Food changes over time. The Joy Of Cooking that your grandmother gave to your mother in 1960 is not useful today. And it looks like another change is happening right now, as we cook.
-
Food changes over time. The Joy Of Cooking that your grandmother gave to your mother in 1960 is not useful today. And it looks like another change is happening right now, as we cook. -
I might light a fire here...
Have you ever noticed how much bigger some U.S. cows, chickens, and turkeys are than their European counterparts? That’s because many of America’s animal farms actually mix in synthetic hormones with the feedstock, making their cows, pigs, and other animals grow a lot bigger and faster than they usually would.
While the practice has been given the thumbs up by the Food and Drug Administration, many overseas countries feel that the resultant meat and meat products are not all that safe for human consumption and disapprove of the practice. For this reason, and several others, a handful of common U.S. meat products are actually banned from sale abroad.
American beef is a prime example of meat being treated with a variety of hormones that have placed it on the banned list for several countries since 1993.
Much of the U.S. beef cattle are fed synthetic hormones in the feedlots prior to slaughter. The chemicals are essentially growth hormones meant to increase the net amount of meat produced from each cow, but numerous concerns have been raised (by the National Cancer Association, no less) about the high incidence of hormonal cancers produced as well. As early as 1989, the EEC (European Economic Community) put its collective foot down and said that’s not okay, and banned the treated beef from being sold in any E.U. country, though some of those restrictions have since relaxed depending on the hormones used. There have also been other issues like mad cow disease, leading to China also banning American beef products. Ironically, the U.S. has banned much of the Europe’s beef products, too, because of mad cow disease. -
I hear you Elton's BBQ. It's impossible to avoid it all, but I try to buy organic meat when I can.
I read that article last night, Mosca. Interesting read.Comment
-
Comment
-
Many of the recipes have been defatted since then, making original Joy a better cookbook than the modern edition. -
Not directly on topic, but I was reading an article recently where the whole "war on fat" was concocted by BIG SUGAR to divert attention from the damage done by added sugars. Much recent research shows that most dietary fats are neutral at worst, and are beneficial in many cases.
-
-
Yeah I greatly prefer ingesting natural animals. Antibiotics and hormones you can keep those.Originally posted by Elton's BBQ View Post
I get a pig from my sister every year. They aren't organic, which I'm not sure it the most important thing when it comes to meat, but they are otherwise natural healthy pigs. They taste different. They taste much better. She's considering cattle now that she bought a bigger ranch. If she does that I'll need a bigger freezer. Looking forward to getting some elk soon from my buddy's land too.Comment
-
I buy most of my meat from local folks. Not saying it's drug / hormone free, but minimal use of that stuff, and not butchered in a high-speed slaughterhouse either. I spend more, but I like the product better.Comment
-
Throwing the BS flag on this one!!! Zero proof that GMO feeds or animals, hormone treatments, legal levels of antibiotics, etc... have any detrimental effects on either taste or safety!!! NADA, NONE, ZERO!!! The chemicals in the smoke we all relish are probably far more dangerous than the meats we cook. Period!!! We all gonna die of something. I choose to NOT die of worry about baseless "organic", "natural", "non GMO", etc... hype! End of rant!!!Comment
-
I'm rolling with Doc on this one.
IBTL!
Comment
-
That’s not what the article is about, though. As cows get bigger, the cuts of meat get bigger. So a 16 oz steak that used to be 1.5†is now only 1â€. Or it’s now a 24 oz steak, either one. So butchers are now selling ribeye fillets and ribeye caps, for example. I thought it was interesting.Originally posted by HorseDoctor View PostComment
-
Comment
-
That "cow" has some dangly parts on the bottom that shouldn't be there. My rancher father in law chuckles at me when I refer to the cattle generically as cows. To him, when discussing a bovine, it's one of four designations: a heifer, an old cow, a steer, or a bull. -
I knew it!! Something told me not to click, boys!
"Whatever you do, don't push this big red button that says total destruction,"
-
Feel we are on our way out of the topic but;
Belgian blue is a cattle breed. The breed is controversial and is known for its massive growth and its major calving problems. Due to a mutation, the gene for the restriction of muscle growth, myostatin, is out of play. The breed therefore has abnormal muscle growth, this phenomenon has been known since the early 19th century. This means, among other things, that the cows have trouble calving naturally. Most calves are therefore made with caesareans. Belgian blue is used for meat production.
There are more than 100,000 animals of the breed, most in Belgium, but the breed is also used in France, among others. The breed is not allowed in meat production in Norway and in many other countries.Comment
-
I have a degree in Animal Science with a knack for beef cattle. Preaching to the choir.
-
But yeah, we use that breed to explain that genetics plays a BIGGG part in animal "advancements," especially deer breeding, poultry growth rates of today, Holstein milk production, etc. While in college, thanks to artificial insemination this one Holstein bull had achieved 1 million progeny. Talk about some EPD's out the ying yang with that dude.
-
-
Just read the article. Appears to be mostly hogwash to me. Mostly half-truths taken out of context to create the desired theme. Here's the bottom line in my opinion: The market, in this case consumer demand, drives the breeding. This article tries to turn that economic truth around. This spin allows for the vilifying the "evil" producer. Voilà , you get an anti-capitalism and anti meat industry theme all rolled into one neat little piece
BTW, the anti-GMO movement is the biggest anti-science, anti-human lie I've witnessed in my 63 years on this world.Comment
-
I just went and reread it, to be sure what it says. It doesn’t draw any opinion at all. All it says is that, as cattle have gotten larger, the way butchers cut the steaks has been changing. It doesn’t say that that is good, or bad, just that the change is challenging to producers and consumers alike. The only time it mentioned hormones and antibiotics is to attribute the change in size to them; It doesn’t say it’s good, it doesn’t say it’s bad.Originally posted by Chas Martel View Post
It used to be, if you wanted a 16 oz ribeye, it was about an inch and a half thick. Now that the ribeyes are larger, that steak is closer to about an inch thick. This presents a challenge because steak lovers want thick steaks. So butchers are looking at cuts like eye of ribeye, ribeye cap, etc, to deal with it. I don’t see how this is hogwash. It’s simply reporting what is happening.Comment
-
The author of the article has the tail waging the dog in the cattle market by her account. It is not the producer who decides at what weight cattle are slaughtered, it is the slaughter house. The slaughter industry makes those decisions based on what their customers want. The Tennessee rancher quoted at the end of the article had it right. The author was either to dumb to get it, or she just ignored his point because it did not fit her theme.Comment
-
Been a long time ago, but I took a few Animal Science courses too (before vet school). Suspect it is the old question of "which came first, the chicken or the egg". I think the producer, searching for ways to get critters to get to market faster, at a higher grade and more economically, used selective breeding (genetics), higher planes of nutrition, nutritional supplements as well as additional hormones to achieve that goal. The result of that was animals reaching "slaughter weight" younger and less flavorful, not quite veal-like, but certainly not the same as more mature critters. In order to keep the taste up what the consumer wanted it was necessary for slaughter facilities to convert to a little older, larger and bigger critter to keep the taste at an optimum level. This resulted in a major overhaul in their facilities in order to handle the bigger carcasses. Not really what they wanted to do, but necessary to maintain market share. All this resulted in a high grade carcass being bigger, therefore the carcass parts delivered to the local butcher was bigger. I think the "local processor" is probably the one who hasn't educated the public to the evolution of the industry. Or perhaps the beef/pork producers haven't kept their client education up to date as much as their production techniques??? This is probably part of the reason "grass fed" beef is popular. To reach market weight, it is older and more flavorful even if less fatty than most commercial beef. Tasty in it's own right, but still not as good as grain finished meat (of the SAME AGE)!!! Think the increase in size is the result of production/nutrition advances. It is facilitated reluctantly by the processors (at considerable expense to change slaughter equipment). Now it is up to the terminal consumer to tell the butcher "I want a 1 1/2-2 inch ribeye with the ribeye cap attached!" If it's too big, share it, or use the leftovers for any of a number of great uses (or be a glutton and eat the whole thing
)! You ain't gonna reverse progress, yet you CAN still get what you want!!! You just have to ask for it!
Comment
Comment