When reading anything other than primary historical documents we get the author’s interpretation of what happened in the distant past. I think something similar can occur when meat articles are penned mainly from looking up research literature and going on short meat plant visits. I was blessed with Vocational High school meat training, being a college Meat Science major, having a good variety of meat industry work experiences and on dozens of occasions over the years I’ve been “on the ground” working 2 weeks at a time in meat plants across the U.S. Hopefully my love of learning has provided me with some wisdom worth sharing; still I’m the first to admit that I don’t know everything there is to know about the massive meat industry. Passengers on the Pork & Beef Express need to know that I strive to put out factual, non-slanted and hopefully useable information, for without those attributes this blog would lack creditability and usefulness. Providing what I perceive to be good information is job # 1. And, since there is always more to learn, other points of view and/or corrections are more than welcome. It is healthy for everyone to question the knowledge they pick up on the internet. Some authors are either trying to sell things or wanting to not offend powers that provide money to them and theirs.
However, it would be a beautiful thing if all the meat processing related projects I have undertaken turned out as good as the Wolfer-Smoke Cooker. I’m not trying to sell you on anything except building your own. Understandably, as time goes on worthwhile food preparation innovations become increasingly hard to come up with and develop. Perhaps focusing more on the minimal artisan further processing of meat and less on new cut fabrication would invigorate creative potential. Some processes are inexpensive and easy, but the end-product isn’t worthwhile, or visa-versa. Sometimes a project may just need a new concept interjected into it by a new point of view (brainstorming). But, the last thing any of us should do is use our “expert power” to misrepresent products or processes. Such actions would cause less than expected outcomes for those taking the advice then lead to the loss of our credibility. If something can not be economically and correctly done by a conscientious person, then that practice is not worth promoting. Also, the resulting end-products need to be close to “as advertised.” There is a beef cut automation on the internet put out by the U.S. Meat Export Federation (click here to see it), which instructs that the beef chuck-eye roll is good cut into 3/4 inch thick steaks. The presentation claims that the posterior half of the chuck-eye is extremely tender and juicy when grilled. They do not give any cooking recommendations for the anterior half. Such a practice does not jive with chuck-eye cooking instructions put out by the National Livestock& Meat Board and could well lead to one-time export buyers of U.S. chuck-eyes. Further, there should not be conflicting published preparation recommendations from different expert sources.
In the All About types of beef and in the Types of Ground Beef posts I point out other cases of less than telling the whole story. Honest and balanced, is the best business policy in the long run.