Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Using Infrared Cameras To Find Tastiness of Beef

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the i-use-a-fork dept.

Science 108

JoshuaInNippon writes "Might we one day be able to use our cell phone cameras to pick out the best piece of meat on display at the market? Some Japanese researchers seem to hope so. A team of scientists is using infrared camera technology to try and determine the tastiest slices of high-grade Japanese beef. The researchers believe that the levels of Oleic acid found within the beef strongly affect the beef's tenderness, smell, and overall taste. The infrared camera can be tuned to pick out the Oleic acid levels through a whole slab, a process that would be impossible to do with the human eye. While the accuracy is still relatively low — a taste test this month resulted in only 60% of participants preferring beef that was believed to have had a higher level of Oleic acid — the researchers hope to fine tune the process for market testing by next year."

cancel ×

108 comments

Go Vegan (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30971488)

Human being are herbivores. Go vegan!

Re:Go Vegan (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30971496)

-1, incorrect

Re:Go Vegan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30972380)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05zhL1YUd8Q

Re:Go Vegan (1)

Wumpus (9548) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971518)

B12?

Re:Go Vegan (2, Funny)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971546)

We'd go on a vegan diet, but the delivery time from Vega is too long.

Re:Go Vegan (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971978)

There's always Mars bars.

Re:Go Vegan (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976198)

You've got it all wrong. A vegan diet means to eat a Cheverolet Vega. But consuming that much rust can't be healthy...

Re:Go Vegan (3, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971700)

I'd consider it unfair to take away the food of my food.

Re:Go Vegan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30971990)

All this talk of meat is making me hungry for a hamburger...mmmm.....meat....

Re:Go Vegan (2, Funny)

chibiace (898665) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972282)

plants are alive too you murderer!

Re:Go Vegan (1)

kaizokuace (1082079) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972660)

Babies can't go vegan so why should I?

Oleic acid. (3, Funny)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971502)

It's what's for dinner. Tonight.

Re:Oleic acid. (1)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971564)

Perfect! Why can't we just do a Cajun injection of it? :)

Re:Oleic acid. (2, Interesting)

DrMrLordX (559371) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971874)

Seriously. Oleic acid marinades may be the next big thing if they aren't already.

You don't need a camera to taste my beef (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30971522)

Just put your mouth around it and let your tongue do the tasting.

Vegans a pussies. Dicks fuck pussies.

Yay (3, Funny)

plague911 (1292006) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971524)

This is an example of people using science to the fullest of our ability. Times like this make me proud to be a member of the human race

Re:Yay (2, Interesting)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971930)

Yes. Now they will develop a method to inject this fat throughout all cuts of meat, so any test would indicate all the meat at the grocery store is 'best'....

Re:Yay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30972994)

Yes. Now they will develop a method to inject this fat throughout all cuts of meat, so any test would indicate all the meat at the grocery store is 'best'....

My thought exactly while I was reading the summary. Mod up please.

Re:Yay (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973338)

Yes. Now they will develop a method to inject this fat throughout all cuts of meat, so any test would indicate all the meat at the grocery store is 'best'....

Well, if it's true that it improves the flavor of meat, then this is, in fact, a good idea. That wouldn't be a case of deceiving the test, but of genuinely improving the quality of the meat.

Re:Yay (4, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972378)

Seriously, I would love some objective metrics for tastiness. I feel meat and vegetables have been selected for all the wrong things - resistance to herbicides, vibrant color, durability during shipping - because these are what consumers can see through the shinkwrap at the store. If we could put a number on how "zesty" tomatoes taste, then there would be an incentive to sell tomatoes that taste like tomatoes.

Re:Yay (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973394)

Alas, tastiness is not an objective trait. However, with the understanding that a trait is subjective, one can make objective measurements of how many subjects relate to an object in a particular way. One could presumably therefore objectively determine which tomatoes will taste zesty to the largest number of people.

Re:Yay (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30974504)

Unfortunately for your opinion, I and 100,000 years of human existence must disagree. While tastes in things can be very subjective, from a biological standpoint, humans are wired to selectively prefer foods containing fat, sugar and salt.

If we can check for these in food samples via technological means, than we can infer that foods that meet these requirements can be considered tasty or alternatively preferable to foods that fail to meet these requirements.

This technology can only benefit our species as we can now use this to develop foods that are high in caloric content, nutrient, minerals and amino acids while making them taste "delicious".

This is a step towards fully synthetic foods, available cheaply, that the masses will adopt.

Re:Yay (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973766)

Meh, our taste evolve along with everything. No such thing as objective metric for tastiness.

Re:Yay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30977916)

Times like this make me proud to be a member of the human race

Times like this make me relieved to be a member of the human race, because we aren't very tasty

Marbling good. Greasy bad (4, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971534)

Having had Japanese beef of all price levels, I can safely say that most of it is overrated and overpriced. It reminds me of the Japanese' impression of American workers, actually.

Good beef should be marbled. This gives it a good tenderness and provides flavor. However Japanese beef is all too often over-marbled leading to a greasy mess that tastes less like beef than a mouthful of fat.

The best beef cows are in the US and have far lower levels of marbling than the famed "Kobe beef". It's not a matter of how coddled the cows are until they are slaughtered, it's all about breeding stock.

So while the Japanese may find a way to rank their beef using IR, they are still stuck with the same old greasy, mushy slabs of fat.

Re:Marbling good. Greasy bad (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971628)

Over-marbled? You're fucking insane. The fat is where the flavor is. I've had a lot of delicious beef here in Panama but most of it takes quite a bit of gnawing. The only truly tender steak I've had yet was at the Panamonte in Boquete. None of it has had the massive marbling of the Porterhouse steaks I buy at the Lakeview market in Nice, CA. My lady who makes me overcook her steaks (medium well) adores them. I eat my steaks medium, and I adore them also.

Re:Marbling good. Greasy bad (1)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971712)

and mediun isnt overcooked?

(likes it rare)

Re:Marbling good. Greasy bad (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971796)

I used to like raw meat, but I lost my taste for it. I used to tell them to show the cow a picture of fire, and lead it to the table :) medium is basically the last point at which I think you still get the full flavor of the meat, but it's cooked enough to be reasonably digestible. Anyway, I like the flavor of cooked meat. Maybe my digestive tract is voting.

Re:Marbling good. Greasy bad (2, Interesting)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972004)

It is great fun to eat steak tartare or carpaccio with americans or english people at the table. their faces get actually bluer than the meat !

In my experience, there seems to be a correlation between tender, juicy, and good. there must be a cause for all 3 to be linked... I'm happy if we can pinpoint it, though leery of the ensuing artificial manipulation we can trust meat producers to engage in.

Re:Marbling good. Greasy bad (0)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972866)

You're eating with the wrong Americans then, I've never been out with anyone who's ordered beef beyond medium rare. The problem with steak tartare is that ground meet is highly prone to parasites and other contamination, and from what I read from the heath reports involving restaurant food poisoning that hasn't changed.

Re:Marbling good. Greasy bad (1)

Xaositecte (897197) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973966)

"Medium rare" means different things in different countries.

I'm an American who usually likes fairly underdone steak - but I made the mistake, once, of ordering a steak "Medium Rare" in the UK. Damn thing was Raw!

Re:Marbling good. Greasy bad (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974804)

It's been my experience that in Panama, they may cook your steak properly, or it may be one shade too done. More useful information: seafood is usually great, but don't get the mixed seafood, it's always chewy.

Re:Marbling good. Greasy bad (1)

ffflala (793437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975662)

seafood is usually great, but don't get the mixed seafood, it's always chewy.

That's actually a good suggestion for every place I've been so far. It's also good idea to generally avoid any "seafood special" for the same reason -- both are often the leftover, older seafood the restaurant is trying to get rid of before it expires.

Re:Marbling good. Greasy bad (3, Informative)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972038)

Duration is next to irrelevant by the way. Temperature is the only important thing. You can leave a steak in the oven at 50-60 degrees Celsius for 12 hours, and it will still be perfect!

Or an egg. Try 55 degrees Celsius for a perfect egg. The time does not matter. It’s the lowest temperature that the protein (in fact only a part of it, just like you like it) does coagulate at.

Slow cooking is the new trend for the best cooks in the world. (Well actually it’s not that new anymore.)

Re:Marbling good. Greasy bad (3, Informative)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972484)

Duration is next to irrelevant by the way. Temperature is the only important thing. You can leave a steak in the oven at 50-60 degrees Celsius for 12 hours, and it will still be perfect!

Other than the fact that you are flirting with the upper edge of the 'danger zone' (that range of temperatures at which bacteria grow fastest), sure. You're also flirting with meat that will be extremely dry even though it appears to be in the 'medium' range, as those temperatures are sufficient for the water in the meat to depart, but insufficient to melt the fats and collagen/connective tissue.
 

Slow cooking is the new trend for the best cooks in the world. (Well actually it's not that new anymore.)

It sounds like you are talking about sous vide, which isn't slow cooking but is cooking at the intended final temperature until the meat reaches that temperature. (Slow cooking isn't actually a professional culinary term, though colloquial use is roughly analogous to what is professionally known as braising and is done at 80-100 degrees.)

Re:Marbling good. Greasy bad (2, Funny)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972986)

The bacterial steak recipe sounds like some ant-meatist trying to kill stupid people. I salute them for trying to get the stupid out of our collective gene pool.

Maayte Maayte Maayte it's Whot we want to aayte.

Re:Marbling good. Greasy bad (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974150)

Sorry, but practical evidence out of my kitchen disagrees with your statements.
I did it as I said. It was so soft, I could sometimes cut it without a knife!

Yes, I’m aware of the bacterial danger zone. :)
That’s why you can’t just buy any meat from anywhere.
But everything above 60 degrees Celsius, for hours, is usually good enough.
Up until now, I never got any trouble, and so did my guests. So my theory looks sound. :)
Also, as star cooks cook that way too... well, they would get into biiig trouble, if their guests would become sick.

Also, the cooks that I learned it from, who learned it directly from Hervé This, called it “slow cooking”. I actually don’t care if it’s called “Cthulhu’s funny meat bunny magic” :D
So you may be right. Or we both. Or it’s all just words. :)

It won't be perfect, it will be overcooked (1)

Motard (1553251) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972764)

A tender steak cooked can be overcooked at 50-60C. This from the Chef/Owner of the French Laundry, Thomas Keller in his sous vide book Under Pressure.

12 hours would practically ruin the steak. It may still be pink, but it will still be overcooked. I've done it in only 4 hours.

Re:Marbling good. Greasy bad (2, Insightful)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973570)

Duration might be irrelevant in cooking a steak if your goal is to get it to a specific temperature, rather than actually make it taste good.

For many people (who enjoy steaks at least), the perfect steak is a slight char on the outside (which helps seal in the interior juices and serves to kill any bacteria) and fairly rare and juicy on the inside, just enough to melt the fats but not let them all drain out. This is best done by high heat for a short period, ie it's pretty hard to do when you cook the entire thing to the same tepid degree over a long time.

Enter the Blowtorch (1)

Motard (1553251) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975148)

As I noted in previous post, his duration is far too long. However, it can be quite long compared to normal steak cooking times.

But to get that 'char', or better, a sear, many of us turn to a blowtorch to apply an intense level of heat in a very localized way to keep the inside perfectly cooked while getting a nice maillard reaction on the outside.

Re:Marbling good. Greasy bad (4, Informative)

TempeTerra (83076) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975618)

Searing your steak doesn't actually 'seal' anything in, it just caramelises the outside.Random Google cite. [about.com] It does still make your steak tastier just like everyone believes, so who cares about the details?

Re: bacteria, not too much of a problem with beef. Chicken and pork tend to be covered in salmonella which is bad news if you don't cook it properly, but beef bacteria are relatively benign and aging beef (see: growing bacteria) is a common way to develop its flavour. I don't know if it's common practice in the USA though, it sounds like something the FDA would have strong words about.

From talking to chefs and chemists, beef is just getting better as it goes grey and slightly smelly but once it goes green or shiny you're looking at trouble. The bacteria start to break down the proteins in the meat the same way a marinade does. Yes, I deliberately keep steak until after its 'use by' date; no, I've never got food poisoning from it; no, I'm not brave enough to serve it to guests ;)

Disclaimer: double check your facts before eating mouldy cow

I like my steaks Jean D'Arc. Burn it! (1)

SirWinston (54399) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976668)

I'm one of those wacky people who prefers steak well done. Not a hint of pink. Most people object to "ruining" a good steak by "overcooking" it, but after trying the whole spectrum from rare to medium-well steak a number of times and trying to make them an "acquired taste," I've come to the conclusion that I just prefer well done and always will.

I suspect it may be partly genetic, since I've read that the sense of taste is actually quite variable and some people can even taste substances that others cannot (e.g., phenylthiocarbamide, or PTC). To me, a rare or medium steak tastes alright, though aesthetically anything less than medium is displeasingly bloody. But a well-done steak, to me, has a very different and far more pleasing flavor than anything less cooked--even a medium steak with a good char on the outside lacks the sort of high savoriness a well-done steak has for me. Since taste is complex and is both additive and subtractive, it could very well be true that cooking to well-done does destroy some flavors, but that subtracting those other flavors increases my perception of the savoriness (umami) to a level which pleases me far more than the other flavors did. Steak cooked less well just seems to lack the intense savoriness I get from a well-done steak.

For me, the two most pleasing flavors are usually savoriness and saltiness. I not only like my steak very well-done, but with more salt than most people use. I've also found that I like a simple lime juice marinade.

My love for well-done steak does raise eyebrows, but at least I don't commit the sin of ruining great steak with steak sauce...

Re:Marbling good. Greasy bad (3, Interesting)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972204)

So while the Japanese may find a way to rank their beef using IR, they are still stuck with the same old greasy, mushy slabs of fat.

It's sounds more like what you've had is Japanese beef that's been ill prepared. The heavily marbled Japanese beef is meant to be served thinly sliced rather that en slab as is American/European beef.
 

Good beef should be marbled. This gives it a good tenderness and provides flavor. However Japanese beef is all too often over-marbled leading to a greasy mess that tastes less like beef than a mouthful of fat.

An interesting claim considering that the marbling levels in American beef have been dropping for decades in response to customer demand for lower fat meats.
 
Even worse is American pork! I literally cannot cook from a 1970's cookbook without heavily modifying the preparation process and cooking times because there has been such a drop in fat levels and the pieces are so closely trimmed. This is why brining has become so popular, to replace the natural moisture and juices that have been bred/trimmed out of the meat.
 
I suspect the [American] fascination with Japanese beef comes from changes in our grading standards. Much of the beef graded Prime (top tier) today would have barely been Choice (second tier) forty or fifty years ago as beef is being bred for lower fat and slaughtered ever younger.

Re:Marbling good. Greasy bad (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972312)

Yakiniku, Shabu shabu, Teppanyaki, Tartare, even "en slab" as you say. I've had Japanese beef every which way but I'm simply unimpressed. The fat levels in Japanese beef is simply too high which leads to greasy flavor and texture.

An interesting claim considering that the marbling levels in American beef have been dropping for decades in response to customer demand for lower fat meats.

No doubt. Most of the stuff seen at the supermarket is inedible.

Even worse is American pork! I literally cannot cook from a 1970's cookbook without heavily modifying the preparation process and cooking times because there has been such a drop in fat levels and the pieces are so closely trimmed.

Now pork is a meat that the Japanese have done well with compared to Americans.

Re:Marbling good. Greasy bad (2, Interesting)

uncqual (836337) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974040)

Even worse is American pork! ... because there has been such a drop in fat levels and the pieces are so closely trimmed.

Agreed.

Back in the 70's, I loved pork (roast, chops, anything) and even Mom's guiding principle of "Anything worth cooking is worth overcooking" left Porky the Supermarket Pig quite tasty. Indeed, pork was probably my favorite meat (a juicy pork roast - yum, yum).

Now, I rarely eat pork -- Porky the Skinny Supermarket Pig is nearly tasteless and one has to "do something" with it other than just toss it in the oven or on the grill to make it tasty -- and even then it doesn't have that nice flavor I remember because it tastes like whatever it was seasoned with, coated with, marinated in, or stuffed with.

I wish the hog and pig farming industry would figure out that there are some of us who eat fatty stuff because we like it, don't have cholesterol problems, work out, and limit our caloric intake -- and want "good pork" rather than "skinny tasteless pork". Perhaps introduce a "choice" vs. "prime" type of grading system for pork - "prime" beef costs a bit more but is widely available and much better -- why not the same for pork? Until the pork agribusiness figures this out, they won't get much of my business.

(I was so thrilled when my local CostCo started routinely having a couple of cuts of prime stakes at about $11/lb -- there's better steaks out there, but these are a great price performer).

Re:Marbling good. Greasy bad (2, Informative)

TempeTerra (83076) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975722)

I'm just guessing here, but your problem might not be low fat content in the pork. Factory farmed animals tend to be pumped full of growth hormones which will make them mature fast and put on weight at the expense of tasting like... anything, really. I don't know how it works in America, but if you have farmers markets or some other access to a more rustic style of pig you might get a better meal and support your local food producers too.

Re:Marbling good. Greasy bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30972346)

It's absolutely true, what you said about the over-marbling being a slice of bologna.

I think the breeding stock AND the diet of the Kobe's contributes to the difference.

But you can also realize that oleic acid comes from the fat, and is released during cooking.

It's these "sweet fats" that the human mind is attuned to recognize as tasting good.

Re:Marbling good. Greasy bad (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972722)

The best beef cows are in the US

Hmmm, as a well-traveled European I have to disagree. The best beef cows are indeed American, but not from the US. Try Argentinian beef, it's awesome. You don't know what you are missing.

Re:Marbling good. Greasy bad (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972816)

Is this something that I'd pay an arm and a leg for? Is it commonly available?

Re:Marbling good. Greasy bad (1)

cenc (1310167) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972880)

yea, I live in Chile, and we might talk bad about most things from Argentina for sport, but I don't think there is anyone in the neighboring countries that would not fairly quickly admit that Argentina has some of the best beef in the World. I don't believe they even export the really good stuff either, having compared the quality of Argentina beef in both Argentina and at least a half dozen other countries. Most greasy spoon hole in the wall mom and pop type operations in Argentina will serve up steaks to make the best restaurants in the World jealous.

I have also worked and lived around American cattle farms. Plastic and tasteless would be be an improvement. They started selling American beef in Chile a few years ago, and I don't anyone that buys it. On the other hand, I have had free range Buffalo in the U.S., and could see how they bread the flavor out out of the cattle.

Re:Marbling good. Greasy bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30977560)

I ... could see how they bread the flavor out out of the cattle.

Mmmm. Bread the cattle. Chicken fried steak. Mmmm, yummy.

Re:Marbling good. Greasy bad (2, Informative)

Huntr (951770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973618)

To go even further, it's not necessarily WHERE the beef is from, but what they eat while they're there. Beef from Argentina is more likely to be grass-fed than corn-fed, as is common in the US (although more Argentinian ranchers are turning to feed lots and corn because of money issues). Grass-fed beef has a lot of advantages, but economy of scale isn't one of them.

Re:Marbling good. Greasy bad (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974144)

The best beef cows are in the US and have far lower levels of marbling than the famed "Kobe beef". It's not a matter of how coddled the cows are until they are slaughtered, it's all about breeding stock.

The beef I had in Kobe was, by far, the most delicious thing I've ever put in my mouth.
I nearly drown in my own saliva every time I think about it. So good.... so, SO good.

Re:Marbling good. Greasy bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30974906)

Hell, some black dude named his son after it!
You would think it has to taste a bit better than the American stuff Japanese Fast Food chains put on top of rice.
BTW, I hear the kid grew up with an inferiority complex and now spends all his time playing basketball or something.

Re:Marbling good. Greasy bad (1)

stimpleton (732392) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975246)

The best beef cows are in the US and have far lower levels of marbling than the famed "Kobe beef". It's not a matter of how coddled the cows are until they are slaughtered, it's all about breeding stock.

In this case it is not so much about performance genetics but environment. The US uses feedlots and grain based diets. The animals manifest this in receding jaw structure, and poor feet. This comines to put the fat subcutaneously along the back. Upto 3 inches deep compared to the natural grass feed environments such as Argentina, New Zealand etc, where subcutaneous fat may be only 1/2 inch yet will give a higher marbling. If your concern is about fat then I have a terrible revelation for you. New Zealand exports its beef to the US, where it is mixed with the US subcutaneous fat. That product becomes the small goods base: burger patties etc.

Re:Marbling good. Greasy bad (1)

gemada (974357) | more than 4 years ago | (#30977070)

American beef is corn fed and is not good. Grain fed beef from other countries is much better.

And then what? (3, Insightful)

FlyByPC (841016) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971548)

So you prompt the sellers to spray each piece with Oleic acid to make their display look extra-tasty. It needs to be a more sophisticated, hard-to-fool algorithm than that.

MMmm. Nitrate/ites/monoxides (2, Insightful)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972420)

Bright red meat... damned near glowing with health?

Food chemistry is well understood, as is customer preference. The industry has been using every trick in the book for a thousand years to sell product to customers.
 

Re:And then what? (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973510)

So you prompt the sellers to spray each piece with Oleic acid to make their display look extra-tasty. It needs to be a more sophisticated, hard-to-fool algorithm than that.

RTFS: "The infrared camera can be tuned to pick out the Oleic acid levels through a whole slab ..."

Re:And then what? (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 4 years ago | (#30978648)

Presto Injecto!

Re:And then what? (1)

MadUndergrad (950779) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976320)

No, they'll use melamine. It'll fool the camera into thinking there is oleic acid present.

mod Up (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30971586)

dying. All major [goat.cx]

beef only? (-1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971608)

I wonder if we can adapt this idea to find the tastiest piece of ass. There's nothing worse than going down on a banging hot chick and nearly vomiting on the stink!

Re:beef only? (1)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971722)

Yes, use an IE thermometer on your cheeks, if they are hot, your capilliarys are dialated, your drunk, and you will regret 'hitting that'

Re:beef only? (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972008)

the post right above yours is...unfortunate.

Now... (0)

Taur0 (1634625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971660)

if only we could do that for the opposite gender.

Re:Now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30971694)

didnt know beef was a gender?

Re:Now... (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973896)

Why is slashdot attracting so many cannibals?

not to be a grammar nazi... (5, Informative)

arielCo (995647) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971788)

to try and determine

Can we please stop using "try and" when we mean "try to"? Many say it's non-standard in written speech, but it's worse - it means something entirely different. If you "try and determine" (conjunction), you succeed at it and the "try" part is rather redundant. If you "try to determine" (preposition), "to determine" becomes the object of "try".

You can start modding this down now, or making fun if you haven't the points.

Re:not to be a grammar nazi... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30971878)

you sound like a Kobe-Bitch

Re:not to be a grammar nazi... (2, Funny)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973802)

Stupid grammar nazi.

Re:not to be a grammar nazi... (1)

arielCo (995647) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974294)

Thank Gawd I asked "please" and didn't say anything bad about anyone.

Anyway, you were supposed to mod it down or make fun, but thanks for playing ;)

Re:not to be a grammar nazi... (4, Interesting)

Petrushka (815171) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974510)

Can we please stop using "try and" when we mean "try to"? Many say it's non-standard in written speech, but it's worse - it means something entirely different.

"Try and" is in fact the older expression, and is closer to the core meaning of "try". Here's the earliest usage --

They try and express their love to God by their thankfulness to him. -- J. Sergeant, 1686

"Try" taking an infinitive only goes back to a 1697 poem of Dryden's (though there's a cognate usage of "trial" that goes back to 1683).

Age isn't the main indicator of which is better, of course. The point is that once upon a time "try" didn't mean "attempt"; that's a secondary meaning that it was gaining in the late 17th century. The original meaning, which it still has, is "test, prove, experiment", as in "Try before you buy", or "I shall try this infrared camera technology and, I hope, thereby determine the tastiest slices of beef".

In that sense "try and" makes considerably more sense than "try to": the implication of "try and determine" is that two intents are behind the one action, i.e. "I will conduct an experiment" and also "I shall (I hope!) determine". It's not actually being used as a modal verb, in other words.

The short answer is: you're fighting the losing side of a 300-year-old battle, and isn't it fun what you can find when you actually take the time to look in a dictionary?

Re:not to be a grammar nazi... (2, Informative)

arielCo (995647) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974806)

Can we please stop using "try and" when we mean "try to"? Many say it's non-standard in written speech, but it's worse - it means something entirely different.

"Try and" is in fact the older expression, and is closer to the core meaning of "try". Here's the earliest usage --

They try and express their love to God by their thankfulness to him. -- J. Sergeant, 1686

"Try" taking an infinitive only goes back to a 1697 poem of Dryden's (though there's a cognate usage of "trial" that goes back to 1683).

Age isn't the main indicator of which is better, of course...

Yes - I have this silly tendency to think that if it "parses" better it must be better. To me, the preposition + infinitive means try(action) while the conjunction + simple form means try();action, where the action is the implied object (argument) of try(). But then again, natural languages don't always make sense. My native tongue is Spanish, which is a shining example with its double negation.

The point is that once upon a time "try" didn't mean "attempt"; that's a secondary meaning that it was gaining in the late 17th century. The original meaning, which it still has, is "test, prove, experiment", as in "Try before you buy", or "I shall try this infrared camera technology and, I hope, thereby determine the tastiest slices of beef".

Thanks for the info. Fun thing, I have been schooled and I my opinion (about what we should be using now) stays valid ;)

In that sense "try and" makes considerably more sense than "try to": the implication of "try and determine" is that two intents are behind the one action, i.e. "I will conduct an experiment" and also "I shall (I hope!) determine". It's not actually being used as a modal verb, in other words.

Correct, if you assume the "hopefully" clause in the middle is implicit.

The short answer is: you're fighting the losing side of a 300-year-old battle,

*sigh* And yet, I will not go gentle ;)

and isn't it fun what you can find when you actually take the time to look in a dictionary?

Hmm... good old m-w.com [merriam-webster.com] says nothing beyond "to make an attempt at — often used with an infinitive <try to fix the car>". Then I went to dictionary.com [reference.com] and found:

Usage note:
10. "Try" followed by and instead of to has been in standard use since the 17th century: The Justice Department has decided to try and regulate jury-selection practices. The construction occurs only with the base form "try", not with "tries" or "tried" or "trying". Although some believe that "try and" is less formal than "try to", both patterns occur in all types of speech and writing.

... which somehow contradicts your information. Funny things, these human languages.

Re:not to be a grammar nazi... (1)

Petrushka (815171) | more than 4 years ago | (#30977202)

If the last sentence of my post was rude -- and it wasn't nearly as rude as your entire post -- that's still not much excuse for misrepresenting me. The only really important piece of information I presented was that the core meaning of "try" is "test". Obviously words have secondary meanings; if you take the time to read my post, you'll find that, amazingly, I actually said that.

The dictionaries you cite do not contradict any of the factual data I presented; rather they confirm my claim about the age of the two expressions "try and" and "try to", which as I stated (and you agreed, snarkily) is not a central issue because it's a secondary meaning. You misrepresent me as stating a view opposite to dictionary.com as to which expression is more "formal": I did not. I avoided commenting on that then, and I continue to reserve comment now.

Enough of your rudeness, touchiness, and misrepresentations. It's about time I went and found a glass of something nice anyway.

Oops... (really) (1)

arielCo (995647) | more than 4 years ago | (#30977454)

I feel like an ass now. Honestly, I did *not* intend to come across as snarky or sarcastic or touchy at all. I really understood the bit in dictionary.com as similar of what you explained to me but opposite as to which is the newer form, and the whole point (change in usage and the logic behind "try and") is new information to me which I appreciate. I'll read both again to sort it out.

When I said "my opinion stays valid" and "I will not go gentle [into that good night]", it was about the infinitive being somehow better, partly joking, and surely not an attempt to raise an argument about what form was first. I do have a silly tendency to parse natural languages as expressions. But yes, it's easy to read it that way, given that sarcasm and touchiness do abound here in /.

All in all, apologies if my clumsy writing upset you. I wanted to convey that really learned something from you, even if I'm not sure what it is :)

Not than I condone cannabalism... (1)

Da Cheez (1069822) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971798)

...but what if you tried scanning a live human with this? Might it tell you who the tastiest person in the room is?

Silly scientists. ^^ (3, Informative)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30971936)

From personal experience:
A medium-grade piece of meat, prepared the right way, beats the best meat, prepared the wrong way.
The wrong way, is what most people think is normal.

The right way goes like this:
Think about the actual chemistry.
1. Fat does make it tastier! Marbling is a good thing! (Also if you stuff yourself with pure starch and sugars [including what is called “bread”] it’s not the fat that’s making you fat.)
2. The higher the temperature, the more you wreck the meat. That’s a no-brainer. So the lower, the better. Which takes a really long time, but does not really cost more in energy. The optimal temperature is the lowest one, which still allows protein coagulation, but as little “sweating” / water evaporation as possible. So from 50 to a maximum of 80 degrees celsius. For a big roast, this can easily take from 4 to 12 hours! But remember that at 50 degrees, you could practically leave it in there forever, witout any negative effects.
3. Now of course you get a problem, since this will not lead to much browning. But the browning creates important flavors! So you have to fry it just as much, to get the Maillard reaction to brown enough of the outer crust, for it to be like you want it. And here lies the problem: This overheats the core too, you lose water, and the meat becomes tough as leather. But I found a nice hack, to prevent that: Right before frying, cool the meat as close to the freezing point as possible (but not actually freezing, since the ice crystals are bad). Do it slowly, since you want the core to be cold! Which protects it from the heat.
4. Always first fry, then put it in the oven. Not the other way around. Because else, the cooling method does not work, and you also will not know when to take it out, so that it’s perfect after the following frying. When you can check it in the oven, it’s much easier, because it’s a matter of half an hour to an hour between good and bad. Not a matter of seconds!

So in short:
1. Cool close to freezing point.
2. Fry as short as possible. Always stop, as soon as the core gets over 50-80 degrees Celsius.
3. Put in the oven at those 50-80 degrees. (Buy a oven thermometer, or even better: A roast thermometer with a needle. Because your oven can be off by up to 20 degrees Celsius!)
4. Wait until you think it’s good. This is a matter of experience and temperature. But at 80 degrees, a 2-person roast can take 4 hours. The same one an 55-60 degrees, can take 6-8 hours! Check every half hour. While doing something else (I work from home in parallel.)
5. Notice that it has lost no juice. This is an indicator that you did it right. But since you can’t make any gravy without that juice, you have to use something else. Like that concentrated meat juice & co you can buy in the supermarket. Add a bit whine perhaps, a bit mixed pepper, real butter, spring onions if you like them... you know the drill.
6. Enjoy your 5€/kg meat which tastes like >10€/kg meat! And the feeling of having done cool science/chemistry at the same time!

Re:Silly scientists. ^^ (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972050)

i'm gonna have a pizza.

Re:Silly scientists. ^^ (4, Interesting)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30972418)

The right way goes like this

The 'right way' depends entirely on the cut of beef and the intended final product. A chuck is treated differently from the round which is treated differently from the sirloin. Roasting produces one result (depending on the cut you are using), braising a different result, browning yet another... etc. etc.
 

5. Notice that it has lost no juice. This is an indicator that you did it right. But since you can't make any gravy without that juice, you have to use something else.

It sounds like you are making a roast of some kind... (but I can't really tell as you've failed to specify the cut and intended final product), but you've badly botched the chemistry. The reason the meat appears to have 'lost' no juice is that you haven't produced any in the first place. The primary source of 'juice' isn't the water you expend so much effort in not losing, but is the collagen and other connective tissue in the roast, which doesn't start to melt until roughly 82 degrees. (Which is why a sirloin roast, high in fat but low in connective tissue, can be dry roasted and served rare, but chuck roasts which are filled with connective tissue are braised and always served well done.)
 
Further, you're cooking cycle [near freeze - browning - cooking at too low a temperature] is a method precisely designed to produce an outer layer of meat that is overcooked with the bulk of the interior badly undercooked.
 
 

Enjoy your 5/kg meat which tastes like >10/kg meat!

I can't think of a single cut of beef that would be 'improved' by your faulty method. From your description it sounds like you are covering the faults in your cooking method with store bought flavor additives rather than not inducing the fault in the first place.

Re:Silly scientists. ^^ (-1, Troll)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974050)

The 'right way' depends entirely on the cut of beef and the intended final product.

Sorry, but that the first part of that sentence is the typical excuse of the bad cook, and the second part: Nobody intends to have a dry part of meat, so what’s your point?

I know from personal real experience of doing roasts and steaks — for Christmas, for me, for friends, etc — that your view is wrong and outdated.
Look at the physics/chemistry behind it.

but you've badly botched the chemistry.

O R'LYEH? Cause:

The reason the meat appears to have 'lost' no juice is that you haven't produced any in the first place. The primary source of 'juice' isn't the water you expend so much effort in not losing, but is the collagen and other connective tissue in the roast, which doesn't start to melt until roughly 82 degrees.

No shit Sherlock? You act all so wisely, and don’t even get, that this was the exact point I made?
Are you really trying to “counter” me, by bringing up the samepoint? LOL.
Why do you think I said 50-80 degrees, and not 50-98?

Further, you're cooking cycle [near freeze - browning - cooking at too low a temperature] is a method precisely designed to produce an outer layer of meat that is overcooked with the bulk of the interior badly undercooked.

I am cooking cycle? What language is this again? ^^
Undercooking the interior, again, is the exact point. Because not the pan is supposed to cook the meat! Ever! The pan is to get the Maillard to create the aromes in the crust. Which also destroys it. Which should not happen to the interior!
The cooking happens in the oven, afterwards. When the pan has heated the interior to a normal (e.g. room) temperature.

I’ve tried this, tested, and experimented to find the right timings and temperatures. So you can’t physically be right, unless the meat i had on my own plate, lied to my eyes, my nose, my tongue, my teeth, and that of many friends of mine.

In conclusion: You just speak out of your ass, without any real practical experience to back it up!

Re:Silly scientists. ^^ (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30975938)

The 'right way' depends entirely on the cut of beef and the intended final product.

Sorry, but that the first part of that sentence is the typical excuse of the bad cook and the second part: Nobody intends to have a dry part of meat, so what's your point?

Sorry, but the first part it chapter and verse in the manual of a professional cook. A chuck is going to respond differently than a sirloin, and a round will respond differently from either. In each cut the proportions of muscle, fat, and connective tissue are different and each receives different amounts of exercise when the animal is alive. (And that culinary science 101 - about as basic as it gets. Why do you think charts and tables like the one found here [txbeef.org] exist?) And I agree, nobody intends to create a dry piece of meat, but many people do anyhow because they don't understand the difference between the cuts and the impact of different cooking methods.
 

I know from personal real experience of doing roasts and steaks -- for Christmas, for me, for friends, etc -- that your view is wrong and outdated.
Look at the physics/chemistry behind it.

Outdated? You might pick up a copy of this book [curiouscook.com] , which is standard textbook in the culinary industry, says exactly what I said, and was last updated just a couple of years ago. (Yeah, I've spent fifteen years semi professional studying the culinary arts - why do you ask?)
 
You on the other hand toss around terms that make you appear educated, but only to other members of the cargo cult.
 
 

The reason the meat appears to have 'lost' no juice is that you haven't produced any in the first place. The primary source of 'juice' isn't the water you expend so much effort in not losing, but is the collagen and other connective tissue in the roast, which doesn't start to melt until roughly 82 degrees.

No shit Sherlock? You act all so wisely, and don't even get, that this was the exact point I made? Are you really trying to "counter" me, by bringing up the samepoint? LOL. Why do you think I said 50-80 degrees, and not 50-98?

Reading comprehension - get some. Your method cannot lose juice - because juice was never created in the first place. You've cooked it too low, and now must replace the juice with gravy from a box or tin, which you wouldn't need if you'd done it right in the first place. Many uneducated people can't tell the difference because they've had it done right.
 

I've tried this, tested, and experimented to find the right timings and temperatures. So you can't physically be right, unless the meat i had on my own plate, lied to my eyes, my nose, my tongue, my teeth, and that of many friends of mine.

Your meat seems to be good because you artificially supply (from a box or tin) that which you failed to create by properly cooking the meat.
 

In conclusion: You just speak out of your ass, without any real practical experience to back it up!

Fifteen years of cooking and studying the culinary arts - and my practices are the exact same as you'll find in any decent or better restaurant. If I'm speaking 'out of my ass', then I'm in very good company.

Re:Silly scientists. ^^ (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30972592)

For #3.

Try lightly coating both sides of the beef in sugar before browning. It will make the beef brown at least twice as fast which will save the core temperature

Re:Silly scientists. ^^ (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973718)

I'm a vegetarian (don't trust meat industry, as opposed to being against eating it), but you make me almost want to buy a slab of meat and try your procedure. Maybe if I'm ever preparing for someone else...

Re:Silly scientists. ^^ (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973836)

Dude, you've got a lot of time on your hand. Couldn't even read the whole thing.

Re:Silly scientists. ^^ *you are incorrect* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30974260)

Actually, you aren't wrong by much: stop after step 2 and you're all set. Why can't people just put a nice sear on and leave well enough alone?

Re:Silly scientists. ^^ (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30976656)

Or buy a slow cooker, stick the meat in there and leave on "Auto" for 8 hours. Do it before you go to work, and come home to the softest, tastiest meat you've ever had. I swear you could cook old saddlebags this way.

oh great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30971976)

just wait till the butchers catch on and charge more for the high Oleic acid level in what we buy

Just buy grassfed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30972146)

If you want to find the best tasting beef, buy grassfed beef. It's tastes like beef is supposed to taste. I have about 100 lbs of it sitting in my freezer, and it's tasty.

Grass Fed Beef (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30972488)

As a rancher (and a geek) I've done some research into this, including raising and feeding different breeds of cattle different feeds. The result? All marbling does is add extra fat. If you overcook your meat, the fat keeps it from drying out, and makes it more tender. If you don't overcook your meat, even the leanest cut can be tender and juicy.

As for flavor, yes the flavor is in the fat, but more fat doesn't mean more flavor. What the cow is fed determines the flavor MUCH more than how much intramuscular fat is present. When growing grapes to make wine, grapes often have the best flavor in poor soil. In the same way, grass-fed beef has the best flavor. I've had the best of prime beefs, and it often has all the flavor of tofu, because they feed-lot their carefully raise high-intramuscular-fat breeds on corn. Zero flavor. But a grass fed steer, even with a lot less fat, has much better flavor.

Get grass fed beef, cook it correctly so you don't make it tough, and you'll save money and eat better steak than the richest of Japanese.

Don't just take my word for it. http://www.slate.com/id/2152674/ [slate.com]

ours has the most oleic acid w/o a prescription (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30972746)

I'm getting the sense that oleic acid has as much to do with tenderness, smell, and overall taste.
as midichlorines have to do with being a Jedi.

i.e. its a cause/effect issue and if you rely too much on it you'll end up with alot of beef Darth Vaders.

And to think (1)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973114)

... that all this time I've been using a fork to help me determine the tastiness of beef.
Ohh, I weep at my naivety.

Pick best meat, after others before have done same (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#30973760)

Might we one day be able to use our cell phone cameras to pick out the best piece of meat on display at the market?

How will this help once everyone has it? Let's assume 1 in 4 are "good". If all the meat was bought, then 1 in 4 people would get good pieces. After everyone has this technology in their phones... 1 in 4 people will get good pieces. I fail to see any net benefit.

Hot Damn! (1)

The Wild Norseman (1404891) | more than 4 years ago | (#30974138)

"USDA grade-A and iPod Approved!"

Similar devices already in use (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30974466)

I recently visited a beef abatoir (in NSW, Australia) for work. The thing that suprised me most was that the process of "meat grading" was completely automated. A slit was cut between two ribs and exposed to the air for about 20 minutes. Then they just pointed a hand-held scanner device at the exposed meat, and "Grade AAA" or "Grade AA+" etc appeared on a screen.

As a side note to the vegos, I found the on-site vets to be absolutely passionate about animal welfare. The animals were well looked after and quite comfortable and happy until they were electrically stunned. They make a serious effort to make sure the animals experience as little stress as possible - apart from anything else, it spoils the meat.

Pop culture reference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30975260)

Fuck you, chicken! Fuck you, cow!

i hope they fail (1)

madddddddddd (1710534) | more than 4 years ago | (#30976828)

if they succeed, then everyone will agree that their product accurately provides reliable results.

after that happens, in the same way search engine optimizers operate, beef quality optimizers will step in to spray on or radiate out whatever the device is looking for.

fast forward a generation and we're all convinced mcnuggets are the highest quality food.

Food tracking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30976934)

Also of interest in the same area are developments about food tracking / food safety, partly based on GPS, imaging, barcode/QR technologies & al

JPK

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...