Lamb from different supermarkets

A_Sober_Paddy

So was looking for lamb, popped into Dunne's got some stewing lamb happy days.

But looking at the nutritional info it looks odd
Calories per 100g 118kcal. 4g of fat

But in tesco the same type of lamb
Calories per 100g 235kcal. 18.3g of fat.

Both look the exact same.

Can someone explain the vast difference between both

livedadream

is one the calories for it cooked and the other raw?

could the tesco one be the manky water injected ones?

A_Sober_Paddy

livedadream wrote: »

is one the calories for it cooked and the other raw?

could the tesco one be the manky water injected ones?

Both say as sold, re nutrition info. Ingredients say 100% irish lamb. Obviously the fat is lesser in the Dunne's one but it looks the same as the tesco one

livedadream

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

Both say as sold, re nutrition info. Ingredients say 100% irish lamb. Obviously the fat is lesser in the Dunne's one but it looks the same as the tesco one

yeah i dunno only thinking out load tbh,

i would say this time of year is not ''lamb'' season so maybe one is lamb and the other a big older?

older would have less fat.

A_Sober_Paddy

livedadream wrote: »

yeah i dunno only thinking out load tbh,

i would say this time of year is not ''lamb'' season so maybe one is lamb and the other a big older?

older would have less fat.

Well I'm happy with the lower fat one it cooks better generally in the slow cooker. And I'll have plenty of fat with butter and oil:)

Alf Veedersane

Tbh, 4g sounds surprisingly low for lamb, particularly lamb for stewing. My question when I saw the OP was how was the Dunnes one that low rather than the other being too high.

livedadream

I'm guessing because it's not lamb...

A_Sober_Paddy

livedadream wrote: »

I'm guessing because it's not lamb...

This is the lamb from Dunne's

Dtp1979

livedadream wrote: »

I'm guessing because it's not lamb...

Horse?

livedadream

Dtp1979 wrote: »

livedadream wrote: »

I'm guessing because it's not lamb...

Horse?

More like it was a lamb a couple of months ago.... More like inbetween lamb (under 1 year) and mutton (over 2 years old)


Younger lambs are smaller and more tender. Mutton is meat from a sheep over two years old, and has less tender flesh. In general, the darker the colour, the older the animal. Baby lamb meat will be pale pink, while regular lamb is pinkish-red.

A_Sober_Paddy

livedadream wrote: »

More like it was a lamb a couple of months ago.... More like inbetween lamb (under 1 year) and mutton (over 2 years old)


Younger lambs are smaller and more tender. Mutton is meat from a sheep over two years old, and has less tender flesh. In general, the darker the colour, the older the animal. Baby lamb meat will be pale pink, while regular lamb is pinkish-red.

Well it's getting slow cooked so it makes little difference to me. But could they still call it lamb

Stheno

Hoggett is between one and two years.

Was there much difference in the price?

A_Sober_Paddy

Stheno wrote: »

Hoggett is between one and two years.

Was there much difference in the price?

Exact same price, €4 for 300g in both Dunne's and tesco, protein content is the same, just the fat is different

livedadream

Stheno wrote: »

Hoggett is between one and two years.

Was there much difference in the price?

Hoggett !!! I couldn't remember that! Thanks stheno

2xj3hplqgsbkym

No way is that lamb only 4 % fat. If it was only 4% fat you wouldn't even see all that fat on it, it would just be the fat cells in between the fibres, so not visible.
The other lamb sounds like a realistic amount of fat as lamb would average at about 15 to 20% fat.

A_Sober_Paddy

Maliah White Trapdoor wrote: »

No way is that lamb only 4 % fat. If it was only 4% fat you wouldn't even see all that fat on it, it would just be the fat cells in between the fibres, so not visible.
The other lamb sounds like a realistic amount of fat as lamb would average at about 15 to 20% fat.

How can they put down wrong nutritional information

caviardreams

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

How can they put down wrong nutritional information

I have sometimes seen products and think the nutritional info seems a bit wrong. For example this carrot and parsnip mash contains carrots, parsnip, 2% butter and a dash of milk iirc.

Carrots have 40 cals per 100g, parsnips have 75 cals per 100g - the product itself states it has 28 cals per 100g which seems very low. http://www.mashdirect.com/carrot-and-parsnip

Lidl have a pretty much identical version (I imagine it's probably made by the same people) and it states the calories are around 65 per 100g - far more realistic imo.

I think you can only ever take them as a guide really especially for things like meat when you could have an extra fatty piece of sirloin steak and a really lean one, and the packet will give the same value for both.

Mellor

caviardreams wrote: »

Carrots have 40 cals per 100g, parsnips have 75 cals per 100g - the product itself states it has 28 cals per 100g which seems very low. http://www.mashdirect.com/carrot-and-parsnip

I'd guess that the calories were supposed to be quoted for 100g rather than a 200g serve. A 50/50 mix would be about 56 cals per 100g

uck51js9zml2yt

It could be different parts of the animal!

A_Sober_Paddy

Louisa Few Earth wrote: »

It could be different parts of the animal!

But the amount of visible fat is almost identical in both