beef: grain fed versus grass fed

I lived in Iowa as a small child and enjoyed the taste of corn-fed steaks immensely. When we moved to Minnesota, where grass-fed beef is more prevalent, I noticed the difference in taste. My grandfather was an old-school butcher who ended up working for Armour & Co. always turned his nose up at grass-fed as a lesser quality.

Oh, and Manton? I'd question whether it is cheaper to feed cattle corn than grass; obviously corn prices have recently crossed over into the stratospheric department. And my image of grass-fed is of range beef, where there is little labor or infrastructure cost, especially when compared to a feedlot.

Originally Posted by bigbadbuff

Click to expand...

As far as whether or not it is 'best', impossible to say as it's up to each person's tastes.

Exactly. "Best" is what you like. But most people don't know the difference and have no idea what their beef has been eating, so it's pretty easy for restaurants to say "Well, we serve only "X-fed" beef!" and sound impressive.

Originally Posted by Manton

Click to expand...

Corn-feeding is just an easier and cheaper way to raise cattle; it's used for that reason, not because it produces superior beef.

Corn isn't cheaper. That's why people like my uncle (who raises only a few head per year for his own consumptions) use corn in the last few weeks before slaughter to "finish" the beef. The rest of the time he uses grass.

Originally Posted by edmorel

Click to expand...

Wet aged is crap (some NYC steakhouses do this, they should be shut down.

Some? Almost every steak in the United States -- and probably the world -- is wet-aged. Dry aging is an almost dead practice for cost reasons. When I was in culinary school, I met a guy who worked at IBP (a huge beef processor in our region). He doubted most Americans under 50 (??) had even had a dry aged steak. Producers/distributors lose too much moisture (and, hence, money) in dry aging. It also takes longer, and the failure rate is higher, though I don't know how much higher.

nm

My understanding, which may well be wrong, is that the reason corn is cheaper than grass, in the aggregate (not on a calorie-to-calorie basis, directly comparing corn to grass) is that it takes immensly more land to feed a head cattle on grass than on corn. The more you scale that up -- the more cows to you have -- the more expensive it gets.

With corn prices so high, I don't know if that still holds, but I think it does.

Originally Posted by Teacher

Click to expand...

Some? Almost every steak in the United States -- and probably the world -- is wet-aged. Dry aging is an almost dead practice for cost reasons. When I was in culinary school, I met a guy who worked at IBP (a huge beef processor in our region). He doubted most Americans under 50 (??) had even had a dry aged steak. Producers/distributors lose too much moisture (and, hence, money) in dry aging. It also takes longer, and the failure rate is higher, though I don't know how much higher.


Interesting, I do know of a bunch of Manhattan steakhouses that serve dry aged as I know the person who sells them the beef. Not saying that it is done for al long time nor done "properly", but it is definitely not wet aged. What kills me is when a place like Ruths Chris uses choice beef, slathers it in expensive butter and charges $70 for a steak.

Originally Posted by Manton

Click to expand...

My understanding, which may well be wrong, is that the reason corn is cheaper than grass, in the aggregate (not on a calorie-to-calorie basis, directly comparing corn to grass) is that it takes immensly more land to feed a head cattle on grass than on corn. The more you scale that up -- the more cows to you have -- the more expensive it gets.

That's my understanding too. Plus corn is much more effective in creating weight gain in the cow, therefore more cost effective per pound of meat produced.

I'd mention as well that increasing global meat consumption is probably the biggest secular driver of the global grain industry (ahead of biofuel growth) - because of the increased demand to feed the animals.

I'm with Ed, I know of a number of steakhouses that use dry aged beef -- some even age it in their own lockers on the premesis. I also don't find dry aged beef too, too hard to find for home cooking.

Originally Posted by edmorel

Click to expand...

Interesting, I do know of a bunch of Manhattan steakhouses that serve dry aged as I know the person who sells them the beef. Not saying that it is done for al long time nor done "properly", but it is definitely not wet aged. What kills me is when a place like Ruths Chris uses choice beef, slathers it in expensive butter and charges $70 for a steak.

There is also a -- ahem -- "secondary" aging process. It is wet aged beef that is "dry aged" for a couple of days. It's the same as when we salt some meat, put it on a rack over a plate, and park it in the fridge for a few days. It's not true dry aging, but since the FDA doesn't have a strict rule for the labeling of beef's aging process, people can get away with it. I'm certainly not accusing your friend of doing this...I'm just saying a lot of "dry aged" beef out there isn't dry aged at all. The flavor isn't anything like true dry-aged beef, which (to those not used to it) has a very faint musty flavor due to the growth of fungi on the beef durin the aging process.

Originally Posted by Manton

Click to expand...

I'm with Ed, I know of a number of steakhouses that use dry aged beef -- some even age it in their own lockers on the premesis. I also don't find dry aged beef too, too hard to find for home cooking.

Yeah, well, see my post above. Unless they have special licensure, restaurants are not allowed to age beef. They can, however, store it.

Originally Posted by Teacher

Click to expand...

There is also a -- ahem -- "secondary" aging process. It is wet aged beef that is "dry aged" for a couple of days. It's the same as when we salt some meat, put it on a rack over a plate, and park it in the fridge for a few days. It's not true dry aging, but since the FDA doesn't have a strict rule for the labeling of beef's aging process, people can get away with it. I'm certainly not accusing your friend of doing this...I'm just saying a lot of "dry aged" beef out there isn't dry aged at all. The flavor isn't anything like true dry-aged beef, which (to those not used to it) has a very faint musty flavor due to the growth of fungi on the beef durin the aging process.

Fungi?

So, like, you get your sauteed mushrooms automatically when you're searing the steak?

Originally Posted by gdl203

Click to expand...

That's my understanding too. Plus corn is much more effective in creating weight gain in the cow, therefore more cost effective per pound of meat produced.


Just like the question of "aging," the question of "grass-fed" versus "corn-fed" has some variables. I don't know what the USDA or FDA say about labeling these (if they say anything at all), but a lot of "corn-fed" cattle are really grass fed for most of their lives but then "finished" with corn for the weight gain you mention. Now, I don't think this is deceptive at all, as long as they're up front about it. It's just that it's not the same as cattle that are fed mostly corn their entire lives.

When I was in Buenos Aries last fall, I tried a number of what the porteño deem their best beef-oriented restaurants. They take their grass-fed beef to the limit there...in one place, you can see a photograph of the cow, along with statistics, from which your beef came.

Long and short: it didn't bowl me over, except for an amazing grilled shortrib on the bone at an estância. Overall, I still prefer grain-fed dry-aged American beef.

Last week in London, I had a terrific dry-aged Scottish steak from the Duke of Buccleuch's estates. Grain fed as well.

At this moment, however, I'm re-evaluating my meat...uhm...pecking order because of an ethereal roast poulet de Bresse that I had at poor, picked-upon Taillevent last Thursday night.

Then again, it is a $300 chicken.

- B

Originally Posted by kwilkinson

Click to expand...

Fungi?

So, like, you get your sauteed mushrooms automatically when you're searing the steak?

Ewwww. I never liked mushrooms on the same plate as a steak.

Just be sure when you go picking mushrooms that the cows are grass-fed

Originally Posted by Thomas

Click to expand...

Ewwww. I never liked mushrooms on the same plate as a steak.

I think they go together swimmingly, with a red-wine reduction and some shallots and garlic.

However, if the fungi was actually grown on the steak, I probably wouldn't like it either.