guest25":2cct68la said:{3.5 oz or 100g serving} servings of chicken traditional beef
3.5 oz is moer then plenty chicken, but for beef 12-16 oz is more the appropriate serving size. It's kind of the figures don;t lie but liars figure deal.
dun
guest25":2cct68la said:{3.5 oz or 100g serving} servings of chicken traditional beef
guest25":f88surmx said:dun":f88surmx said:guest25":f88surmx said:{3.5 oz or 100g serving} servings of chicken traditional beef
3.5 oz is moer then plenty chicken, but for beef 12-16 oz is more the appropriate serving size. It's kind of the figures don;t lie but liars figure deal.
dun
dun would you care to be a little bit more specific please.
Frankie":25q9r8jx said:MikeC":25q9r8jx said:I have asked for someone to show me in the "USDA Beef Grading Standards" where beef from double muscled cattle is not graded.
If it is there, I would thoroughly enjoy reading it.
I know that there is no feeder cattle grades for double muscling. But that's a whole nuther ball game.
It's not a USDA standard. I think it's the packers trying to cut their losses. They know double muscled breeds don't marble, so they don't bother to send them down the grading line at all. They simply no-roll them out the back door to someone who uses them for whatever lower quality beef is used for. At least that's the explantion I was given several years ago.
Jeanne - Simme Valley":xy8z5nca said:This is an OLD thread that Guest 25 re-incarnated.
Anyway, here is a statement made in an Arkansas Univ feedout test 2004/2005:
"Double-muscled" animals are included in the Inferior grade (unthrifty animals). Although such animals have a superior amount of muscle, they are graded U.S. Inferior because of their inability to produce acceptable degrees of meat quality."
The "unthrifty animals" were NO-ROLLS.