Talk:Beef/Archive 1

Beef Grading Systems other than USDA?
It would be nice to reduce the US-centric perspective of this aspect of the article. As written, it implies that the 8 grade (Prime to Canner) grading system is the only one used, which is clearly not the case. For example, the Canadian beef grading system (13 grades from Prime to E grade). Official reference here: Canadian Beef Grading Agency. I'm not aware of what other countries use, but surely the US weren't the first to grade their beef since Man began eating it thousands of years ago... :-) SpiralBound (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

since the U.S. population is about 10x that of Canada, you're grading system isn't terribly relevant...UK or EU systems would be more appropriate, maybe even Australian? or, if this were Wikipedia in espanol, would Ecuador complain about the Brazilian and Argentinian-centric nature of the articles??...its usually envy or hate that prompts the anti "U.S. centric" baloney...too bad... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.151.249.136 (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree.88.230.167.168 (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I agreed.88.231.54.87 (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Border briefly closed?
I don't mean to sound like a nutjob, but you are greatly dimishing the severity of the US border being closed to Canadian beef, from a cow that had BSE that was from America. "Briefly closed" is an insult. It was closed for a good long while, really hurting the Canadian beef industry. Might I suggest someone make some changes to that?


 * This is wiki. One of the best reasons to edit an article is to make an assertion more factual and less colored.  All you have to do is put in the actual length of time it was closed, you don't need discussion or permission.


 * A different person commenting here. I am no authority so I am loathe to edit the article, but in its present state it gives the impression that there is no risk of BSE in the US. After downer cows were discovered, the industry basically stuck its head in the sand and refused to conduct extensive testing. If you are going to mention Canada, the US deserves mention too. Japan stopped importing beef from the US for a while because of BSE and there is still much stigma attached to US beef in Japan. I don't know if it is warranted - nobody does because of the lack of tests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.56.95.135 (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

slanted
This article is slanted a bit toward a meat-eater's point of view, and some mention should be made of the health risks of beef consumption. Mabye I'm pushing it, but a bit about the cruelty that beef cows are subjected to would be nice. Thanks. DryGrain 09:05, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think the article is slanted as-is. I think your concerns are quite valid, particularly as regards the horrible reality of the mass production of beef, but I think that sort of thing should be covered in articles about modernized agriculture and/or vegetarianism. Jeeves 01:36, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Be sure to thoroughly document the horrible cruelty that cattle are subjected to and don't just pick a few isolated incidents. For an article more to your liking see Factory farming.  In my experience, most of a cow's life is rather quiet and boring.  Animals that are under constant stress do not gain well and get sick easily.  Livestock producers have a vested interest in keeping their animals healthy and as stress free as is practical.  Of course there are a few bad apples as in any industry, but don't fall victim to propaganda.  And of course there are health risks from eating too much high fat food, but lean beef is very healthy.  A little beef in moderation isn't going to hurt you. H2O 06:35, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps they should have some of those links in the see also section.


 * Health risks is something I also noticed that is missing from this article. Bihal 02:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do we have all these people saying "you do this". If you want a section on health risk, write it.Apollo 14:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Edit - I actually was thinking on adding a large section on nutritional information, which would be a substantial addition, but I'm not sure when I'll get to it. It would certainly be better to be more specific, i.e. address the amount of saturated fat in beef, than to write simply that eating beef is associated with increased risk of heart disease, etc., because this is a characteristic shared by many foods rather than specific to this food source.  Plus, there are positive nutritional benefits to beef, especially the bioavailability of its iron content.


 * What's wrong with the page on Beef not talking about the way that animals are slaughtered?

I've worked in a slaughterhouse for some years and I don't see the suffering that these vegans refer to. Trumpy 04:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's because you work in the place where the suffering is ended. The suffering exists in the places where the cattle are herded into as small an acreage as possible and continually fed food intended to fatten them up as quick as possible without consideration as to what one might consider their natural grazing habits....shall I go on?  Large-scale animal farming is basically one of the worst forms of bondage that one creature can induce over another.  Gungfusteve (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you're just trying to push the PETA barrow, aren't you. Cattle in a slaughter yard are not fed at all, in fact they are required to be withheld from food 12 hours before stunning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trumpy (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Slang
"People will also refer to 'beef' as slang, as a verb as in 'they totally beefed the work' or 'why did you beef the ramp?', or a noun as in 'what's the beef?' The main place where people would use beef as slang would be in sports.

People sometimes refer to brownish vaginas as "roast beef"."
 * "Beef lips" is fairly widespread slang for female genetalia.Apollo 14:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks this "information" might be better suited for Wiktionary, rather than an encyclopedia article? --H2O 18:37, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You're probably right about it belonging in Wiktionary, but part of the concept of "beef" comes from its other-than-meat related uses in English. I think it's, er, neat that the word pops up so often in various idioms. I added a brief "usage" section at the end of the main article on beef in the Enlgish language. I was a little surprised that someone removed my phrase "who beefed?" in relation to flatulence - the edit was described as "spurious" slang. Spurious mainly means false, and I think most Americans would agree they've come across the phrase at least once in their lives. Maybe I'm crazy and it's just a New York thing - but then the Brits have a rhyming slang for the exact same act ("beef-heart"). I know flatulence (notice how I don't call it by the four-letter common name) is kinda gross, but spurious? A quick web search will produce at least three slang sites with the phrase. But hey, if people want to delete the usage section because it's not about meat, I'm cool with that. I'm still trying to feel the whole wikipedia vibe and put out interesting facts. I just wanted to spread the love about beef in our rich, meaty language. -- Thesmokingmonkey 29JUN05


 * This American has never heard it used that way before. It's always best to cite your sources to avoid this kind of confusion. BTW, your edit expanding the section on colloquialisms is very good.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 29 June 2005 02:30 (UTC)

- Point well taken. I'll be more careful in the future before entering something. Thanks for the compliment! :) - Thesmokingmonkey

I think the point has to be made that French beef is equally dangerous, if not more so nowadays with regard to BSE - Nick P


 * You are exactly correct. First, the section on word definitions clearly does not belong in the same page as the article on the food substance. Second, the slang discussion certainly does not belong here.

See Apollo 14:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't people interested in writing about "beef" as slang create an article: beef (slang) and a disambiguation page? -whisperednumber 27 september 2006


 * A quote from what wikipedia is not:


 * JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 19:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Meat from a "bovine" ?
The article says, "Beef is meat obtained from a bovine". The term bovine means a large group of related animals, including yak and buffalo. This can be most easily seen by clicking on the bovine link in Wikipedia :) Is the meat from this entire subfamily of animals called "beef", or is that reserved for meat from domesticated cattle Bos taurus?  I know, for example, that meat from the American bison is popular in some parts of the US, and is not referred to as "beef", but as "buffalo meat" (though I have heard "beefalo" before).  This may be just a marketing gimmick, since cattle meat is generally higher in fat than bison meat, or it may actually be incorrect to call bison meat "beef".  Does anyone know?


 * "Beefalo" are a cross between a cow and a bison, yielding buffalo tasting meat in an animal that is somewhat easier to control. Gentgeen 28 June 2005 20:37 (UTC)


 * tend to agree though that beef is cow only, never heard it used as generic bovine term. Justinc 23:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

So, that means meat made from the gaur cannot be called beef, right? Gaur is also a type of cow, wild cow or buffalo.

http://www.indianaturewatch.net/displayimage.php?id=403

http://www.indianaturewatch.net/displayimage.php?id=2540: just er


 * Very late reply to this! Beef can be used the name for the meat of all bovines according to Larousse Gastronomique GameKeeper (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Onglet
I'm curious as to the English name of the cut of beef known as onglet in French. David.Monniaux 16:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If my rusty french is interpreting that article correctly, you're looking for Skirt steak. &mdash; Catherine\talk
 * Again very later reply to this, but i think Hanger steak is a more accurate name for the american cut. GameKeeper (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

beef or deef?
In most fast food resturants the food is made quickly loosing quality, often nicknamed rats meat or roadkill, after discovering on one wrapper at one of these outlets a typo was descovered saying deef instead of beef. This is now starting to change the nickname of thiese products to deef burgers instead of beefbergers.

that needs a citation big time
I'd want to see some reference materials on that before I'd want it in the article. User:Pedant 23:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hip-Hop Definition
I would like to add an additional defintion to beef but it keeps getting reverted. This is the definition:

Beef is when you need two gats to go to sleep. Beef is when your moms ain't safe up in the streets. Beef is when I see you guaranteed to be an ICU. Beef is when you make your enemies start your Jeep. Beef is when you roll no less than thirty deep. Beef is when I see you guaranteed to be an ICU.


 * The reason it keeps getting reverted is because it violates Wikipedia rules.

My source is Notorious BIG. IT is a defintiion and people may come to this page to find the slang definition for beef. I see no way this is vandalism and I keep getting reverted without any explanation which is highly unfair. 72.225.138.173 11:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It may be slang, and it may be someone's definition, but doesn't belong where you edited it. It might make a "trivia" entry in the article, but is probably a copyvio in any case. Stephenb (Talk) 13:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that the definition is also already included in the last section. Quote: The phrase means to have a feud or dispute with another party, usually an odious and publically known one. It was re-popularized by hip-hop music, especially the late Notorious B.I.G., who had a song entitled "What's Beef". I see no reason why the lyrics need to be in the article. Stephenb (Talk) 14:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The current solution with a disambig link to Hip hop rivalries seems a good one to me. But this keeps getting removed. Can you discuss why you think it should be removed here. GameKeeper 09:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Kobe Beef
If recent articles I have read are correct, "Kobe Beef" is no longer simply cows from Japan, but is also being raised in the United States. This is, of course, a labeling issue, but that distinction should be noted somehow.

Actually, Kobe beef is only from cows in Japan (from Kobe). If you want Australian or American "Kobe" beef, it's officially designated as Wagyu. Plasticspatula 21:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Cooking
I'd like to see more info about ways of cooking beef, especially terms like "rare", "medium" and "well done". aditsu 11:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Cooking Beef section added, and doneness levels chart added. I would like to have the temperatures center-aligned but I can't seem to figure out how to do so without making the entire table center alignedDav2008 02:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, but I took the chart out - for one thing, I am fairly sure it was wrong, and for another, it disagreed with the chart that was at the referenced article, which I believe is correct. Simicich (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

US Beef in the EU
Maybe something about why US Beef is banned in the EU can be added. I tried to find something by googling but failed. 82.152.179.226 19:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's politics as usual. I don't know what the current excuse is, but obviously the EU is protecting the local farmers from competition. The US does it too. Japan certainly does. China does. Well gee, can you name a place that isn't pulling this kind of stunt? Peanuts, sugar, steel, rice, cars, corn syrup, aircraft, gambling, ethanol... whatever it is, there are countries adding tariffs and pointless restrictions to exclude competition. AlbertCahalan 03:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

US (and Canadian) beef is no longer banned in the EU. It was for a time, and is still inspected regularly, because of the widespread use of growth hormones in US cattle rearing of growth hormones, illegal in the EU for fears such hormones are carcinogenic. Two articles from a google search 'US beef in EU' http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go1467/is_200202/ai_n6729839 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/the_economy/330306.stm (sorry if this is not the correct way to add hyperlinks/references - I'm new to this) Drobba (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Grilling
The temps for grilling are way off. 300F is closer to smoking than grilling with temps of far greater than 650 being needed to actually sear.

There's also an improper use of the term 'barbecue'. It's only a misnomer for 'grilling' in areas that don't barbecue. From a culinary perspective, barbecue is a long, slow, low-temperature cook, usually around 200 degrees, for times in the 10 hour range that results in a much different product than grilling or smoking. Just making a note, somebody can verify the temps and times at any (or many) barbecue website. 216.107.222.222 (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Prime Steak
An article on Prime steak has been created. The article provides no sources for the information, and at its core, it is a duplication of the USDA beef grades section in Beef It would seem that merging whatever is in there to the grade seciton makes more sense than a separate article on the prime grade. And even the, the name of the article is probably wrong as it really should be prime grade beef (not steak) -- Whpq 19:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree strongly -- I can't see the need for much discussion, the two should be merged. Apollo 13:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ditto, please merge. User:Pedant 23:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitions, i.e. other meanings of the word "beef"
Proposal that this section be removed into a separate article, or possibly deleted.

This does not belong in a Wikipedia article on beef. If a word has two meanings, and both are deserving of encyclopedia articles, then you need two different articles and a disambiguation page. Further, the discussion of cockney slang probably does not belong anywhere except an article on cockney slang.

I realize that it is hard sometimes to see that interesting subject matter does not belong in Wikipedia. I've gotten to edit my own articles because of this. But that's the rule. See "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" Apollo 14:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is a good time for a otheruses template User:Pedant 23:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Cooking times
The cited reference does not agree with the "updated" information. The updated information was also useless because it didn't specify the initial conditions of the meat, or the size of the cut being cooked. Internal temperature is the way to go here. -- cmhTC 21:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

vandalism?
Hi, I was just checking the USA grading system of beef - This is currently what it looks like.

Prime — most tender and highest in fat. Currently, only two percent of the steaks sold are USDA certified Prime. Choice

See: http://kyanelaut8227.googlepages.com/home Go There!

Select — the leanest grade commonly sold Standard

and then it goes on. What is the kyanelaut8227 link doing there? I have attempted to remove it but does not show up within the editor? Why/how has that happened?

EDIT: It has now gone - I dont know why or how. It doesn't even appear in my offline history... anybody shed any light?

Nutritional information
why does this article contain virtually no information about the nutritional value of beef? how strange.


 * Nutritional value of beef is not very easy to write factual information on without POV issues being raised. It's not particularly 'nutritious' at all, generally beef is eaten as custom or for its flavor, not for nutrition. Even more strange is the lack of info on the environmental impact of raising beef. Like 3000 gallons of water=one hamburger.  That sort of thing.  Water is the next oil and people have already been losing their lives over water, water rights, lack of water etc.  Water is already way more expensive than gasoline. User:Pedant 23:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be more information on the nutritional value of beef. What's there now is limited and does seem biased against eating much of it. The article should probably either just provide the basic nutritional information (although that would vary depending upon the cut) or have the pros and cons, statements and rebuttals of beef consumption. Futhermore, while the environmental impact of raising animals to eat is important, should that be in an article on each particular animal or perhaps as part of an article on environmental impact of farming in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.146.232 (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that there should be more information on the nuitritional value and environmental impact of beef. It seems like this should be one of the articles I could go to to, say, find out how much usable protein is produced per acre of land used to raise cattle. Doesn't that make sense? It's not something anyone can dispute. I suspect that the beef industry may have had a subversive hand in making this article into a cookbook for beef. I suggest considering the inclusion of some of the information in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_protein_per_unit_area_of_land...at least include the fact that beef does not provide a complete set of amino acids! Gungfusteve (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

cookbook?
Wikipedia is not a cookbook, can we remove the cooking section please? JoeSmack Talk 23:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Even though wikipedia is not a cookbook, I think in an article about a certain type of food, it's reasonable to have information on how it is generally cooked. Perhaps we should include a link to beef recipes in the wiki cookbook (since actual recipes do not belong in an encylopedia.)--Grendlefuzz 14:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * beef can be cooked in a million different ways. maybe if this was article about cooking beef it would fly, but its not. JoeSmack Talk 17:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * and link to wikicook book is a yes, link to external website with recipes is a no. recipe websites aren't good reliable sources, and aren't authoritative. JoeSmack Talk 17:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

agree with all 3 comments by Joe Smack above User:Pedant 23:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

misleading
"Beef bones are essential for making soup stock." -- not CHICKEN soup stock!


 * I've changed the wording to: "Beef bones are essential for making certain varieties of soup stock." :-) JoeSmack Talk 17:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Is "soup stock" necessary? Shouldn't it just be "Beef bones are essential for making beef stock (which is culinary gold, and used for much, much more than soup)? This article makes me hungry. Superbeecat 08:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Beef bones are essential for making beef stock. I support this version User:Pedant 21:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge?
Would it be appropriate to merge 7-Bone Roast and other cuts-o-beef articles and stubs with this one? Superbeecat 08:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge them into Cuts of beef if there is not enough info or notability for a separate article on the cut, I think. User:Pedant 21:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Brazilian cuts
Is there a reason why there is a list of Brazilian cuts of meat here? I mean, I understand why one would put the US and UK cuts, but Wikipedia is not, as far as I understand, a multilingual translation dictionary. Imagine what this page would look like if we added the French, German, Japanese, and all other version of beef cuts. Those who are interested in Brazilian cuts of beef should be able to find their answers on the Portuguese version of this page, which is conveniently linked to on the left. --141.154.209.122 02:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, if you'll look, there isn't a Portuguese version of this article linked to on the side of the page. Secondly, it is a point to note how different places cut their beef differently. There are 12 cuts in the US, 14 in the UK and the Brazilian cuts were over 20. This isn't translation, it is explanation of foreign custom. What if an English-speaking person wanted to read about Brazilian cuts of beef? Would that person have to learn Portuguese (moot point, as the Portuguese version doesn't exist) to do so? The South American pampas region has a huge beef tradition, with the churrasco and rodízio and so forth. If the Brazilian cuts are not to be displayed here, then there should certainly be a link to churrasco and there is where the cuts should be displayed (at which point someone on that page will probably argue that the cuts should be here). 189.33.148.222 22:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

support removal

 * I support the removal, there should not be Brazilian cuts here. The place for Brazilian cuts would be Portuguese wikipedia. If they don't exist there yet, why not add them there? The only non-English based list of cuts I think would be appropriate would be French cuts as many UK restaurants describe cuts of beef with the French name rather than the English, so it is very relevant to English speakers. GameKeeper 07:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

do not support removal
the different cuts being in fact different, I do not support removal of the brazilian cuts. I would however support moving the 'cuts of beef' information to a new article: Cuts of beef or something... and keeping a very brief overview of cuts of beef here in this article, with a link to Main article: Cuts of beef User:Pedant 21:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this comment. should be a new complete article about "cuts of beef" there's a lot of information for this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.170.193.102 (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point of just having the US and UK cuts. That type of information is trivially easy to find on other English language websites. If somebody was interested in Brazilian or Japanese cuts and their main language was English - where would they find that info? My preference is to be an encyclopedia, not a "For Dummies" intro. Dyl (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian steakhouses are quite popular in the United States, and certainly there is a population of Americans wanting to know the differences between the cuts of steak they eat at restaurants and the ones they find in the supermarkets. Where has the information gone? I can't find any link to any Brazilian cuts diagram, including the external link. At the very least, please restore the old diagrams in a Wikipedia page about different cuts of meats - don't simply put an external link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.212.36 (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Steak tartare
No mention of consuming beef raw... Which is considered a delicasy in some contries, having tried it I must admit it tastes divine, much better than a rare steak. 82.113.39.26 09:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

steaks, pot roasts or short ribs
This is a pretty terrible sentence: "Beef can be cut into steaks, pot roasts or short ribs, or it can be ground." can anyone suggest some way to fix this? 67.49.8.228 21:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Made revisions and expanded some. May need more help.Gigemag76 (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Code
BEEF is also a code in basketball. Balance, Elbow, Eye contact, Follow through. You could add that in disambiguation page.--Idontknow610 (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Grilling as Dry Heat
Grilling is listed as dry heat cooking, which is not true if propane is the source of heat. One of the products of burning propane is water. Oobyduby (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Culinarily speaking, grilling with propane generally qualifies as a dry method, despite the presence of some steam generated by propane burning. In no way is it a wet method like Stewing or Braising.
 * I endorse a discussion of the subject, and would be interested in just how much difference the water vapor makes, but the "Beef" article on Wikipedia is not the place to do it. I strongly suggest we remove grilling with propane from the wet methods of cooking list, and remove any reference to propane from the article.  If there's a minor issue with propane grilling, this is not the place to discuss it. --70.166.64.3 (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, grilling with propane is considered dry heat, but some foods that are traditionally roasted in an oven lose quality when grilled over propane (such as breads or pizza). While it’s not like stewing or braising, it is steaming.
 * I also would like to contest the requirement for sourcing. Propane describes the reaction in question without references because it is common knowledge. Oobyduby (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have heard of propane grilling is said to be 'wetter' than cooking over charcoal, but it is only a 'wetter' cooking technique in comparison to other forms of grilling. I doubt that more water is in contact with the meat than when meat is broiled in it's own juices for instance. I say leave it as it is. GameKeeper (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In both situations: broiling and grilling, the same piece of meat would start with the same amount of juices. When you burn propane, it adds water to the cooking process (four water molecules per propane molecule). Even if you’re broiling with a gas oven 80-90% methane, you aren’t adding nearly as much water as propane grilling (two water molecules per methane molecule). Oobyduby (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You have got me interested in this now Oobyduby :0)
 * I think the calculation of 'wetness' should not be based on amount of water produced per molecule. A better measure would be the amount of water produced relative to the amount of heat generated when some of the material is burnt.
 * A) Here you can see the amount of MJ (mega Joules) per Kilogram (heat/weight)
 * * Methane = 50.009 MJ/kg
 * * Propane = 46.357 MJ/kg
 * B) The amount of water produced per molecule burnt. (water/molecule)
 * * Methane : CH4 +2O2 = CO2 +2H2O  = 2
 * * Propane : C3H8 +O2 = 3CO2 + 4H20 = 4
 * C) The relative mass of the molecules (C=12,h=1 approx) (weight/molecule)
 * * Methane :CH4 = 12 + 4 =16
 * * Propane :C3H8 = 36 + 8 = 44
 * so 'water produced per amount of heat' should be relative to B/(C*A)
 * Working:- B/(C*A) =(water/molecule)(molecule/weight)(weight/heat)
 * = (water/ molecule )( molecule / weight )( weight /heat)
 * = water/heat
 * Plugging in the numbers the relative wetness per heat is :-
 * * Methane = 0.0025
 * * Propane = 0.0019
 * According to this more water is made when burning methane to generate a set amount of heat than burning propane to make the same amount of heat! There is not a lot in it though, only about 20% difference, either way neither is particularly 'wet' in my opinion. GameKeeper (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * According to this more water is made when burning methane to generate a set amount of heat than burning propane to make the same amount of heat! There is not a lot in it though, only about 20% difference, either way neither is particularly 'wet' in my opinion. GameKeeper (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * According to this more water is made when burning methane to generate a set amount of heat than burning propane to make the same amount of heat! There is not a lot in it though, only about 20% difference, either way neither is particularly 'wet' in my opinion. GameKeeper (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, so grilling with propane is similar enough to broiling/roasting in an oven. This calculation doesn't compare charcoal, which may be dryer. However, since roasting in an oven is considered cooking with dry heat I agree that that consideration should be extended to grilling in general. Consider your argument won. Oobyduby (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This all seems so silly. Culinarily speaking this is dry heat. This is not a science experiment, it is cooking. This would be a better discussion on a page about chemistry of cooking not practices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.193.62 (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Cuts of beef
What exactly does 'cruel' mean under Cuts of Beef? "Sirloin — more cruel than short loin, but more flavorful." This seems a strange adjective to use to describe a cut of meat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.253.67 (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. It was just vandalism. Changed it back to "less tender". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.253.67 (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

removed globalize
I removed the globalise template from the article. If anyone has any specific gripes on thie front can you add to the talk page. GameKeeper (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

new image request!
I don't really like the current Image:Raw beef slices.jpg as the 1st image seen of beef as it shows beef in what is an unusual form to most people, however it is a very nice image.

I quite like Image:Ribeyes.jpeg, Image:Standing-rib-roast-MCB.jpg Any other nice images of beef out there? GameKeeper (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * changed to Image:Standing-rib-roast-MCB.jpg GameKeeper (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

things I would like to add
(this is as much a reminder to me as a discussion point but any comments welcome) GameKeeper (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * far more on the history of beef this section is too brief, needs more of the selective breeding that has resulted in the modern breeds etc. Also more on the parallels of milk and beef development and the beast of burden, oxen.
 * Info on the effects of the conditions of the cow and the effects on flavour, such as feed grass, grain etc.
 * Effects of hanging on beef.
 * Modern beef storage, transportation and supply . Some detailed international trade figures.
 * Cultural significance of beef, i.e. UK Beef eating. Argentinian beef, American Beefburger etc.

Want Some Beef?
Im the beef to yo jerky foo

Beefy

Got Beef?
Hey everybody can I have some Beef? I need it for my upcoming brain-transplant. Maybe some Jerky? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.150.23.199 (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Consumer
The United States, Brazil, People's Republic of China, Russian, and also Mongolia are world's largest consumers of beef. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.113.99.50 (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The reference to Japan being in the group of four largest consuming nations looked suspicious, and I found that the reference provided did not support that statement. The comment just above seems far more accurate. Someone with the actual facts should do the edit. 69.230.89.116 (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The word "cows" is not equal to the word "cattle".
When they use the word "cows" they use it parenthetically next to the word cattle. Cattle is composed primarily of four commonly raised animals - bulls, steers, heifers and cows. A bull is an uncastrated male. A steer is a castrated male. A heifer is a female that has not had a calf. A cow is a female that has had a calf. So cattle does not equal cows. What we eat and call beef is generally the steer. He has been castrated to take his mind off the opposite gender and keep it squarely on eating. The heifer and cow are too valuable for breeding purposes and most bulls become steers. It requires very few bulls to fertilize a herd. After a bull has been in business for a year or so, he usually gets sold so that he does not breed with the heifers the he sired. So, bulls get passed around amoung ranchers while cows stay in the field and have calves. The bull calves are castrated and become steers and later what we know as beef. The heifer calves are kept and raised to maturity as breeding stock. When a cow or bull does not produce it gets "culled" from the herd and most of these animals wind up in products made from beef. The meat of these animals is not very tender and therefore is generally utilized in canned or other processed products. Just thought you would want to know. How do I edit the text?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numbrz (talk • contribs) 02:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Processed meat vs soy products
Do soy protein based products such as vege burgers, vege sausages, vege "bacon" etc. have the same things in them as processed meats? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.132.10.250 (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * no, they don't! see this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_protein_per_unit_area_of_land and pay close attention to the "limiting amino acids".  as it turns out, soy protein is by acceptable standards more complete than beef.  i feel like this article is strongly biased toward the positive aspects of beef.  this article really seems more like a "how-to" guide on cooking beef than anything else. Gungfusteve (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Cooking Temps C vs F
In the chart below listing rare, medium, well done, and their related cooking temperatures, the temperatures in Fahrenheit are quite different from those listed in Celsius.

For instance... Very Rare 120-130F would be 48-54C...  Rare 130-145F 54-62.7C. I've lived in both the US and Europe, and I've never heard of "metric beef"... which might explain why the temperature range is different in Celcius. :) So, either the F temps are wrong or the C temps are wrong.

Denovich (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup of content fork
Currently there is a content fork involving Primal cut on one side, and on the other side Cut of beef and Cut of pork. I suggest merging the duplicated content, preferably within the respective carcass articles (Beef, Pork). That will leave not very much content on Primal cut; perhaps merge it into Butcher, as a section. --Una Smith (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"benefit from"
We say:

For example, tender (and generally more expensive) cuts of meat benefit from fast, high-heat cooking while tough cuts benefit from a slower and longer cooking method.

Is "benefit from fast...cooking" actually accurate? Or do such cuts merely "tolerate" it better? --Baylink (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Beef and sperm count
Should this be mentioned in the article (under 'Health') ? There are many online references on the possibility of less sperm count for the sons of expecting mothers if the mothers consumed beef in high quantity.


 * http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262401,00.html
 * http://pregnancy.families.com/blog/study-about-beef-and-sperm-count
 * http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/news/20070327/study-links-beef-to-lower-sperm-count
 * http://news.softpedia.com/news/More-Beef-Less-Sperm-50475.shtml

122.167.16.68 (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Beef
I have some comments at Template talk:Beef which people might like to respond to. Thanks, Steven Walling  01:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Moist Heat
I'm just not sure that it is appropriate to classify cooking as moist heat and dry heat. There was the whole row about propane as moist heat because water vapor is one of the cooking by products (well, any hydrocarbon gives off some water when burned, even charcoal unless it is pure carbon) and I have an issue with sous vide being called moist heat. Sous vide is done in a plastic bag that should be impermeable to water. (I have some chicken thighs that were frozen in a bag with mole, I just popped them into a sous vide at 145). The reason that you use water in the sous vide is to transfer heat effectively, it could be mineral oil or anything. You don't use air in a sous vide oven because it would be hard to keep it contained when you opened it to check the food and it would reheat too slow, and the water has thermal inertia and because 145F hot air, for example, would take too long to heat the target through the plastic bag. It is possible to oil poach in sous vide in a couple tablespoons of oil, or it is possible to cook without added anything in the bag. The other issue is that they mention thermostatic control - and the thermostat is usually not good enough to hold the temperatures needed, it takes a PID Controller to do a good job of holding the temperature without offshoot. So I don't know how to change things, or even if I should. Simicich (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I came across this comment just after I had added a comment to that effect. Have left sv in moist section. It's not inherently moist or dry, depends on what's in the bag. Pol098 (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Recalls?
Is that Recalls section really necessary? Don't think we need to start listing every instance of food recalls on WP. Plus, since it just covers 2011, it very much suffers from WP:RECENT or WP:UNDUE. If there is going to be anything about recalls, a better suggestion would be to cite if there has been a steady rise/decline of recalls or show a history of recalling beef. Or, possibly, just note the largest example of a recall. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Economics and industrial practice
It would be interesting to have some coverage of the economics and practices of the beef industry, as in this NPR piece: (either here or on livestock.) -- Beland (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sentence fragment in section 6.1
In section 6.1 (Dry Heat) there occurs the following sentence fragment: "In the U.S.A., Australia, Canada, the UK and Germany, grilling, particularly over charcoal." This seems to be missing its predicate. I am not attempting to fix it, since i can't make out what it was supposed to say. Can anyone help? Artwholeflaffer (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good catch, I found the problem edit in the edit history and fixed it. Dreadstar  ☥   03:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Environmental impacts of beef
I have drafted the following to be added as a new section. Please comment as appropriate.

Production of beef has considerable negative environmental impacts. Most notably, beef production is associated with very high carbon footprints. Typical studies estimate that between 12 and 35kg of CO2e are produced for every 1 kg of beef consumed, dependent on the country of production, (Aston et al 2012, Audsley et al 2009) and DEFRA ranks it as the second most carbon intensive food product available, behind only Lamb (Aston et al 2012). Alternate measures include the kg of CO2e produced per carcass, which is estimated at between 15 and 25 kg (figures tending to be lower than for CO2e /kg of meat because the carcasses include bones and other products). However, Cederberg et al (2011) note that the estimates discussed here do not include the effects of land use change in the Legal Amazon Region. Incorporating this into their analysis they estimate that 700kg of CO2e is produced per beef carcass. To provide context for these figures, cheese is associated with 9.8 kg CO2e/kg, white meat (chicken, turkey and game birds) 4 kg CO2e/kg, lentils 1.1 CO2e/kg, chickpeas <1 kg CO2e/kg and eggs 3 kg CO2e/kg (Aston et al 2012, Audsley et al 2009).

Aston L, Smith J, Powles J. 2012. Impact of a reduced red and processed meat dietary pattern on disease risks and greenhouse gas emissions in the UK: a modelling study. BMJ Open 2: 1-9

Audsley E, Brander M, Chatterton J, Murphy-Bokern D, Webster C, Williams A. 2009. How low can we go? An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the UK foodsystem and the scope to reduce them by 2050. FCRN-WWF-UK

Cederberg C, Persson UM, Neovius K, Molander S, Clift R. 2011. Including Carbon Emissions from Deforestation in the Carbon Footprint of Brazilian Beef. Environmental Science & Technology 45: 1773-79

Garnett T. 2007. MEAT AND DAIRY PRODUCTION & CONSUMPTION: Exploring the livestock sector’s contribution to theUK’s greenhouse gas emissions and assessing what less greenhouse gas intensive systems of productionand consumption might look like. In Working paper produced a part of the work of the Food Climate Research Network

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.192.83 (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments on the article If the article is to focus on the global warming aspect of the environment, it should also list the methane and water vapor produced. This should be compared to items like rice, which also produce a lot of methane. However, in general, I find the article is much too limited, to accurately reflect the effect on the environment, you would need to go into detail, about the amount of feed each animal, or plant, consumes to produce a kg of food. The effects of feed lot's on air quality, and the spread of bacteria. Just to name a few additions. Even then, I wonder if putting this in the beef section would be appropriate, as you need to compare to other food sources. Maybe it should be in a section on pollution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobber2013 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Diagram citation
It would be nice to have citations for the diagrams of cuts in various places. A ref to an authoritative diagram, if it can't be included for copyright reasons, would help. The diagrams look OK as far as I can see, I'm not criticising (or endorsing) them. Pol098 (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Canadian beef
I looked up the Canadian cattle herd, and it was listed as 14,000,000 which would put it middle of the pack, but it isn't listed. Maybe this is because part of that total is dairy? I saw that the one province of Alberta had a beef production of 773,000 tons, which by itself almost made the top 10, without including any other provinces. I got this info from http://albertabeef.org/consumers/new-page/ Does anyone know how the statistics for the cattle herds was generated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobber2013 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)