SC - Where's the beef, or, where's the sacrificial lamb?

[rcmann4 at earthlink.net]

And it came to pass on 10 Feb 01, , that Philip & Susan Troy wrote:

> rcmann4 at earthlink.net wrote:
> 
> > Now let me ask you a question about an area in which I am fairly
> > ignorant.  According to the diagrams I've looked at, the shoulder of
> > the cow contains various cuts of chuck.  Isn't that a tough cut,
> > more suited to stews than to roasts?
 
> I was quite intrigued by the break between the modern dictionaries'
> translation of espalda as "back"; IIRC, the equivalent word in French is
> espaldron, source of the Anglo-French pauldron, which is the
> shoulder-cop on a suit of plate armor, and these pieces tend to be
> named, to some extent, for the body parts they protect. At what point
> the term shifted either to or from "back" to or from "shoulder" is an
> interesting, and perhaps, important question: the back could well refer
> to the rib section, the loin (lower back), or perhaps even the sirloin
> (lower back and part of the hips) of the animal. The shoulder would
> pretty much have to be chuck, at least on beef.

I looked into this further.  The RAE says it's the part of the body 
opposite the chest, down to the shoulders.  So perhaps "upper 
back" would be a better translation, but that would still be chuck, 
right?
 
> One possibility is that the limited weight of the piece of meat, the
> dry-marinade, and the pressing under a weight, may compensate for using
> a more or less "dry-heat" cooking method. It may cook slowly for a
> longish time, considering the piece isn't huge. Could this be early
> barbecued beef? If the espalda really is the back, you could certainly
> roast it at a moderately high heat with no problems.

I have a piece of "shoulder roast" pressing in the fridge, even as I 
type.  I was going to roast it at 325-350F.
 
> I had assumed "no mayores" to help solve the riddle; I read it as "not
> adult", rather than "no more [than]". Somehow I had the idea that if the
> beef were young enough, you could easily roast a piece of the chuck. In
> theory, not impossible by any means, but just not evidently supported by
> the language.

No, "mayores" is plural, and modifies "pedazos" (pieces).  There's 
nothing to say that it couldn't be a young cow, but it would have to 
be beef, not veal.

> The pressing under the weight may help to tenderize, too. I wonder if
> this may have originated as a substitute for parboiling for humoral
> purposes, that whole thing. Beef is supposedly warm and dry already, so
> perhaps not.   
> 
> Adamantius

I'll report back after dinner.


Lady Brighid ni Chiarain
Settmour Swamp, East (NJ)
mka Robin Carroll-Mann
now at a new address: rcmann4 at earthlink.net