|
|
Post by ozark on Nov 20, 2008 21:30:14 GMT -5
Several years ago the first act after killing a buck was to remove the tarsal glands and the testicles. We were advised to take a lot of skin along with the gland and to keep the scent off of our hands and knife. Supposedly this prevented the meat from having a strong smell and taste. Then people stopped doing this.
Yesterday I met a lady who with her husband has been butchering deer for years. She will do it on the halves or for a reasonable fee. But she did say that she wanted the tarsal glands and male organs removed immediately after the kill. Is this justified or an old wives tale. Ozark
|
|
|
|
Post by jims on Nov 20, 2008 21:49:58 GMT -5
Our group has never removed them and never had bad tasting meat. It has not been a problem for us.
|
|
|
|
Post by rossman40 on Nov 21, 2008 14:45:35 GMT -5
The old timers told me that too when I was young. One guy told me it was best to wrap the tarsals with duct tape to prevent contamination. I just be careful.
|
|
|
|
Post by whyohe on Nov 21, 2008 16:45:56 GMT -5
i too haave been told to remove tarsal gland, especially during the rut. i was told it HELPS to take some of the gamey taste out. but i was told to do it after i gut the deer so i dont get it in the meat while cleaning.
|
|
ozarxoffspring
Spike
[img]http://www.danasoft.com/sig/ApprenticeAdages.jpg[/img]
Posts: 9
|
Post by ozarxoffspring on Nov 23, 2008 7:56:36 GMT -5
In retrospect, it seems to me that this subject should have been researched thoroughly before you had me cut those stinkin' things off!!!
However....the taste of the meat was/is excellent, and that may well be the reason it does. That's what you'll claim anyway, huh? LOL ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by deadeye on Dec 9, 2008 22:18:44 GMT -5
i think the only concern is to wash the knife of the oil secretion(before butchering) if removing those tarsal's for scent purposes in the field,however not touched or knived into i dont there is any contamination possible after approx 250 butchered deer & elk,just an old tail!
|
|
|
|
Post by iowamuzzleloader on Dec 12, 2008 10:09:09 GMT -5
The best way to prevent tainting the meat is to cut the rack off and leave the rest.
I only shoot does because during the rut I think the hormones running and tarsal scents do affect the taste.
I don't practice the first statement but I do only shoot does unless the buck is huge then reluctantly take the meat and make it into some kind of "stick" with alot of spices.
|
|
|
|
Post by deadeye on Dec 12, 2008 20:12:41 GMT -5
iowa muzzleloader,imo i have butchered & prepared a lot of small & large bucks,all the smallies were good as anything venison wise,we usually grind the bigger ones to burger,summersausage,but one large buck comes to my mind in which his neck meat was just plain rank in which we discarded it(neck meat only),have never discarded one due to their tarsal's yet!  |
|
|
|
Post by youp50 on Dec 13, 2008 10:07:50 GMT -5
I remove the tarsals...but only to use to stop a buck. Rutting bucks have a gate that covers lots of ground fast. when I set up to watch a woods road crossing take a tarsal and set it on a chemical hand warmer... see if it does not stop every deer that comes by. If just for one sniff and that is all I need.
|
|
|
|
Post by whyohe on Dec 13, 2008 15:34:33 GMT -5
one reason i can think of removing is that most places hang the deer from the hind legs. now if they wash it or it rains while hanging the secretions can run into the meat. or if you have to go threw a creek or stream the water can wash it in to the meat. for the minute it takes why take a chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by ozark on Dec 13, 2008 17:03:01 GMT -5
It only takes a minute to remove them along with a few inches of skin around them. They have a bad odor, could possibly taint some meat and has absolutely no benefit if left on. So I would suggest to just remove them before field dressing the deer. It has long been known that how a goat or deer was butchered determined how the meat tasted. It takes less time to remove them and toss them aside than to discuss the pros and cons of doing it. I have been watching this thread to hear of a reason to leave them on. Ozark
|
|
|
|
Post by deadeye on Dec 13, 2008 22:10:16 GMT -5
It only takes a minute to remove them along with a few inches of skin around them. They have a bad odor, could possibly taint some meat and has absolutely no benefit if left on. So I would suggest to just remove them before field dressing the deer. It has long been known that how a goat or deer was butchered determined how the meat tasted. It takes less time to remove them and toss them aside than to discuss the pros and cons of doing it. I have been watching this thread to hear of a reason to leave them on. Ozark i agree w/you ozark,there is probably no valid reason to leave those on,however i suggest field dressing 1st & removing tarsals last just not to transfer the oil secretion to the inner cavity. in addition to how a animal was butchered as to the quality of meat i find these 2 things will probably effect the taste more,wild venison-the longer it hangs or sits the stronger the more gamey it taste,butcher as soon as possible(2-3 days preferable- #2- this one sometimes is out of one's control,if the animal is scared out of its wits,it probably will be more gamey-example-a deer that has ran very spooked for a mile & a half then is shot or shot poorly only to be exhausted by a final shot,just my opinon after butchering several hundred,i have noticed these findings |
|
|
|
Post by ozark on Dec 13, 2008 22:30:45 GMT -5
deadeye, I am a little confused as to how removing these glands would transfer the oil secretions to the inner cavity. I thought that the glands were only on the skin and that if you are careful there is no transfer of the materail to the knife. I usually take a considerable amount of skin from around that area.
I agree with you that a calm animal killed instantly is best. We used to butcher our own hogs and immediately after being brain shot they were bled by plunging a knife into the heart area and moved into a position for best blood drainage. I don't know if they thought the blood caused the meat to be less than perfect or why? I believe that bleeding quickly is also the practice in slaughter houses for pork and beef. I am curious as to the reasoning. We used to cut a deers throat quickly if it was a DRT kill. Any ideas anyone? Ozark.
|
|
|
|
Post by deadeye on Dec 13, 2008 23:22:21 GMT -5
ozark,i was thinking if most(like i do) field dress sometimes after dark(evening hunt)in the field, before loading into truck,with limited light(sometimes holding flashlight in mouth) it would be easy to get secretion on knife possibly,thats why i say field dress(im thinking gutting)then if you must remove them before hanging or processing,im also interested in the throat slashing theory also as i dont worry about that any more, maybe just one more wivestale possibly ,after gutting we simply lift up front legs & do a quik drain! not much left after that except that good natural coating
|
|
|
|
Post by youp50 on Dec 15, 2008 9:42:14 GMT -5
I have butchered hogs and did not get a good bleed. You end up with little red speckles in the meat and they turn black when cooked. I assume this is blood left behind. I do not recall it tasting bad, just was not as appealing to the eye as well bled pork. I learned to be a little faster and more accurate with the knife for a good bleed.
The only deer that I hear about bleeding are road kills. Local custom has the deer needs to be bled, if it is kicking slice the throat. I don't think most firearm and no bow kills have a lot of blood left in the muscle.
It may well be a Biblical thing.
|
|
