kalanamak wrote:

> Bob Pastorio wrote:
>
>>They're not good for chopping, but neither are wooden boards.
>
> Define "not good", please.

Let's start by defining "chopping." Using a European-style cleaver to
hack through bones and cartilage and the meat connected to it. This is
a forceful chop.

As opposed to knifework where the idea of chopping is a much gentler
action with a much lighter implement. Chopped garlic requires an up
and down motion, but it isn't musclework as chopping through the chine
bone of a rib section would be.

Not good means that the boards that we lay down on counters aren't
designed to take the former but can handle the latter reasonably well.

Countertop boards can be split by forceful chopping. They can also be
splintered and deeply marred. All that militates against using them
that way. The marks can harbor bacteria and contamination, and also
make using them later for knife work more difficult.

A chopping *block* is a different thing than a cutting *board.* Wooden
blocks intended for forceful chopping are almost always made of hard
woods (mostly maple), end-grain up. They're laminated and held
together by threaded rods through them from side to side. The block is
often 6 or more inches thick and weighs a lot. There are cutting
boards made to look like them that are generally an inch or two thick,
but not made with the rods to hold them together. They're often sold
as chopping blocks, but I wouldn't use them that way. Not substantial
enough.

Pastorio