I can't bring myself to trust Sally Fallon anymore. - Page 4 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#91 of 101 Old 05-31-2011, 11:47 AM
 
kmamma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 580
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

As Toolip stated, older animals develop more connective tissue and fat, thus if prepared correctly make very tender meat. When slow cooked, these tissues melt and tenderize the meat. I personally don't like young meat very much, like veal or lamb, the meat grain is too fine and sort of melts in an unappetizing way without much flavor. It's probably an aquired taste though since many people do like it.

 

Older animals also have a much deeper and satisfying flavor. A cow is obviously valued for her ability to mother new animals and to give milk, but there comes an end to that life at some point, where she can't produce anymore, and why wouldn't one eat it then? Did people just let a whole animal go to waste?

Somewhere I read that in the past, dual purpose breeds were most common, for this reason. As for pigs, they grow much faster than cows, so using a first time mother for meat is not wasteful; they're also not kept for the milk.

 

I'll have to look at that meat book again, cause I can't remember the details. I do know that cow meat is valued much higher than steer meat however. The author also pointed out that there is a way to make steer meat more palatable, probably through longer hanging time but not sure.
 

My theory wasn't that males weren't butchered at all, but that they were maybe taken as calves rather than as steers, when they're more tender. A male wouldn't turn into a bull if butchered at a young age, so that scenario wouldn't happen.

 

With chickens, older hens at the end of their productive years, are highly valued for making slow-cooked stews ('stewing hens'). I think older animals were just as highly regarded as young ones back when people hunted only as well. Those are the animals most easily hunted cause they're slower. The 'steers' were probably not killed as frequently, being quicker and smarter.

 

I think possibly your theory is based on larger size production farms, rather than subsistence type farming more common in the past. I think it makes more economic sense to let the males grow a bit in those conditions, rather than be taken as calves. But for a small farm, not sure it does. Other factors probably took precedence.

 

Anyhow, I should just read up on this topic again, instead of making guesses;)!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by gardenmommy View Post


That seems very backward to me.  The older an animal is, generally the tougher the meat.  Bulls tend to be a bit gamier, just because of the hormones they make, but I know that we've butchered bulls in the past.  Cows, too, although that is pretty rare. I can't imagine that butchering steers vs. anything else is a newer phenomenon.  There have always been bulls that were not needed for breeding, and since they are useless for breeding/maintaining herd integrity, they would be the prime candidate for providing the meat.   Not only that, bulls tend to be more aggressive than cows or steers, so just for safety reasons, bulls not needed for breeding are usually castrated.  However, I think that typically, steers would have taken longer to finish out (probably 3-4 years vs. 18 months-2 years) without the concentrated protein that is currently fed (corn, soy, cottonseed meal, etc.).  That is only a general assumption, though, since my dad regularly finishes steers within 2 years just on grass and hay in the winter (he does supplement minerals, esp. in the winter).  Additionally, cows are generally needed to keep the herd size stable, provide milk, and raise calves.  Unless there is a replacement heifer ready to calve, proven cows are usually more valuable: they know how to mother the calf, have proven themselves capable of producing enough milk, etc.  

 

 



 



 

kmamma is offline  
#92 of 101 Old 05-31-2011, 11:56 AM
 
kmamma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 580
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I did propose that males were killed, but as calves rather than steers. Calves are tender. And I probably wasn't clear about when females were butchered. As for pigs, that's a different matter, they're not kept for milk and grow to full size more quickly. For cows, it's obviously different. I bought cow meat from my raw milk farmer's jersey herd. Of course, they did not kill off a female that would have otherwise produced good milk. The meat had very deep golden colored fat, so she was old.

 

About arguments against eating old cows, that's what I referred to as well. The general consensus is that this meat is not fit for consumption. Perhaps cause the upper class wants to keep this meat for themselves;). You couldn't feed the masses with cow meat. That's why the steers are so valuable. Edible, yes, but not as tasty. I don't like the meat very much at all, even grass fed. There's no substance to it. And like I said, the fine restaurants will serve steaks from cows, not steers. That I do remember reading, so I'm not jsut theorizing on this one.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toolip View Post
View Post

That's pretty much what I have read. Traditionally, you would kill the males because you don't need them for breeding, even if we are talking about wild game. It's just not a good practice for perpetuating a species, to be killing the females. I've also heard arguments about the health/taste of consuming the female hormones, but they were less convincing.

As for older vs younger, I understand that they are different. Younger is tender in some ways but older does develop more connective tissue and flavor, and can be very tender if properly prepared.



 

 

kmamma is offline  
#93 of 101 Old 06-02-2011, 11:19 PM
 
SAmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 498
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

My two cents worth:

The best meat I have ever eaten was steaks from an old dairy cow. Grass fed organic and fattened for a few months on good grazing after being retired. What makes the biggest difference in meat is something called marbling, that is where the animal has the ability to store fat in the muscle tissue (think Angus beef). This was a traditionally prized feature in animals that has fallen out of fashion with the low fat insanity. There may be differences with the sex of the animal but marbling and fat is what makes the largest taste difference.

Also, back to the OP. I would argue that Sally Fallon is closer to correct about the Okinowan diet than what you will read about it online. Where we live in Asia there is wide spread acceptance of low fat vegetable based diets and rejection of traditional ways of eating. Here that happened through the 90's where before vegetable oil was not even available. My guess is that with Japan this transition would have happened 20 years earlier so that what they eat today has very little relationship to what they ate traditionally. (eg. whale was highly prized in Japan for its fat.)

I love to ask older people what they ate when they were young so I have lots of stories about buckets of lard, ghee, butter and the importance placed on fat and organ meats.

 

(SAmama's Husband:)

 

SAmama is offline  
#94 of 101 Old 06-03-2011, 04:24 AM
 
martaluna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 57
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I ust wanted to add that I recently read "The Jungle Effect" by Dr. ******. She also writes about traditional diet in Okinawa and according to this book they do it pork and seafood often, but as an addition to the other components of the meal, so vegetables.

I learned a lot of valuable things from WAPF and actually they opened my eyes to the whole subject of nutrition and how we should question the mainstream nutrition advice. That doesn't mean I follow everything they say blandly. You have to read other sources too and make your decisions on how you feel with the diet. I believe that some people do best on less animal products, others may need more of it, so it's not that black and white.

martaluna is offline  
#95 of 101 Old 06-03-2011, 02:08 PM
 
kmamma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 580
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Thank you, SAmama's husband:). Yes, old cow meat is excellent for the marbling effect,  not just slow cooking. The back part makes great quick cooking meat. The book I mentioned was written by a man who delivers meat to the royal court here in Sweden, so I suppose he should know;).

 

And also, thank you for sharing what you have learned from Japanese elders. In the literature, it's all word against word, but it's the personal accounts that count for anything.

 

martaluna--Fallon doesn't advocate a high protein diet. One of Price's quotes appear in NT, the one about satisfying a day's protein intake with one or two eggs, can't remember which. She only states that animal foods are healthy, not in what quantitiy it's needed.

 

 

kmamma is offline  
#96 of 101 Old 06-05-2011, 12:13 PM
 
BubblingBrooks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Way up North
Posts: 360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Those of you having trouble with cooking a grass fed roast, look at how various recipes for wild game are handled.
There is no need to soak the meat in buttermilk.
The reason it is so tough, is that it is much to easy to overcook it.

Here is a basic method that will always work.
Heat a cast iron skillet on medium high, add a bit of oil, and sear the roast on all sides.
Place in oven and roast as you normally would, bringing it only to a temp of 140. Use a thermometer to check the internal temp,
around the time you believe it is done. Do not do it to soon, otherwise you will lose the juices.
Pull it out of the oven, cover well, and let it sit for at least 10 minutes to allow the juices to set.
Slice and serve.

I am not a vegetable. I feed myself accordingly love.gif

BubblingBrooks is offline  
#97 of 101 Old 06-09-2011, 09:29 AM
 
junipermuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubblingBrooks View Post

Those of you having trouble with cooking a grass fed roast, look at how various recipes for wild game are handled.
There is no need to soak the meat in buttermilk.
The reason it is so tough, is that it is much to easy to overcook it.

Here is a basic method that will always work.
Heat a cast iron skillet on medium high, add a bit of oil, and sear the roast on all sides.
Place in oven and roast as you normally would, bringing it only to a temp of 140. Use a thermometer to check the internal temp,
around the time you believe it is done. Do not do it to soon, otherwise you will lose the juices.
Pull it out of the oven, cover well, and let it sit for at least 10 minutes to allow the juices to set.
Slice and serve.

140 may be a bit high if you're going for medium rare. I like rare and I pull it out at 110-115 because it will carry over and continue cooking until 125-130. For medium rare you want it to end up at 140, so you pull it out at 130 or earlier if it's really big. My understanding is that leaner meat (like grass fed is) is best served rare or medium rare. If you pull meat out of the oven at 140 it will be well done by the time it's finished resting.

Jennifer, mama to darling dancing Juliette, and sweet baby Jameson
junipermuse is offline  
#98 of 101 Old 06-17-2011, 10:47 AM
 
tboroson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Honalee
Posts: 6,340
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Re: cooling stock, from a few pages ago:

 

A pot of hot stock, or hot anything but stock is notable because it's usually a large volume, will warm up a refrigerator beyond the ability of the compressor to keep the temp in the safe zone, it wasn't just an "old icebox" thing.  So you risk everything in the fridge.

 

Meanwhile, air cooling a large volume is highly inefficient, even at refrigerator temperatures.  It doesn't matter if its a 39F refrigerator or a 72F countertop, heat transfer rate in still air is extremely inefficient.  It won't cool much faster in the fridge than it will on the countertop, for all you're ruining the rest of the contents of your fridge in the process.  The stock would spend many, many hours between 140F and 40F, the danger zone.

 

 

Food processing facilities use blast coolers - moving air - to chill food quickly.  There are no home equivalents.

 

Heat transfer into water is much more efficient, which is also why your frozen steaks thaw more quickly in a water bath than they do in still air.  Even in a water bath, though, the massive pots that chefs use in restaurant kitchens may not cool fast enough to be safe.  They may break up the volume into several smaller pots for a better ratio of volume to surface area, or they may use an ice paddle (a huge hollow plastic paddle filled with water and frozen) to stir the pot while it's in its water bath.

 

If you don't want to do a cold water bath, breaking it up into small volumes will make the process go quickly because you have a favorable ratio of volume to surface area.  In quart jars, the stock will cool from boiling to room temp very quickly, then from room temp to refrigerator temp quickly without heating the refrigerator beyond the compressor's ability to keep up.

 

tboroson is offline  
#99 of 101 Old 06-18-2011, 12:37 PM
 
neonalee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,295
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
This has been a fabulous read! I'm just getting into TF from some round about reading that started in the toddler forum about dental problems. I am exclusively BF ing and realizing the nutritional deficiencies I have. I will read NT because I already bought it but I'm glad to have all these other resources as well. It was interesting to read the pp about not tolerating whole grains. We've tried a few times to "be healthy" that way and each time my digestive area cramps so badly I feel like something is trying to climb out! ANYWAY, looking forward to learning more!

Sent from my Evo Shift using TapaTalk, please forgive typos

Loving mama to Aden (8/5/2010) and DSD (15).
neonalee is online now  
#100 of 101 Old 06-19-2011, 01:24 PM
 
gardenmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: blooming where I'm planted
Posts: 4,223
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

This was my understanding as well, and what you mentioned about pouring the stock into smaller containers before cooling is my method.  The only time I do otherwise is if I'm in a tearing hurry, and I can cool it in my garage at near-freezing temps.

 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tboroson View Post

Re: cooling stock, from a few pages ago:

 

A pot of hot stock, or hot anything but stock is notable because it's usually a large volume, will warm up a refrigerator beyond the ability of the compressor to keep the temp in the safe zone, it wasn't just an "old icebox" thing.  So you risk everything in the fridge.

 

Meanwhile, air cooling a large volume is highly inefficient, even at refrigerator temperatures.  It doesn't matter if its a 39F refrigerator or a 72F countertop, heat transfer rate in still air is extremely inefficient.  It won't cool much faster in the fridge than it will on the countertop, for all you're ruining the rest of the contents of your fridge in the process.  The stock would spend many, many hours between 140F and 40F, the danger zone.

 

 

Food processing facilities use blast coolers - moving air - to chill food quickly.  There are no home equivalents.

 

Heat transfer into water is much more efficient, which is also why your frozen steaks thaw more quickly in a water bath than they do in still air.  Even in a water bath, though, the massive pots that chefs use in restaurant kitchens may not cool fast enough to be safe.  They may break up the volume into several smaller pots for a better ratio of volume to surface area, or they may use an ice paddle (a huge hollow plastic paddle filled with water and frozen) to stir the pot while it's in its water bath.

 

If you don't want to do a cold water bath, breaking it up into small volumes will make the process go quickly because you have a favorable ratio of volume to surface area.  In quart jars, the stock will cool from boiling to room temp very quickly, then from room temp to refrigerator temp quickly without heating the refrigerator beyond the compressor's ability to keep up.

 



 

gardenmommy is offline  
#101 of 101 Old 06-28-2011, 05:14 PM
 
provocativa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,794
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

Read Fallon's breastfeeding info on the WAPF.  It will really make you angry.  I gave up on her, and the discussingNT group years ago because of this. 

 

In reference to the stock cooling question, the issue is the efficiency of conduction versus convection in temperature change.  An ice water bath cools by conduction and convection.  Sticking it in the fridge, just convection. 

 

As for the whole grains issue, for a lot of us, when we think about traditional diets, our thinking does not go back 500 or even 1,000 years.  Our thinking goes back further than Ancient Egyptians, whose fossil records do not indicate robust health.  Therefore, though grains would have occaisionally been processed, they would have also been eaten whole, or roughly processed and fermented.  And they would only have been eaten seasonally, and even then in small amounts.  Recall that Paleo peoples may have gathered and stored grain, but that the mice would have helped themselves to their portion, and that no one was eating grain-based diets except in periods of need.  It think that traditional peoples would have had the sense to know that too many grains hurt their bellies.  But I also think that they would have been colonized with bacteria to help digest the grains, from all the soaking, souring, and fermenting going on everywhere, without spray cleaners to remove the bacteria from their lives.  Surely every toddler would have stuck a hand in the soaking, souring pot!

provocativa is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off