cooked animal of any kind.
Slurping down raw oysters? yuk. what a waste of good oysters. Steak
tartar? How about medium-rare steak? Sushi or sashimi? no way...all
fish is better cooked a bit. Eat a bit of tuna raw then compare it to
a tuna cooked just slightly...no contest.

I've always thought that all this raw meal crap is just people trying
to act cool. I'll bet that whatever they eat raw, they would love the
same thing better cooked a bit.

On 2015-02-12 2:57 PM, JRStern wrote:

> Y'know what drives me crazy is the fad for "seared" fish, especially
> ahi tuna. In a sushi bar the fish is sliced very small and thin and
> inspected, not so in Joe's Diner serving "seared" ahi. Well, the
> sushi bar ahi is almost always fresh and Joe's is almost always
> frozen, so maybe the freezing will kill some parasites, anyway.
>
> Don't want to be paranoid about this stuff, but not complacent either.

Just so you know....sushi grade means that the fish has been frozen to
something like -30 for a period of time to ensure destruction of any
parasites that might me in the flesh.

On 2/12/2015 9:57 AM, JRStern wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 12:13:23 -0500, Brooklyn1
> > wrote:
>
>> There is no proper temperature for cooking beef, USDA Inspected beef
>> is safe to eat raw unless it's preground mystery meat... and if you
>> grind beef yourself you can eat it raw.
>
> What about parasites?
>
> I know that pork trichnosis is just about disappeared, and cows have
> always been a lot safer than pigs anyway, BUT there are no guarantees.
>
> One of the reasons I don't eat more sushi is the very real risk of
> parasites - most of which are mostly harmless, but even so. Even the
> sushi I do eat is thus certainly much more risky than raw beef would
> be - and yet, I wouldn't recommend people make a habit of eating raw
> beef.

Da locals here eat tons of raw fish. In the stores they sell the stuff
as poke and it comes in two types - previously frozen and previously not
frozen. The not frozen type is around 30 percent more. I have not heard
much about parasites in the fish but our exposure is going to be very
heavy. If you ask me, they should blast these things with gamma rays. We
deal with this by not thinking about it. Personally, I'm more paranoid
about the volcano next door.

>
> Heck, mad cow can make it through the spotty "inspections" of the
> USDA, they *forbid* slaughterhouses from doing more inspection, so who
> knows what else.
>
> Y'know what drives me crazy is the fad for "seared" fish, especially
> ahi tuna. In a sushi bar the fish is sliced very small and thin and
> inspected, not so in Joe's Diner serving "seared" ahi. Well, the
> sushi bar ahi is almost always fresh and Joe's is almost always
> frozen, so maybe the freezing will kill some parasites, anyway.

I make the seared ahi sometimes. Gosh, it tastes like the most wonderful
beef - amazing!

>
> Don't want to be paranoid about this stuff, but not complacent either.
>
> J.
>

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 11:57:40 -0800, JRStern >
wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 12:13:23 -0500, Brooklyn1
> wrote:
>
>>There is no proper temperature for cooking beef, USDA Inspected beef
>>is safe to eat raw unless it's preground mystery meat... and if you
>>grind beef yourself you can eat it raw.
>
>What about parasites?

Then you'd never order a steak rare, no rare roast beef, and never see
steak tartar on a menu. The USDA inspects beef for wholesomeness,
disease and parasites is what they inspect for among other things,
however USDA grading is voluntary. Occasionally something sneaks
through but it's almost always in ground beef, that's why those
massive recalls of many tons of ground beef. Never eat ground beef
unless you grind it yourself and you'll be safe. People get sick from
eating beef because it's not handled safely... there is much info on
the net regarding safe food handling, mostly it's common sense...
those who eat preground mystery meat are the same people who don't
bathe, fact!

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:47:15 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2015-02-12 2:57 PM, JRStern wrote:
>
>> Y'know what drives me crazy is the fad for "seared" fish, especially
>> ahi tuna. In a sushi bar the fish is sliced very small and thin and
>> inspected, not so in Joe's Diner serving "seared" ahi. Well, the
>> sushi bar ahi is almost always fresh and Joe's is almost always
>> frozen, so maybe the freezing will kill some parasites, anyway.
>>
>> Don't want to be paranoid about this stuff, but not complacent either.
>
>Just so you know....sushi grade means that the fish has been frozen to
>something like -30 for a period of time to ensure destruction of any
>parasites that might me in the flesh.

I do not believe this is the case.

Googling, I see the FDA recommends, not that it requires.

http://www.sushifaq.com/sushi-sashim...hi-grade-fish/

http://www.pbs.org/food/fresh-tastes/myth-sushi-grade/

Even if not strictly required there is the question of how often or
exactly who does follow it anyway, and again I don't know, but my
impression remains, far from everyone.

Although this may have changed sometime in the last 20 years or so, do
you happen to know when even this recommendation began?

Next time I go to my favorite place I will ask, which it turns out I
never have before!

J.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 00:14:56 -0600, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:59:49 -0800, JRStern wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:47:15 -0500, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On 2015-02-12 2:57 PM, JRStern wrote:
>>>
>>>> Y'know what drives me crazy is the fad for "seared" fish, especially
>>>> ahi tuna. In a sushi bar the fish is sliced very small and thin and
>>>> inspected, not so in Joe's Diner serving "seared" ahi. Well, the
>>>> sushi bar ahi is almost always fresh and Joe's is almost always
>>>> frozen, so maybe the freezing will kill some parasites, anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Don't want to be paranoid about this stuff, but not complacent either.
>>>
>>>Just so you know....sushi grade means that the fish has been frozen to
>>>something like -30 for a period of time to ensure destruction of any
>>>parasites that might me in the flesh.
>>
>> I do not believe this is the case.
>>
>> Googling, I see the FDA recommends, not that it requires.
>
>The FDA *requires* that most species of parasite-prone fish be frozen
>for specific times and temperatures if it is to be served raw. The
>general exceptions are most tunas, mollusks, and cultured fish (such
>as farmed salmon).
>
>See section 3-402.11 - Parasite Destruction at:
>
>http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegu...51.htm#part3-4
>
>Of course you are free to do whatever you want with your fresh fish at
>home. This only applies to restaurants or for fish sold retail with
>the intent of raw consumption.

It does seem to say that, even though the tuna varieties are mostly
what I eat there, I think salmon is usually partially cooked even for
sushi but I try to avoid cultured salmon anyway.

Wonder if this also covers fish eggs, I understood those are the most
parasite-prone of all, which is a shame as they are also some of the
tastiest.

I really didn't think that anything at the sushi bar was anything but
fresh as in never frozen.

J.


>
>-sw

On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 3:23:25 PM UTC-5, Gary wrote:
> JRStern wrote:
> >
> > Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >
> > >There is no proper temperature for cooking beef, USDA Inspected beef
> > >is safe to eat raw unless it's preground mystery meat... and if you
> > >grind beef yourself you can eat it raw.
> >
> > What about parasites?
> >
> > I know that pork trichnosis is just about disappeared, and cows have
> > always been a lot safer than pigs anyway, BUT there are no guarantees.
> >
> > One of the reasons I don't eat more sushi is the very real risk of
> > parasites - most of which are mostly harmless, but even so.
>
> I agree with you. There is always a risk involved in eating raw meat
> of any kind.
>
> I never do but it's because I prefer cooked animal of any kind.
> Slurping down raw oysters? yuk. what a waste of good oysters. Steak
> tartar? How about medium-rare steak? Sushi or sashimi? no way...all
> fish is better cooked a bit. Eat a bit of tuna raw then compare it to
> a tuna cooked just slightly...no contest.
>
> I've always thought that all this raw meal crap is just people trying
> to act cool. I'll bet that whatever they eat raw, they would love the
> same thing better cooked a bit.

Hey, thanks for the inspiration. I had sushi for lunch today. The
lunch special at my favorite place was:

tuna nigiri
salmon nigiri
shrimp nigiri
a couple pieces of something like futomaki
spicy tuna roll
california roll

Not the assortment I'd choose for myself, but I occasionally like to have something different.

Cindy Hamilton

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:49:18 -0600, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:22:09 -0800, JRStern wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 00:14:56 -0600, Sqwertz >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:59:49 -0800, JRStern wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:47:15 -0500, Dave Smith
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 2015-02-12 2:57 PM, JRStern wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Y'know what drives me crazy is the fad for "seared" fish, especially
>>>>>> ahi tuna. In a sushi bar the fish is sliced very small and thin and
>>>>>> inspected, not so in Joe's Diner serving "seared" ahi. Well, the
>>>>>> sushi bar ahi is almost always fresh and Joe's is almost always
>>>>>> frozen, so maybe the freezing will kill some parasites, anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't want to be paranoid about this stuff, but not complacent either.
>>>>>
>>>>>Just so you know....sushi grade means that the fish has been frozen to
>>>>>something like -30 for a period of time to ensure destruction of any
>>>>>parasites that might me in the flesh.
>>>>
>>>> I do not believe this is the case.
>>>>
>>>> Googling, I see the FDA recommends, not that it requires.
>>>
>>>The FDA *requires* that most species of parasite-prone fish be frozen
>>>for specific times and temperatures if it is to be served raw. The
>>>general exceptions are most tunas, mollusks, and cultured fish (such
>>>as farmed salmon).
>>>
>>>See section 3-402.11 - Parasite Destruction at:
>>>
>>>http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegu...51.htm#part3-4
>>>
>>>Of course you are free to do whatever you want with your fresh fish at
>>>home. This only applies to restaurants or for fish sold retail with
>>>the intent of raw consumption.
>>
>> It does seem to say that, even though the tuna varieties are mostly
>> what I eat there, I think salmon is usually partially cooked even for
>> sushi but I try to avoid cultured salmon anyway.
>>
>> Wonder if this also covers fish eggs, I understood those are the most
>> parasite-prone of all, which is a shame as they are also some of the
>> tastiest.
>
>It excludes fish eggs. Removing the fish eggs from the skein and
>rinsing them (required) removes most of the chances of parasites.
>Most fish eggs are processed further (salted and optionally
>pasteurized), which eliminates even more chances of parasites.

Salmon eggs, pasteurized and safe?

http://www.alaskaseafood.org/retaile...20Brochure.pdf

Suddenly I need a trip down to my favorite sushi house.

Thanks,

J.


>
>-sw

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:22:09 -0800, JRStern >
wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 00:14:56 -0600, Sqwertz >
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:59:49 -0800, JRStern wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:47:15 -0500, Dave Smith
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2015-02-12 2:57 PM, JRStern wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Y'know what drives me crazy is the fad for "seared" fish, especially
>>>>> ahi tuna. In a sushi bar the fish is sliced very small and thin and
>>>>> inspected, not so in Joe's Diner serving "seared" ahi. Well, the
>>>>> sushi bar ahi is almost always fresh and Joe's is almost always
>>>>> frozen, so maybe the freezing will kill some parasites, anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't want to be paranoid about this stuff, but not complacent either.
>>>>
>>>>Just so you know....sushi grade means that the fish has been frozen to
>>>>something like -30 for a period of time to ensure destruction of any
>>>>parasites that might me in the flesh.
>>>
>>> I do not believe this is the case.
>>>
>>> Googling, I see the FDA recommends, not that it requires.
>>
>>The FDA *requires* that most species of parasite-prone fish be frozen
>>for specific times and temperatures if it is to be served raw. The
>>general exceptions are most tunas, mollusks, and cultured fish (such
>>as farmed salmon).
>>
>>See section 3-402.11 - Parasite Destruction at:
>>
>>http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegu...51.htm#part3-4
>>
>>Of course you are free to do whatever you want with your fresh fish at
>>home. This only applies to restaurants or for fish sold retail with
>>the intent of raw consumption.
>
>It does seem to say that, even though the tuna varieties are mostly
>what I eat there, I think salmon is usually partially cooked even for
>sushi but I try to avoid cultured salmon anyway.
>
>Wonder if this also covers fish eggs, I understood those are the most
>parasite-prone of all, which is a shame as they are also some of the
>tastiest.
>
>I really didn't think that anything at the sushi bar was anything but
>fresh as in never frozen.

To me any seafood that's been previously frozen isn't worth 50¢/lb...
you telling me people are paying big bucks for sushi made with frozen
fish... yik

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 11:40:14 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 3:23:25 PM UTC-5, Gary wrote:
>> JRStern wrote:
>> >
>> > Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> >
>> > >There is no proper temperature for cooking beef, USDA Inspected beef
>> > >is safe to eat raw unless it's preground mystery meat... and if you
>> > >grind beef yourself you can eat it raw.
>> >
>> > What about parasites?
>> >
>> > I know that pork trichnosis is just about disappeared, and cows have
>> > always been a lot safer than pigs anyway, BUT there are no guarantees.
>> >
>> > One of the reasons I don't eat more sushi is the very real risk of
>> > parasites - most of which are mostly harmless, but even so.
>>
>> I agree with you. There is always a risk involved in eating raw meat
>> of any kind.
>>
>> I never do but it's because I prefer cooked animal of any kind.
>> Slurping down raw oysters? yuk. what a waste of good oysters. Steak
>> tartar? How about medium-rare steak? Sushi or sashimi? no way...all
>> fish is better cooked a bit. Eat a bit of tuna raw then compare it to
>> a tuna cooked just slightly...no contest.
>>
>> I've always thought that all this raw meal crap is just people trying
>> to act cool. I'll bet that whatever they eat raw, they would love the
>> same thing better cooked a bit.
>
>Hey, thanks for the inspiration. I had sushi for lunch today. The
>lunch special at my favorite place was:
>
>tuna nigiri
>salmon nigiri
>shrimp nigiri
>a couple pieces of something like futomaki
>spicy tuna roll
>california roll
>
>Not the assortment I'd choose for myself, but I occasionally like to have something different.
>
>Cindy Hamilton

Like different positions.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:42:24 -0500, Brooklyn1
> wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:22:09 -0800, JRStern >
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 00:14:56 -0600, Sqwertz >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:59:49 -0800, JRStern wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:47:15 -0500, Dave Smith
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 2015-02-12 2:57 PM, JRStern wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Y'know what drives me crazy is the fad for "seared" fish, especially
>>>>>> ahi tuna. In a sushi bar the fish is sliced very small and thin and
>>>>>> inspected, not so in Joe's Diner serving "seared" ahi. Well, the
>>>>>> sushi bar ahi is almost always fresh and Joe's is almost always
>>>>>> frozen, so maybe the freezing will kill some parasites, anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't want to be paranoid about this stuff, but not complacent either.
>>>>>
>>>>>Just so you know....sushi grade means that the fish has been frozen to
>>>>>something like -30 for a period of time to ensure destruction of any
>>>>>parasites that might me in the flesh.
>>>>
>>>> I do not believe this is the case.
>>>>
>>>> Googling, I see the FDA recommends, not that it requires.
>>>
>>>The FDA *requires* that most species of parasite-prone fish be frozen
>>>for specific times and temperatures if it is to be served raw. The
>>>general exceptions are most tunas, mollusks, and cultured fish (such
>>>as farmed salmon).
>>>
>>>See section 3-402.11 - Parasite Destruction at:
>>>
>>>http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegu...51.htm#part3-4
>>>
>>>Of course you are free to do whatever you want with your fresh fish at
>>>home. This only applies to restaurants or for fish sold retail with
>>>the intent of raw consumption.
>>
>>It does seem to say that, even though the tuna varieties are mostly
>>what I eat there, I think salmon is usually partially cooked even for
>>sushi but I try to avoid cultured salmon anyway.
>>
>>Wonder if this also covers fish eggs, I understood those are the most
>>parasite-prone of all, which is a shame as they are also some of the
>>tastiest.
>>
>>I really didn't think that anything at the sushi bar was anything but
>>fresh as in never frozen.
>
>To me any seafood that's been previously frozen isn't worth 50¢/lb...
>you telling me people are paying big bucks for sushi made with frozen
>fish... yik

Really? For cooking, I prefer frozen and still frozen, I get ****ed
when they thaw it and present it as fresh. I thought almost all
ocean-caught fish is now flash-frozen on ship ASAP.

Otherwise, unless you can get it to shore and into the kitchen within
just a couple (2? 12? 36?) of hours, it's not as good and may be
really ungood. Outside of whole trout, I'm not sure anything in the
market is really fresh - and I'm not even sure about the trout.

J.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:58:41 -0800, JRStern >
wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:42:24 -0500, Brooklyn1
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:22:09 -0800, JRStern >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 00:14:56 -0600, Sqwertz >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:59:49 -0800, JRStern wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:47:15 -0500, Dave Smith
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 2015-02-12 2:57 PM, JRStern wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Y'know what drives me crazy is the fad for "seared" fish, especially
>>>>>>> ahi tuna. In a sushi bar the fish is sliced very small and thin and
>>>>>>> inspected, not so in Joe's Diner serving "seared" ahi. Well, the
>>>>>>> sushi bar ahi is almost always fresh and Joe's is almost always
>>>>>>> frozen, so maybe the freezing will kill some parasites, anyway.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't want to be paranoid about this stuff, but not complacent either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Just so you know....sushi grade means that the fish has been frozen to
>>>>>>something like -30 for a period of time to ensure destruction of any
>>>>>>parasites that might me in the flesh.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not believe this is the case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Googling, I see the FDA recommends, not that it requires.
>>>>
>>>>The FDA *requires* that most species of parasite-prone fish be frozen
>>>>for specific times and temperatures if it is to be served raw. The
>>>>general exceptions are most tunas, mollusks, and cultured fish (such
>>>>as farmed salmon).
>>>>
>>>>See section 3-402.11 - Parasite Destruction at:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegu...51.htm#part3-4
>>>>
>>>>Of course you are free to do whatever you want with your fresh fish at
>>>>home. This only applies to restaurants or for fish sold retail with
>>>>the intent of raw consumption.
>>>
>>>It does seem to say that, even though the tuna varieties are mostly
>>>what I eat there, I think salmon is usually partially cooked even for
>>>sushi but I try to avoid cultured salmon anyway.
>>>
>>>Wonder if this also covers fish eggs, I understood those are the most
>>>parasite-prone of all, which is a shame as they are also some of the
>>>tastiest.
>>>
>>>I really didn't think that anything at the sushi bar was anything but
>>>fresh as in never frozen.
>>
>>To me any seafood that's been previously frozen isn't worth 50¢/lb...
>>you telling me people are paying big bucks for sushi made with frozen
>>fish... yik
>
>Really? For cooking, I prefer frozen and still frozen, I get ****ed
>when they thaw it and present it as fresh. I thought almost all
>ocean-caught fish is now flash-frozen on ship ASAP.
>
>Otherwise, unless you can get it to shore and into the kitchen within
>just a couple (2? 12? 36?) of hours, it's not as good and may be
>really ungood. Outside of whole trout, I'm not sure anything in the
>market is really fresh - and I'm not even sure about the trout.
>
>J.

Depends where one lives... when I lived in NYC and on Long Island it
was rare to find previouly frozen seafood at market or eateries unless
it was fast food or fish sticks. Many fish markets in NYC sell mostly
live fish.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 00:12:07 -0600, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:11:21 -0500, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> Many fish markets in NYC sell mostly
>> live fish.
>
>Yeah - I love those markets in NY that allow you to jump into the
>tanks and wrestle out your very own 1,2000-pound Atlantic bluefin
>tuna.
>
>Fish markets don't have room to sell more than a couple-few varieties
>of live fish, Shelly - and usually farmed. Let alone the boats that
>are capable of bringing in live fish. Shellfish and mullosks, yes.
>Fish, no.
>
>Mostly live fish, my ass!

I assume she meant just fresh, on ice, but that's in a central fish
market and not far from the docks, the supermarket even ten miles away
that gets everything through regional warehouses is another matter.

I've seen pictures of serving live fish at a sushi bar in Japan, not
sure it's ever done in the US. Well, "ever", yeah it probably is, we
had some local restaurant serving whale meat, too, and they got in
major trouble for it.

J.


>
>-sw

On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 03:50:29 -0600, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 09:46:32 -0800, JRStern wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 00:12:07 -0600, Sqwertz >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:11:21 -0500, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Many fish markets in NYC sell mostly
>>>> live fish.
>>>
>>>Yeah - I love those markets in NY that allow you to jump into the
>>>tanks and wrestle out your very own 1,2000-pound Atlantic bluefin
>>>tuna.
>>>
>>>Fish markets don't have room to sell more than a couple-few varieties
>>>of live fish, Shelly - and usually farmed. Let alone the boats that
>>>are capable of bringing in live fish. Shellfish and mullosks, yes.
>>>Fish, no.
>>>
>>>Mostly live fish, my ass!
>>
>> I assume she meant just fresh, on ice, but that's in a central fish
>> market and not far from the docks, the supermarket even ten miles away
>> that gets everything through regional warehouses is another matter.
>
>No. He meant live fish. Not freshly dead on ice.
>
>Haven't you seen by now that Sheldon gets the best shit on Earth? And
>usually from Walmart or Price Chopper.

NYC & Long Island has a huge fishing fleet, one of if not the largest
on the planet, commercial and sport, many of which contract to bring
in their catch live to neighborhood markets and restaurants. Live
fish are sold at many markets, especially at markets in Oriental and
Jewish neighborhoods. The dwarf has never been to NYC or Long Island,
the only fish he sees is that schtinkin' warm water frozen dreck in
tex-mex ghettos.

On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 3:32:39 PM UTC-6, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>
> those who eat preground mystery meat are the same people who don't
> bathe, fact!
>
Sheldon, you are an asshole, a homophobe, and an all around wretched excuse
for a human being who blows out his ass more here than even Julie Bove, but
goddamnit, you make me laugh more often than anyone else here. Of course,
I'm pretty much always laughing *at* you, rather than *with* you, but still.

--Bryan

On 2/15/2015 2:50 PM, Sqwertz wrote:

>
> http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/webp..._YEARD.RESULTS
>
> That's a pretty far cry from "...one of if not the largest on the
> planet".

Thanks for the link Couple of surprises there.

On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 20:55:42 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 2/15/2015 2:50 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/webp...TYEARD.RESULTS
>>
>> That's a pretty far cry from "...one of if not the largest on the
>> planet".
>
>Thanks for the link Couple of surprises there.

This the surprise I got:
Error 404: Document Not Found
The page you tried was not found. You may have used an outdated link
or may have typed the address (URL) incorrectly. Please check for
typographical errors in the URL you entered.

On 2/15/2015 10:18 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 20:55:42 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/2015 2:50 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/webp...TYEARD.RESULTS
>>>
>>> That's a pretty far cry from "...one of if not the largest on the
>>> planet".
>>
>> Thanks for the link Couple of surprises there.
>
> This the surprise I got:
> Error 404: Document Not Found
> The page you tried was not found. You may have used an outdated link
> or may have typed the address (URL) incorrectly. Please check for
> typographical errors in the URL you entered.
>

Click on the column on the left. All sorts of information available and
reports can be customized.

I made a chart with the amount of fish landed by state in tons, pounds,
dollars.

On 2/16/2015 12:51 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 20:55:42 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/2015 2:50 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/webp..._YEARD.RESULTS
>>>
>>> That's a pretty far cry from "...one of if not the largest on the
>>> planet".
>>
>> Thanks for the link Couple of surprises there.
>
> I was surprised Hawaii had so little, and that only Honolulu was
> listed. There are probably a bunch of smaller ports that just aren't
> listed. Or perhaps fish exports from HI is not a big business - they
> just catch what they can eat locally.
>
> -sw
>

Looking at the first two, one is by far the best in dollars, but #2 is
far more tonnage. They are probably bringing in McFish sandwiches for
pennies a pound. One of the surprises is Greenport dead last. We used
to have a customer there and we shipped them containers to pack fish in
for export, a few trailer-loads a week.

On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 23:51:06 -0600, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 20:55:42 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/2015 2:50 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/webp..._YEARD.RESULTS
>>>
>>> That's a pretty far cry from "...one of if not the largest on the
>>> planet".
>>
>> Thanks for the link Couple of surprises there.
>
>I was surprised Hawaii had so little, and that only Honolulu was
>listed. There are probably a bunch of smaller ports that just aren't
>listed. Or perhaps fish exports from HI is not a big business - they
>just catch what they can eat locally.
>
>-sw

Those lists are far from the truth, anyone believes them is a
certifiable pinhead. In the US *most* fishing is done under the radar
of the IRS. How do yoose think someone with an ordinary factory job
supports their $500,000 boat... there's an awful lot of cash money
supplying restaurants with fresh fish. An eight hour fishing run off
Montauk will easily put $5,000+ cash in a knowlegeable fisherman's
pocket for striped bass. Real seafood restaurants pay green money for
their Catch of The Day, and they're happy to do so.

On Monday, February 16, 2015 at 11:21:39 AM UTC-5, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 23:51:06 -0600, Sqwertz >
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 20:55:42 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/15/2015 2:50 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/webp..._YEARD.RESULTS
> >>>
> >>> That's a pretty far cry from "...one of if not the largest on the
> >>> planet".
> >>
> >> Thanks for the link Couple of surprises there.
> >
> >I was surprised Hawaii had so little, and that only Honolulu was
> >listed. There are probably a bunch of smaller ports that just aren't
> >listed. Or perhaps fish exports from HI is not a big business - they
> >just catch what they can eat locally.
> >
> >-sw
>
> Those lists are far from the truth, anyone believes them is a
> certifiable pinhead. In the US *most* fishing is done under the radar
> of the IRS. How do yoose think someone with an ordinary factory job
> supports their $500,000 boat... there's an awful lot of cash money
> supplying restaurants with fresh fish. An eight hour fishing run off
> Montauk will easily put $5,000+ cash in a knowlegeable fisherman's
> pocket for striped bass. Real seafood restaurants pay green money for
> their Catch of The Day, and they're happy to do so.

Jesus, you're an idiot.

On 2/12/2015 11:13 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:

> There is no proper temperature for cooking beef, USDA Inspected beef
> is safe to eat raw

Wrong again, Einstein. Google "mechanical tenderizing".