On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 16:20:04 -0400, " dwacon"
<[email hidden]> connected the dots and wrote:
~
~"maxine in ri" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
~news:[email hidden]...
~
~> There's an article in the NYTimes today, Wednesday the 6th, about
the
~> difference in fat in grain-fed and grass-fed beef.
~
~
~Details, please?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/dining/06chef.html?oref=login
In her San Francisco kitchen one afternoon, she was experimenting with
two hefty T-bones, a barbecue grill and a hot pan. The point was to
show the difference between a steak from a steer that was finished
with grain and one that had eaten pasture all its life.
The grain-fed steak was a good one, from Niman Ranch. The grass-fed
beef was from Western Grasslands, a cooperative of Northern California
ranchers.
On the grill or in a hot sauté pan, the difference in performance was
marked.
The chemical composition of the fat from cows that eat no grain is
different. The fat feels lighter in the mouth and cooks faster because
the melting point is lower.
The trick, Ms. Des Jardins said, is to cook that steak more gently.
Don't sear the meat as hard as you might a grain-fed steak. Don't cook
it directly over the highest heat on the grill. If you prefer to cook
a thick steak about 10 minutes a side, cut the time to seven minutes.
Grass-fed meat cooks in about 30 percent less time, and it can
overcook before you know it. Those who like their meat much past
medium will be out of luck: grass-fed beef tends to lose most of its
moisture when beyond a pink center.
Side by side, both T-bones were delicious. The more conventional,
grain-fed steak had the beefy rich fatty taste most Americans savor in
a steak. Grass-fed beef can be less reliable, in flavor and in
texture. From the grill, the grass-fed T-bone had a more complex and
subtle flavor than its grain-fed counterpart. But from the sauté pan,
it lost some of its delicacy and tasted gamier.
