Swapping beef burgers for venison
- Thread starter Moose67
- Start date
DevonRifle
Well-Known Member
I was at a food show with family this summer and my son in law bought a venison burger from a stand to compare it to mine. He said it was awful and couldn’t eat it. I tried it and it tasted strange. I spoke to the burger stand and they told me that their butchers cut the burgers with milk powder. It doesn’t give us a good chance when they sell things that taste like that. Very disappointing!
Martiniblack577
Well-Known Member
Absolutely appreciate the ethical side to venison vs the fate of factory animals. Observationally appears hard for people to easily purchase in many cases with the dominance of supermarkets.
Totally.....
No ones just happened to get all ethical ... just at the same time as beef is more expensive than the game that was available all the time up to this point
Let's be honest 95% of folk buy their meat by price ...and dont give a sh1t if only light their meat has seen is the one in back of the oven
Paul
I can well believe that.
I have experienced the same.
And given that most "commercial" venison burger producers are all using the same readily available premixes their products all taste equally poor.
If you want to experience good quality venison burgers the only way is to make your own from scratch, without using premixes. Or buy mine
how much are yours TimI can well believe that.
I have experienced the same.
And given that most "commercial" venison burger producers are all using the same readily available premixes their products all taste equally poor.
If you want to experience good quality venison burgers the only way is to make your own from scratch, without using premixes. Or buy mine
£7.50 for a pack of four quarter-pounders.
I don’t (currently) sell cooked, ready-to-eat, food. If I did, I'm guessing it would be around the £7.50 mark for a single burger in a roll.
A local pub has my burgers on their menu and they're around £16, but with sufficient good quality accompaniments to make a decent meal out of it.
Freeforester
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure how much the carbon maths adds up here but nice to know they're using venison.
Think about it, if it was comparable in terms.of diet if the cattle were grass fed, they're going from fewer larger runinants to more smaller ruminants. Smaller animals have a higher surface area to volume ration thus proportionally respire more per kg of meat thus more carbon and CH4 released (let's just suspend the fact that everyone forgets about the carbon cycle unless its emissions from human respiration/metabolism). They've also switched a concentrated production system with fewer vehicles to get beef to slaughter than lots of wild deer brought in in smaller numbers. Once processed the infrastructure will be similar. Not seeing where the carbon savings are unless there's some green washing going on
Would be interested to see which figures they've used.
Think about it, if it was comparable in terms.of diet if the cattle were grass fed, they're going from fewer larger runinants to more smaller ruminants. Smaller animals have a higher surface area to volume ration thus proportionally respire more per kg of meat thus more carbon and CH4 released (let's just suspend the fact that everyone forgets about the carbon cycle unless its emissions from human respiration/metabolism). They've also switched a concentrated production system with fewer vehicles to get beef to slaughter than lots of wild deer brought in in smaller numbers. Once processed the infrastructure will be similar. Not seeing where the carbon savings are unless there's some green washing going on
Would be interested to see which figures they've used.
I'm not sure your point, I'm talking about carbon emissions not monetary cost. I want to see the figures for carbon emissions savings.All grass fed stock has a higher cost compared to wild deer as farms have rates/insurance/cost of stock/vets bills/paperwork/loss of stock where wild deer don't
At the end of the day most of the carbon accounting is bovine excrement anyway. No-one includes the carbon from human metabolism in the figures. They claim it's because it's just the release of carbon which was captured by the plants which are either eaten by people or eaten by livestock then eaten by people, so say it counts as neutral. Yet they never apply that emissions from livestock respiration. The double standard is farcical. If you include human respiration it adds around 10% to overall emissions. Either include it for everything including humans or learn the carbon cycle and quit blaming cow burps.
People/companies strive to reduce their C foot print which is a cost so Farm Stock cost/foot point go had in had, the wild deer that go into the food chain (just like farm stock) cost less that the list I posted earlier, as it will be my truck a few rounds then to the dealer (who has his cost)
I understand there's a difference in monetary cost. Still doesn't mean the carbon emissions saving claim adds up, hence wanting to see the carbon numbers they're using...
Haven't spent much time there yet as I'm not at the reloading stage, but I'll take your word for it. Definitely see random figure plucking elsewhere in life.
Similar threads
