Argentina Beef Grass or Corn Fed

by Lauren Salkeld

on 07/25/08 at 10:27 AM

Like nigh visitors to Argentina, when I was in that location, I ate a lot of steak—style more than I normally consume, in fact. Beef eating is a bit like a national sport in Argentina. According to the Washington Post, Argentine republic boasts the highest beefiness consumption in the world: 140 pounds a year per person, which is about fifty percent more than than the average American eats. When you lot're devouring all this meat yous tin't help only starting time to recollect about it, and I plant myself wondering how Argentinean beefiness compares to American beef. As far as I can tell, there are three major differences: what the cows eat; how long the meat is anile; and how information technology is cooked.

Unlike hither, Argentina'southward beefiness predominantly comes from grass-fed cows (grass-fed beef is available in the U.S., merely grain-fed beef is more common). Folks tin debate the season and texture of grass-fed and grain-fed beef, but it's difficult to dispute the wellness benefits of choosing the former—for more specifics, check out a post on the topic from Epicurious blogger and Iowa farmer Ethan Volume. Grass-feeding is too gentler on cows (considering they are eating their natural diet, grass-fed cows don't typically require supplements, hormones, or antibiotics) and the surroundings (because growing grass usually requires less energy and pesticides than growing grain).

As I mentioned, when information technology comes to taste there is some contend. Detractors debate that grass-fed beef's lower fat content makes for tough, chewy meat with less flavor, while proponents point to its increased beef. Grain-fed beef tends to have a more than consistent sense of taste, whereas the flavor profile of grass-fed varies based on the state where the cattle graze, their brood, and the time of year.

In the U.S., anile beef is the gold standard. In fact, it'south not uncommon for eatery menus to specify just how long unlike steaks have been dry-aged (beef tin also be wet-anile, but dry-aging is preferable). Co-ordinate to Richard J. Epley of the University of Minnesota Extension, virtually retail beef is aged five to seven days, while nigh restaurants serve beef aged 14 to 21 days. The dry out-aging process is said to make meat more tender and more than flavorful.

In Argentina, beef is consumed within days of slaughter. The lack of crumbling can make for a chewier, tougher steak, but Argentineans brand upward for this by slowly and thoroughly cooking their meat. This leads me to the third major difference between American and Argentinean beef: how information technology is cooked.

Most of the serious steak lovers I know prefer their meat rare, medium rare, or medium, but in Argentina, steak is typically served well done. In my experience, "jugoso" (translation: "juicy") will get you a medium steak, while "muy jugoso" or even "muy, muy jugoso" ("very juicy" and "very, very juicy") will evangelize something more than alike to medium rare. I'm not sure why Argentineans favor such thoroughly cooked meat. Some folks attribute information technology to the fact that the beef isn't aged, which sounds like a reasonable caption, merely I imagine it's as well simply a personal preference based on experience.

When it comes to my ain meat preferences, I'm torn. I'm always in favor of grass-fed beefiness, only even though I like the taste, my choice is due more to the health, safety, and environmental benefits than the actual flavor. And fifty-fifty though I've spent my life eating aged, medium-rare steak, I enjoyed several nonaged, medium steaks in Argentina. In full general, I call up it all actually just depends on what you're used to and what yous've come to prefer. What are your steak preferences? And tin can you explain them?

p8yton
06:27:11 AM on
07/28/08

"It doesn't take a lot of mutual sense to see this..." Hmmm that was a scrap... vitriolic. I approximate I don't know nigh common sense, but perhaps it's non all it'due south croaky upwards to exist, every bit I do know nearly organic chemistry. Cellulose (grass/hay) and starch (corn) are both polymers of sugar, and very similar molecularly - only image google each one and this is actually obvious just from a cursory look. The microorganisms of the cattle'due south rumen are adaptable enough to be able to handle the difference (since they are molecularly like, the same enzymes can break them both down). I googled around and could find nothing to substantiate the claim that their digestive tracks are not able to handle moderate amounts of grain, or that moderate amounts pb to increase in illness (by moderate, I'grand talking way under the +50% full feed amount that, if i searches, one will readily find can pb to problems). I was particularly curious on that point as it contradicts my personal experience - admitting that only amounts to nigh 25 years...
I'm also still left wondering why, if it's so bad for them, they seem to enjoy it and so much...

rainhana
05:forty:21 PM on
07/26/08

The no-grain-for-cows statement generally points to the fact that cows' digestive systems are non designed to digest grain, and feeding grain to cows increses their possibility of developing digestive illnesses.

Personally, I'g not entirely sure where I stand on whether cows should be fed merely 100% grass. Certainly, they would be in an ideal situation, but I'yard not completely opposed to supplementing a by and large-grass nutrition with some grain feed, as long as the cows go to range freely in open up pasture. I understand that grain-fed does not necessarily equal CAFOs, but the truth is that a cow's natural diet consists of grass, not grain, and likewise much grain feed leads to unhealthy cattle.

Also, while corn and pasture grass may share the same family umbrella, it doesn't accept much mutual sense to spot the staggering and obvious differences between the 2. Also, a cow fed corn would swallow only the grain--that is, the kernel--of the corn, whereas a cow feeding on pasture grass would ingest the entire establish--its small grains along with its proportionally far more abundant leafy green parts.

p8yton
11:19:49 AM on
07/26/08

"Grass-feeding is also gentler on cows"
I never understand statements like this... Or people's fear/horror of annihilation not grass fed. I estimate perhaps it stems from the fact that grain-fed does usually interpret to "feed-lot" - but this isn't e'er the case... My dad's cattle run around on 200 acres of forested hills, but he feeds them some grain everyday to proceed them happy and good for you. I can't retrieve the last fourth dimension a vet was on the farm - they never get sick. And information technology's not like he's forcing the stuff down them - believe me they are waiting every morning for their breakfast (not patiently either - they become quite loud if their breakfast is late :) And no, it'due south not because that's all they take - they will exist standing outside the feed area in knee-deep grass, completely ignoring it - they're interested in something better (I would get bored eating ane thing and one affair only too).
Incidentally, corn is related to grass... again I'm left puzzled equally to why people go then passionate well-nigh information technology. Being against feed-lots - that I empathise completely - merely merely "grain"?
I think James put it well when he said the topic is complicated.

valereee
05:sixteen:15 PM on
07/25/08

Not all "grassfed" cows are finished on grain! I buy only pastured beef which is never fed grain, or may have been fed grain only in an emergency (we had a bad drought here last year and some farmers had to resort to supplementing with grain for short periods because there was no grass and besides no hay). Cows fed this way grow more than slowly, so the beef tends to be a trivial more expensive. To me it's worth it, as the cows are living the way cows should live.

Medium rare, dry-anile, grassfed only is my preference.

LaurenSalkeld
12:07:31 PM on
07/25/08

You're right, James--this is a complicated outcome. And, you're as well right in saying that many grass-fed cows are finished on grain. You can get completely grass-fed beef, but it's not very common. As for chimichurri, nosotros did see it, but not equally much equally I expected. As well, Argentinean chimichurri isn't nearly as spicy every bit the ones I've had here. (Since I got back, I've been experimenting with making my own, merely I prefer a spicier version.) From what I understand, Argentineans don't care for spicy food. They're also non big fans of pepper--most eating place tables had salt, but not pepper.

jamescury
11:50:xvi AM on
07/25/08

Char is the other issue. I love it. Some people don't. You need special equipment to go a adept char. Very high heat.

jamescury
11:49:05 AM on
07/25/08

Well done. The post, that is. It's a very complicated result. Every bit I understand it, Americans tend to eat steers at a much younger age than we used to (14 months versus 5 years old). They are reared to grow bigger faster. Even our grass-fed steers consume corn up until a signal, so it'southward non like they merely eat grass all their life. Did steaks routinely come with chimichurri? Sauces make a departure too.

esung1
ten:53:13 AM on
07/25/08

I tin't expound on grass-fed vs. grain-fed, aged or non- but I think a big reason why I never liked steak growing upwardly was that it was ever cooked well done.

The few times I've had meat at present, I realize I prefer information technology to be on the rare side. I think information technology has something to do with the texture and chewiness. I retrieve that's why poultry is still something I cannot yet swallow, even a niggling flake - you tin can't ready it "medium rare."

bellsorephy.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.epicurious.com/archive/blogs/editor/2008/07/argentine-beef.html

Share this post