You can reduce the risk further by searing the meat you buy before you grind it yourself in a well-maintained and sanitized grinder. I’ve never done it because it kind of defeats the idea of steak tartare to me, but that should do it for you. Don’t quote me on this, but I also think freezing the meat for 30 days before thawing and grinding will also kill most of the pathogens that are likely to harm you.
Interesting. I’ve never heard of this.
It won’t eliminate salmonella or E. coli, if I remember correctly.
Looking online, it looks like you’re right. It’ll kill certain things, like trichinae (which really isn’t much of a problem in modern pork), but e. coli and salmonella look like they survive even a long, hard freeze, so far as I can tell.
My order of preference for burgers is medium rare, rare, medium. Fast food places excluded I won’t eat burgers anywhere that insists on medium well or well done. Actually on of my pet peeves is restaurants that won’t do anything less that medium well, but don’t put this on the menu or inform the server (or the server forgets). A number of times I’ve order a burger medium rare, the server’s taken that order, then the burger comes out medium well because “that’s the best we can do”. :rolleyes: Either tell me when I order or failing that at least send the server back out so I can order something else.
Ignoring the rising horror I feel at the thought that this may be one of the biggest debates going on on this website, I find this entry interesting.
I personally dislike overcooked meat not due to any aforementioned snobbery (a statement which Ill take with a grain of salt) but rather due to many years of being a male carnivore. What I havent tried is raw burger meat. I would like to have a try of that. So question for you: do you freeze it before you eat it like that or is it better like that directly from the butchers or whatnot (question mark missing because Windows Vista is a bitch).
You’re doing yourself a disservice! Steaks are one of those things that you’ll never get in a restaurant as good as you can do at home, unless you go to a very specialized place that focuses on perfectly-prepared, prime-grade meat. There aren’t many of 'em, and most “steakhouses” aren’t.
Go to a good butcher’s shop and buy a prime-grade, heavily-marbled ribeye. Let it sit out and come to room temp. Broil it, and use a probe thermometer to cook it until the internal temp reaches the right temp for medium rare. A little dash of salt on top, and you’ll have a steak that far surpasses anything you’ll get in a restaurant.
My technique (for those interested, I’ve mentioned this before) for a perfect medium rare is the following: Heat oven to 275. Pat completely dry, generously salt and pepper, and place steak on a wire rack and put into oven for 20 minutes for medium rare. During the last five minutes, heat a cast-iron pan as hot as you can possibly make it. Remove steak, sear for about 1 1/2 to 2 minutes a side. Remove. Rest. Serve.
I first learned of this technique via a message board post which references a Cook’s Illustrated article. I had always done my steaks in reverse (sear first, finish in a medium hot oven), which is the more classic technique. This method makes a very consistent steak – medium rare all the way through, no patches of varying doneness, with a perfect charred crust. It’s never failed me and I’ll never make a non-grilled steak any other way.
All kidding aside, couldn’t you just toss it in a cauldron of chili?
Am I the only well-doner who finds it baffling that the same folks who criticize well-done like their meat charred on the outside? Charred is overcooked, and significantly beyond well-done.
On the tartare question, I admit to ignorance on this score, but would it work to soak the meat in alcohol before grinding it? It seems like that ought to kill pathogens on the surface, but I’m not sure what it would do to the meat itself.
It’s not charred as in black. It’s more of a nice browning caramelization (Malliard reaction). It’s there for flavor and texture contrast (think of crusty bread for a similar idea of flavor and texture contrast–I’m not sure why this is baffling.) Almost any type of stew I start the same way, by browning the meat in a very hot pan, to get that extra depth of flavor.
No it isn’t. Charring is not the same thing as overcooking. There are whole scientific texts devoted to the subject. See the aforementioned Harold McGee.
It would make the entire dish taste like alcohol.
Even if you used something nondescript like vodka, and let it evaporate thoroughly? Or alternately, what if you chose some alcoholic beverage which would complement the flavor of the meat? Though here I’m even more ignorant, since I don’t drink.
Oh, and Malliardization is absolutely not the same thing as charring (nor is it actually the same as carmelization, either, for that matter). Charred, for food purposes, is the same thing as burnt, which is not good (except for a handful of chocolate-based things, if it’s only slightly burnt).
I actually do know that, but am using the words loosely. I don’t want the exterior of my steak burnt to a crisp. I want the browning Malliard reaction taking place. The only real charring that may occur is in the grill marks, and that’s just for aesthetics.
Steaks don’t have blood in them.
Well, that’s a depressing thing to learn.
Jumping back to the subject of Obama’s steak momentarily:
I can’t say I’m too surprised. As has been noted up-thread, black people do tend to prefer more well cooked steaks (as I noticed while working grill in a dining hall.) I’m not sure what the cause of this is, but in my experience, the generalization tends to hold fairly well.
That moment of topicality aside, I don’t get the need that some people seem to feel to dictate the “correct” way to prepare or eat certain foods (steak being high on the list.) If person A eats a well-done steak and enjoys it, and person B eats a medium rare steak and enjoys it, why on earth should anyone have reason or the right to say that one or the other is “doing it wrong” or that cooking a steak one way or the other is “a waste of beef”? If you like your steak charred black and topped with ranch dressing and raisins, why should I care unless I’m eating it? Can anyone tell me how this kind of food snobbery is anything but ridiculous?
Yes, but at the risk of being terribly politically incorrect Obama is half-white, half-African man raised by his white mother and white grandparents in Hawaii and Indonesia.
Not only do I agree with you 100%, but I’ve even thought about starting threads on this topic. What is it, exactly, that makes people believe their opinion is the only possible valid one? The act of cooking meat changes the flavor and texture. This is known. If I prefer the flavor and texture of a medium steak (which in fact, I do), while my husband prefers the flavor and texture of a very rare steak (which he does; he might even like it topped with ranch dressing, but he’d be put off by the raisins. . .) who’s to say that one of us is wrong?
A lot of people like to talk about how much they value diversity. Unless, of course, that diversity happens to include: enjoying a cooked steak, putting ketchup on a hot dog, or drinking light American beer.:rolleyes:
I myself do not enjoy light beer. I only put ketchup on a hot dog if it’s a mediocre hot dog (good ones get brown mustard for me), I do like my steak cooked. But the point is, what’s it to anyone? It’s not like I’m forcing you to wash down a medium well cooked steak with an American beer.
Everyone knows you’re supposed to use dates.
Well, or dried cranberries, if that’s all you’ve got in your pantry. I mean, raisins are so plebeian. Raisins are what go into my 9YO’s bag lunch when she doesn’t like what the school cafeteria is selling.
Now, of course, if you soak the raisins in very high-quality brandy first, then lightly pan-sear them in imported extra-extra-extra virgin olive oil, then they may be acceptable.
