About a year ago, I asked the meat manager what the best cut of meat
was for a roast in the crock pot - the kind that falls apart and
doesn't need a knife. He told me, and it was great.

I bought a vaiety of meats on special and froze them. A couple weeks
ago, I put two in the corck pot. Both were good, but one was like
cutting steaks, and one was falling apart. Of course, it didn't occur
to me to note which was which before I cooked them.

I asked the new meat manager, and she told me they are all the same.
Clearly, they aren't.

Can anybody tell me which is the best for falling apart? It's so much
more tender, easuer to eat, and just tastes better. It freezes and
reheats well, and I would like to make more of that kind.

Thanks.

> wrote in message
> Can anybody tell me which is the best for falling apart? It's so much
> more tender, easuer to eat, and just tastes better. It freezes and
> reheats well, and I would like to make more of that kind.

Chuck is probably the best, rump would be next.

On Tue 21 Mar 2006 09:41:45p, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it Steve Wertz?

> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 03:38:45 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
> wrote:
>
> wrote in message
>>> Can anybody tell me which is the best for falling apart? It's so much
>>> more tender, easuer to eat, and just tastes better. It freezes and
>>> reheats well, and I would like to make more of that kind.
>>
>>Chuck is probably the best, rump would be next.
>
> Two votes for Chuck.

Chuck for president! Sure would be an improvement over the fathead we have
now.

Oh, uh, meat... Almost any cut of chuck makes a good "falling apart" roast.

--
Wayne Boatwright o¿o
____________________

BIOYA

Chuck is probably best, but I'd watch what I buy, even on sale, because
8 to 10 hours in a crockpot should tenderize anything short of soup
bones. And 10 hours in a crockpot could turn a good chuck, maybe
english cut, into mush. There is an upper limit to fork-tender beef.

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> About a year ago, I asked the meat manager what the best cut of meat
> was for a roast in the crock pot - the kind that falls apart and
> doesn't need a knife. He told me, and it was great.
>
> I bought a vaiety of meats on special and froze them. A couple weeks
> ago, I put two in the corck pot. Both were good, but one was like
> cutting steaks, and one was falling apart. Of course, it didn't occur
> to me to note which was which before I cooked them.
>
> I asked the new meat manager, and she told me they are all the same.
> Clearly, they aren't.
>
> Can anybody tell me which is the best for falling apart? It's so much
> more tender, easuer to eat, and just tastes better. It freezes and
> reheats well, and I would like to make more of that kind.
>
> Thanks.
>

Chuck. Chuck, chuck, chuck. Preferably with the bones. Try to find a bone-in or
something called a 7-bone chuck. Best flavor ever.

kimberly

at Wed, 22 Mar 2006 02:00:13 GMT in <1142992813.631225.36000
@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
) wrote :

>About a year ago, I asked the meat manager what the best cut of meat
>was for a roast in the crock pot - the kind that falls apart and
>doesn't need a knife. He told me, and it was great.
>
....
>Can anybody tell me which is the best for falling apart? It's so much
>more tender, easuer to eat, and just tastes better. It freezes and
>reheats well, and I would like to make more of that kind.

To amplify on the responses so far given in favour of chuck - yes, that's
right, but let me be even more specific.

The very best is chuck eye. This piece is easily recognisable by its 2
sections - one roughly rectangular (although if rolled and tied it will be
curved) with a distinct grain diagonal to the short side of the rectangle,
one roughly oval and intensely marbled.

Next would normally be 7-bone, except that a crock-pot won't fit a whole
one. The 7-bone actually contains 3 distinct pieces. It's part of the chuck
cut transversely through the bone, and it contains part of the chuck eye,
the underblade, and the top blade. More on each of these cuts below.

After 7-bone comes chuck blade, which is the same as 7-bone except it's cut
somewhat further back on the animal, which means you get a bigger, longer
section of bone and a commensurately larger amount of the top blade.

Following these 2 large cuts is the top blade. In cross section top blade
is oval, with a large obvious strip of gristle running through the middle
but not touching either end - so that it looks like a fat "0". As a whole
piece, it's flattish and triangular, usually with visible surface marbling.

After that is the underblade. In fact, underblade is usually included in
the chuck eye roast (that rectangular piece) but might also be found alone
as a big, slab-sided boneless piece. It's worth noting that if you want to
make pulled beef this is the best choice because it falls apart into
stringy pieces.

Moving down you come to the shoulder. This isn't as attractive even though
it may work. Sometimes it has a small, rounded bone piece in one corner but
in any case consists of part of the under blade combined with a part
usually called the shoulder clod. The clod piece usually doesn't have the
dense marbling and looks rather uniform, without the very distinct grain of
the underblade. Like the 7-bone and chuck blade these pieces are too big to
go into a crock-pot.

And at the bottom of the list is the shoulder clod itself. Technically a
chuck roast, it doesn't have nearly the flavour or succulence of the other
pieces mentioned above and so is best avoided. This fact alone should make
it clear that simply asking for "chuck" doesn't guarantee no
disappointments. If you can't recognise the specific cut by shape and the
package says only "chuck roast" ask the butcher what it is, and if he can't
tell you, avoid it!

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

Alex Rast wrote:
>
> The very best is chuck eye. This piece is easily recognisable by its 2
> sections - one roughly rectangular (although if rolled and tied it will be
> curved) with a distinct grain diagonal to the short side of the rectangle,
> one roughly oval and intensely marbled.
>
> After that is the underblade. In fact, underblade is usually included in
> the chuck eye roast (that rectangular piece) but might also be found alone
> as a big, slab-sided boneless piece. It's worth noting that if you want to
> make pulled beef this is the best choice because it falls apart into
> stringy pieces.
>

Will this one also fall appart into the stringy pieces, or should I go
with the underblade by itself? That is definitely the texture I am
looking for. Is that usually how it is listed on the package? I know I
have gotten something as a boneless piece that did the stringy thing
perfect. I've got one more container of that in the freezer, and then a
couple of the more blah pieces from the other roast.


Thank you to everybody for the great responses. I will definitely stick
to some version of chuck. I may experiment a bit with the different
types.

Other than onion soup, what types of seasonings do you use with it? My
mom has always used onion soup, and I find myself picking those out. I
have also done my plain, which is fine. But I wouldn't mind a little
flavor.

On Thu 23 Mar 2006 02:04:19a, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it Alex Rast?

> To amplify on the responses so far given in favour of chuck - yes,
> that's right, but let me be even more specific.
>
> The very best is chuck eye. This piece is easily recognisable by its 2
> sections - one roughly rectangular (although if rolled and tied it will
> be curved) with a distinct grain diagonal to the short side of the
> rectangle, one roughly oval and intensely marbled.

< further description snipped for brevity >

Alex, you've given a fine reference, which I've copied and saved. However, I
have a question I'm sure you can answer:

Where does an "English cut" or cross-rib roast fit into this picture?

Thanks!

--
Wayne Boatwright o¿o
____________________

BIOYA

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
> Chuck for president! Sure would be an improvement over the fathead we have
> now.

Chuck Norris?

"Chuck Norris's roundhouse kicks are actually 3 mph faster than the
speed of light. Light could go faster, but it knows who the boss is."

On Thu 23 Mar 2006 07:45:25a, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it Michael
Archon Sequoia Nielsen?

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>
>> Chuck for president! Sure would be an improvement over the fathead we
>> have now.
>
> Chuck Norris?
>
> "Chuck Norris's roundhouse kicks are actually 3 mph faster than the
> speed of light. Light could go faster, but it knows who the boss is."

LOL!

--
Wayne Boatwright o¿o
____________________

BIOYA

at Thu, 23 Mar 2006 13:47:05 GMT in
9>,
wayneboatwright_at_gmail.com (Wayne Boatwright) wrote :

>On Thu 23 Mar 2006 02:04:19a, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it Alex
>Rast?
>
>> To amplify on the responses so far given in favour of chuck - yes,
>> that's right, but let me be even more specific.
>>
....
>Alex, you've given a fine reference, which I've copied and saved.
>However, I have a question I'm sure you can answer:
>
>Where does an "English cut" or cross-rib roast fit into this picture?
>
Cross rib = shoulder clod, although it's a "retail" name and thus might be
applied to various actual cuts.

) wrote :

>Will this one also fall appart into the stringy pieces, or should I go
>with the underblade by itself? That is definitely the texture I am
>looking for. Is that usually how it is listed on the package? I know I
>have gotten something as a boneless piece that did the stringy thing
>perfect. I've got one more container of that in the freezer, and then a
>couple of the more blah pieces from the other roast.

By the way it was written I trust you're speaking of the chuck eye with the
"this one" reference? The answer, generally, is no. Chuck eye doesn't so
much turn into strings as it does become truly soft and melt-in-the-mouth,
a bit like a dumpling. Some time ago another poster referred to a
restaurant's "unctious" texture for a pot roast - which is a texture
immediately recognisable as being the chuck eye. It will fall apart,
ultimately, but not really into stringy bits. If you want that stringy
texture you'll want the underblade.

Seasonings? Instead of using soup mixes, I use stock for the liquid. This I
make with several good meaty pieces of bone (neck pieces are particularly
good) which are simmered for a very long time indeed - 12 hours or more,
with a few carrots, some celery, thyme, and a bay leaf. Many would also add
parsley and onions but I've found onions are usually a bit too assertive
while parsley adds nothing. You need to make several quarts. Then with the
pot roast itself I use the same ingredients combination - perhaps with the
addition of a little pepper. You can add some potatoes if you like towards
the end of cooking time.


--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)