<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<topic>
  <id>280043</id>
  <title>recs on meat cuts</title>
  <published_at>Fri Sep 30 15:33:29 -0700 2005</published_at>
  <post_count>6</post_count>
  <board>
    <id>31</id>
    <name>Home Cooking</name>
  </board>
  <posts>
    <post>
      <post>
        <level>0</level>
        <id>1486579</id>
        <content>I want to make the Mahogany Beef Stew that was posted a while ago....but I'd like to go with a really good cut of meat. Any recs on what would produce something tender and not dry? would making it with a beef filet be a waste?</content>
        <published_at>Fri Sep 30 15:33:29 -0700 2005</published_at>
        <parent_id></parent_id>
        <user>
          <id>0</id>
          <name>fishfork</name>
        </user>
      </post>
    </post>
    <post>
      <level>1</level>
      <id>1486584</id>
      <content>IMO, yes.  Get something that's a bit streaky with fat.  The fat breaks down and "melts" into the beef while cooking, making the beef chunks fork-tender.  A filet, which has little or no fat, just wouldn't be the same.
 
What I often do is get a chuck roast, and cut it up myself into stew-size pieces about 1-1/2" square.</content>
      <published_at>Fri Sep 30 15:49:27 -0700 2005</published_at>
      <parent_id>1486579</parent_id>
      <user>
        <id>0</id>
        <name>Linda W.</name>
      </user>
    </post>
    <post>
      <level>1</level>
      <id>1486585</id>
      <content>Yes, it would be a waste. For stews and braises you need working muscles and some connective tissue, plus some fat if you can get it. I prefer to buy a good chuck roast, cut for pot roast, and cube and trim it myself, rather than buying whatever they sell cut up as "stew meat". The tenderloin has nothing to offer beyond tenderness, IMO, and rump and round are leaner than I'd want, though I've used those for chili. </content>
      <published_at>Fri Sep 30 15:49:44 -0700 2005</published_at>
      <parent_id>1486579</parent_id>
      <user>
        <id>0</id>
        <name>Will Owen</name>
      </user>
    </post>
    <post>
      <level>1</level>
      <id>1486586</id>
      <content>Chuck is ideal for stew, but often you can get boneless short ribs for about the same price...and a better cut.  Shortribs have the collagen that makes the stew really juicy.</content>
      <published_at>Fri Sep 30 15:53:10 -0700 2005</published_at>
      <parent_id>1486579</parent_id>
      <user>
        <id>0</id>
        <name>Jim H.</name>
      </user>
    </post>
    <post>
      <level>1</level>
      <id>1486587</id>
      <content>Thanks, chowhounds! I'll go to the butcher and ask for some good chuck and cube it myself.</content>
      <published_at>Fri Sep 30 15:56:48 -0700 2005</published_at>
      <parent_id>1486579</parent_id>
      <user>
        <id>0</id>
        <name>fishfork</name>
      </user>
    </post>
    <post>
      <level>1</level>
      <id>1486601</id>
      <content>Although the discussion seems to be over, I have to throw my support behind stewing beef ribs.  If done right, the tissue around the ribs dissolve and you are left with the most succulent meat around the bones, and all at a pretty good price, too.  In addition, beef ribs are usually marbled and have tissue in such a way as to produce great meat once its done.</content>
      <published_at>Fri Sep 30 16:37:40 -0700 2005</published_at>
      <parent_id>1486579</parent_id>
      <user>
        <id>0</id>
        <name>Curtis</name>
      </user>
    </post>
    <post>
      <level>1</level>
      <id>1486602</id>
      <content>My vote is for short ribs. I'd leave them on the bone and stew/braise them for about 3 hours. You can then harvest the meat off the bone and throw it into the stew if you want to serve the dish without bones.
 
You could also use flanken, which is basically the same piece of meat.</content>
      <published_at>Fri Sep 30 16:59:34 -0700 2005</published_at>
      <parent_id>1486579</parent_id>
      <user>
        <id>0</id>
        <name>Webley Webster</name>
      </user>
    </post>
  </posts>
</topic>
