the best cut of meat for roast?

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by [email protected], Mar 21, 2006.

  1. About a year ago, I asked the meat manager what the best cut of meat
    was for a roast in the crock pot - the kind that falls apart and
    doesn't need a knife. He told me, and it was great.

    I bought a vaiety of meats on special and froze them. A couple weeks
    ago, I put two in the corck pot. Both were good, but one was like
    cutting steaks, and one was falling apart. Of course, it didn't occur
    to me to note which was which before I cooked them.

    I asked the new meat manager, and she told me they are all the same.
    Clearly, they aren't.

    Can anybody tell me which is the best for falling apart? It's so much
    more tender, easuer to eat, and just tastes better. It freezes and
    reheats well, and I would like to make more of that kind.

    Thanks.
     
    Tags:


  2. <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > Can anybody tell me which is the best for falling apart? It's so much
    > more tender, easuer to eat, and just tastes better. It freezes and
    > reheats well, and I would like to make more of that kind.


    Chuck is probably the best, rump would be next.
     
  3. Steve Wertz

    Steve Wertz Guest

    On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 03:38:45 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    ><[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> Can anybody tell me which is the best for falling apart? It's so much
    >> more tender, easuer to eat, and just tastes better. It freezes and
    >> reheats well, and I would like to make more of that kind.

    >
    >Chuck is probably the best, rump would be next.


    Two votes for Chuck.

    -sw
     
  4. On Tue 21 Mar 2006 09:41:45p, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it Steve Wertz?

    > On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 03:38:45 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >><[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>> Can anybody tell me which is the best for falling apart? It's so much
    >>> more tender, easuer to eat, and just tastes better. It freezes and
    >>> reheats well, and I would like to make more of that kind.

    >>
    >>Chuck is probably the best, rump would be next.

    >
    > Two votes for Chuck.


    Chuck for president! Sure would be an improvement over the fathead we have
    now.

    Oh, uh, meat... Almost any cut of chuck makes a good "falling apart" roast.

    --
    Wayne Boatwright o¿o
    ____________________

    BIOYA
     
  5. Chuck is probably best, but I'd watch what I buy, even on sale, because
    8 to 10 hours in a crockpot should tenderize anything short of soup
    bones. And 10 hours in a crockpot could turn a good chuck, maybe
    english cut, into mush. There is an upper limit to fork-tender beef.
     
  6. Nexis

    Nexis Guest

    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > About a year ago, I asked the meat manager what the best cut of meat
    > was for a roast in the crock pot - the kind that falls apart and
    > doesn't need a knife. He told me, and it was great.
    >
    > I bought a vaiety of meats on special and froze them. A couple weeks
    > ago, I put two in the corck pot. Both were good, but one was like
    > cutting steaks, and one was falling apart. Of course, it didn't occur
    > to me to note which was which before I cooked them.
    >
    > I asked the new meat manager, and she told me they are all the same.
    > Clearly, they aren't.
    >
    > Can anybody tell me which is the best for falling apart? It's so much
    > more tender, easuer to eat, and just tastes better. It freezes and
    > reheats well, and I would like to make more of that kind.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >


    Chuck. Chuck, chuck, chuck. Preferably with the bones. Try to find a bone-in or
    something called a 7-bone chuck. Best flavor ever.

    kimberly
     
  7. Alex Rast

    Alex Rast Guest

    at Wed, 22 Mar 2006 02:00:13 GMT in <1142992813.631225.36000
    @g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, [email protected]
    ([email protected]) wrote :

    >About a year ago, I asked the meat manager what the best cut of meat
    >was for a roast in the crock pot - the kind that falls apart and
    >doesn't need a knife. He told me, and it was great.
    >

    ....
    >Can anybody tell me which is the best for falling apart? It's so much
    >more tender, easuer to eat, and just tastes better. It freezes and
    >reheats well, and I would like to make more of that kind.


    To amplify on the responses so far given in favour of chuck - yes, that's
    right, but let me be even more specific.

    The very best is chuck eye. This piece is easily recognisable by its 2
    sections - one roughly rectangular (although if rolled and tied it will be
    curved) with a distinct grain diagonal to the short side of the rectangle,
    one roughly oval and intensely marbled.

    Next would normally be 7-bone, except that a crock-pot won't fit a whole
    one. The 7-bone actually contains 3 distinct pieces. It's part of the chuck
    cut transversely through the bone, and it contains part of the chuck eye,
    the underblade, and the top blade. More on each of these cuts below.

    After 7-bone comes chuck blade, which is the same as 7-bone except it's cut
    somewhat further back on the animal, which means you get a bigger, longer
    section of bone and a commensurately larger amount of the top blade.

    Following these 2 large cuts is the top blade. In cross section top blade
    is oval, with a large obvious strip of gristle running through the middle
    but not touching either end - so that it looks like a fat "0". As a whole
    piece, it's flattish and triangular, usually with visible surface marbling.

    After that is the underblade. In fact, underblade is usually included in
    the chuck eye roast (that rectangular piece) but might also be found alone
    as a big, slab-sided boneless piece. It's worth noting that if you want to
    make pulled beef this is the best choice because it falls apart into
    stringy pieces.

    Moving down you come to the shoulder. This isn't as attractive even though
    it may work. Sometimes it has a small, rounded bone piece in one corner but
    in any case consists of part of the under blade combined with a part
    usually called the shoulder clod. The clod piece usually doesn't have the
    dense marbling and looks rather uniform, without the very distinct grain of
    the underblade. Like the 7-bone and chuck blade these pieces are too big to
    go into a crock-pot.

    And at the bottom of the list is the shoulder clod itself. Technically a
    chuck roast, it doesn't have nearly the flavour or succulence of the other
    pieces mentioned above and so is best avoided. This fact alone should make
    it clear that simply asking for "chuck" doesn't guarantee no
    disappointments. If you can't recognise the specific cut by shape and the
    package says only "chuck roast" ask the butcher what it is, and if he can't
    tell you, avoid it!

    --
    Alex Rast
    [email protected]
    (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)
     
  8. Alex Rast wrote:
    >
    > The very best is chuck eye. This piece is easily recognisable by its 2
    > sections - one roughly rectangular (although if rolled and tied it will be
    > curved) with a distinct grain diagonal to the short side of the rectangle,
    > one roughly oval and intensely marbled.
    >
    > After that is the underblade. In fact, underblade is usually included in
    > the chuck eye roast (that rectangular piece) but might also be found alone
    > as a big, slab-sided boneless piece. It's worth noting that if you want to
    > make pulled beef this is the best choice because it falls apart into
    > stringy pieces.
    >


    Will this one also fall appart into the stringy pieces, or should I go
    with the underblade by itself? That is definitely the texture I am
    looking for. Is that usually how it is listed on the package? I know I
    have gotten something as a boneless piece that did the stringy thing
    perfect. I've got one more container of that in the freezer, and then a
    couple of the more blah pieces from the other roast.


    Thank you to everybody for the great responses. I will definitely stick
    to some version of chuck. I may experiment a bit with the different
    types.

    Other than onion soup, what types of seasonings do you use with it? My
    mom has always used onion soup, and I find myself picking those out. I
    have also done my plain, which is fine. But I wouldn't mind a little
    flavor.
     
  9. On Thu 23 Mar 2006 02:04:19a, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it Alex Rast?

    > To amplify on the responses so far given in favour of chuck - yes,
    > that's right, but let me be even more specific.
    >
    > The very best is chuck eye. This piece is easily recognisable by its 2
    > sections - one roughly rectangular (although if rolled and tied it will
    > be curved) with a distinct grain diagonal to the short side of the
    > rectangle, one roughly oval and intensely marbled.


    < further description snipped for brevity >

    Alex, you've given a fine reference, which I've copied and saved. However, I
    have a question I'm sure you can answer:

    Where does an "English cut" or cross-rib roast fit into this picture?

    Thanks!

    --
    Wayne Boatwright o¿o
    ____________________

    BIOYA
     
  10. Wayne Boatwright wrote:
    >
    > Chuck for president! Sure would be an improvement over the fathead we have
    > now.


    Chuck Norris?

    "Chuck Norris's roundhouse kicks are actually 3 mph faster than the
    speed of light. Light could go faster, but it knows who the boss is."
     
  11. On Thu 23 Mar 2006 07:45:25a, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it Michael
    Archon Sequoia Nielsen?

    > Wayne Boatwright wrote:
    >>
    >> Chuck for president! Sure would be an improvement over the fathead we
    >> have now.

    >
    > Chuck Norris?
    >
    > "Chuck Norris's roundhouse kicks are actually 3 mph faster than the
    > speed of light. Light could go faster, but it knows who the boss is."


    LOL!

    --
    Wayne Boatwright o¿o
    ____________________

    BIOYA
     
  12. biig

    biig Guest


    >
    > The very best is chuck eye. This piece is easily recognisable by its 2
    > sections - one roughly rectangular (although if rolled and tied it will be
    > curved) with a distinct grain diagonal to the short side of the rectangle,
    > one roughly oval and intensely marbled.
    >
    > Next would normally be 7-bone, except that a crock-pot won't fit a whole
    > one. The 7-bone actually contains 3 distinct pieces. It's part of the chuck
    > cut transversely through the bone, and it contains part of the chuck eye,
    > the underblade, and the top blade. More on each of these cuts below.
    >
    > After 7-bone comes chuck blade, which is the same as 7-bone except it's cut
    > somewhat further back on the animal, which means you get a bigger, longer
    > section of bone and a commensurately larger amount of the top blade.
    >
    > Following these 2 large cuts is the top blade. In cross section top blade
    > is oval, with a large obvious strip of gristle running through the middle
    > but not touching either end - so that it looks like a fat "0". As a whole
    > piece, it's flattish and triangular, usually with visible surface marbling.
    >
    > After that is the underblade. In fact, underblade is usually included in
    > the chuck eye roast (that rectangular piece) but might also be found alone
    > as a big, slab-sided boneless piece. It's worth noting that if you want to
    > make pulled beef this is the best choice because it falls apart into
    > stringy pieces.
    >
    > Moving down you come to the shoulder. This isn't as attractive even though
    > it may work. Sometimes it has a small, rounded bone piece in one corner but
    > in any case consists of part of the under blade combined with a part
    > usually called the shoulder clod. The clod piece usually doesn't have the
    > dense marbling and looks rather uniform, without the very distinct grain of
    > the underblade. Like the 7-bone and chuck blade these pieces are too big to
    > go into a crock-pot.
    >
    > And at the bottom of the list is the shoulder clod itself. Technically a
    > chuck roast, it doesn't have nearly the flavour or succulence of the other
    > pieces mentioned above and so is best avoided. This fact alone should make
    > it clear that simply asking for "chuck" doesn't guarantee no
    > disappointments. If you can't recognise the specific cut by shape and the
    > package says only "chuck roast" ask the butcher what it is, and if he can't
    > tell you, avoid it!
    >
    > --
    > Alex Rast
    > [email protected]
    > (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)


    I have an inside chuck roast (according to the label) wrapped in foil
    in the oven now. How would that equate with the above info? I can't
    open the foil to look at it, but it is held together with a stretchable
    web....thanks....Sharon
     
  13. Alex Rast

    Alex Rast Guest

    at Thu, 23 Mar 2006 13:47:05 GMT in
    <[email protected]>,
    wayneboatwright_at_gmail.com (Wayne Boatwright) wrote :

    >On Thu 23 Mar 2006 02:04:19a, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it Alex
    >Rast?
    >
    >> To amplify on the responses so far given in favour of chuck - yes,
    >> that's right, but let me be even more specific.
    >>

    ....
    >Alex, you've given a fine reference, which I've copied and saved.
    >However, I have a question I'm sure you can answer:
    >
    >Where does an "English cut" or cross-rib roast fit into this picture?
    >

    Cross rib = shoulder clod, although it's a "retail" name and thus might be
    applied to various actual cuts.

    [email protected] ([email protected]) wrote :

    >Will this one also fall appart into the stringy pieces, or should I go
    >with the underblade by itself? That is definitely the texture I am
    >looking for. Is that usually how it is listed on the package? I know I
    >have gotten something as a boneless piece that did the stringy thing
    >perfect. I've got one more container of that in the freezer, and then a
    >couple of the more blah pieces from the other roast.


    By the way it was written I trust you're speaking of the chuck eye with the
    "this one" reference? The answer, generally, is no. Chuck eye doesn't so
    much turn into strings as it does become truly soft and melt-in-the-mouth,
    a bit like a dumpling. Some time ago another poster referred to a
    restaurant's "unctious" texture for a pot roast - which is a texture
    immediately recognisable as being the chuck eye. It will fall apart,
    ultimately, but not really into stringy bits. If you want that stringy
    texture you'll want the underblade.

    Seasonings? Instead of using soup mixes, I use stock for the liquid. This I
    make with several good meaty pieces of bone (neck pieces are particularly
    good) which are simmered for a very long time indeed - 12 hours or more,
    with a few carrots, some celery, thyme, and a bay leaf. Many would also add
    parsley and onions but I've found onions are usually a bit too assertive
    while parsley adds nothing. You need to make several quarts. Then with the
    pot roast itself I use the same ingredients combination - perhaps with the
    addition of a little pepper. You can add some potatoes if you like towards
    the end of cooking time.


    --
    Alex Rast
    [email protected]
    (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)
     
Loading...