Argentine Beef Facts Argentine Beef Taste

by Lauren Salkeld

on 07/25/08 at 10:27 AM

Like most visitors to Argentina, when I was there, I ate a lot of steak—mode more I normally consume, in fact. Beef eating is a bit like a national sport in Argentina. According to the Washington Post, Argentina boasts the highest beef consumption in the globe: 140 pounds a year per person, which is about 50 percent more than the boilerplate American eats. When y'all're devouring all this meat you tin't assistance but start to think most it, and I found myself wondering how Argentinean beef compares to American beef. As far equally I tin tell, there are 3 major differences: what the cows swallow; how long the meat is anile; and how it is cooked.

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

As I mentioned, when information technology comes to taste there is some debate. Detractors argue that grass-fed beef's lower fat content makes for tough, chewy meat with less flavor, while proponents signal to its increased beefiness. Grain-fed beef tends to accept a more consistent gustatory modality, whereas the flavour profile of grass-fed varies based on the land where the cattle graze, their breed, and the time of yr.

In the U.Due south., aged beefiness is the gold standard. In fact, information technology'due south not uncommon for eating place menus to specify just how long different steaks take been dry out-aged (beef can also exist moisture-aged, simply dry-aging is preferable). According to Richard J. Epley of the University of Minnesota Extension, almost retail beef is aged v to seven days, while virtually restaurants serve beef aged 14 to 21 days. The dry-aging process is said to make meat more tender and more flavorful.

In Argentina, beef is consumed within days of slaughter. The lack of aging tin can make for a chewier, tougher steak, only Argentineans make up for this by slowly and thoroughly cooking their meat. This leads me to the 3rd major difference between American and Argentinean beef: how it is cooked.

Most of the serious steak lovers I know adopt their meat rare, medium rare, or medium, just in Argentina, steak is typically served well washed. In my experience, "jugoso" (translation: "juicy") will go y'all a medium steak, while "muy jugoso" or even "muy, muy jugoso" ("very juicy" and "very, very juicy") will deliver something more alike to medium rare. I'm not certain why Argentineans favor such thoroughly cooked meat. Some folks aspect information technology to the fact that the beefiness isn't aged, which sounds similar a reasonable explanation, merely I imagine it'due south as well just a personal preference based on experience.

When it comes to my own meat preferences, I'm torn. I'one thousand always in favor of grass-fed beef, simply even though I like the taste, my choice is due more to the wellness, safety, and ecology benefits than the bodily flavor. And even though I've spent my life eating anile, medium-rare steak, I enjoyed several nonaged, medium steaks in Argentina. In full general, I retrieve it all really but depends on what yous're used to and what you've come to prefer. What are your steak preferences? And can you explain them?

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

"It doesn't take a lot of common sense to come across this..." Hmmm that was a scrap... vitriolic. I guess I don't know virtually common sense, but maybe it'southward not all it's cracked up to be, as I do know about organic chemistry. Cellulose (grass/hay) and starch (corn) are both polymers of sugar, and very like molecularly - just prototype google each one and this is actually obvious just from a cursory expect. The microorganisms of the cattle's rumen are adaptable plenty to be able to handle the difference (since they are molecularly similar, the aforementioned enzymes tin can suspension them both downward). I googled around and could observe nothing to substantiate the claim that their digestive tracks are non able to handle moderate amounts of grain, or that moderate amounts lead to increment in illness (by moderate, I'k talking manner under the +fifty% total feed amount that, if one searches, one will readily find tin can lead to bug). I was especially curious on that point as it contradicts my personal experience - admitting that only amounts to near 25 years...
I'chiliad also still left wondering why, if it's and then bad for them, they seem to bask information technology so much...

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

The no-grain-for-cows statement generally points to the fact that cows' digestive systems are not designed to digest grain, and feeding grain to cows increses their possibility of developing digestive illnesses.

Personally, I'one thousand not entirely certain where I stand on whether cows should be fed only 100% grass. Certainly, they would be in an ideal situation, but I'm not completely opposed to supplementing a mostly-grass diet with some grain feed, every bit long as the cows get to range freely in open pasture. I understand that grain-fed does not necessarily equal CAFOs, only the truth is that a cow's natural diet consists of grass, not grain, and too much grain feed leads to unhealthy cattle.

Likewise, while corn and pasture grass may share the same family umbrella, it doesn't take much common sense to spot the staggering and obvious differences between the two. Likewise, a cow fed corn would consume only the grain--that is, the kernel--of the corn, whereas a cow feeding on pasture grass would ingest the entire constitute--its small-scale grains along with its proportionally far more than arable leafy green parts.

p8yton
xi:xix:49 AM on
07/26/08

"Grass-feeding is also gentler on cows"
I never understand statements like this... Or people'southward fright/horror of anything not grass fed. I estimate perhaps it stems from the fact that grain-fed does ordinarily translate to "feed-lot" - only this isn't always the case... My dad's cattle run around on 200 acres of forested hills, just he feeds them some grain everyday to keep them happy and healthy. I can't remember the final time a vet was on the farm - they never become ill. And it's not like he's forcing the stuff downwards them - believe me they are waiting every forenoon for their breakfast (non patiently either - they get quite loud if their breakfast is late :) And no, information technology'due south not because that's all they have - they will be standing exterior the feed surface area in knee-deep grass, completely ignoring it - they're interested in something improve (I would become bored eating i thing and one thing only too).
Incidentally, corn is related to grass... again I'thousand left puzzled as to why people get then passionate about it. Being against feed-lots - that I sympathize completely - but just "grain"?
I think James put it well when he said the topic is complicated.

valereee
05:16:15 PM on
07/25/08

Not all "grassfed" cows are finished on grain! I purchase only pastured beef which is never fed grain, or may have been fed grain just in an emergency (we had a bad drought hither final year and some farmers had to resort to supplementing with grain for short periods because there was no grass and also no hay). Cows fed this way grow more slowly, so the beefiness tends to be a niggling more expensive. To me it's worth it, every bit the cows are living the way cows should alive.

Medium rare, dry out-aged, grassfed only is my preference.

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

Yous're right, James--this is a complicated result. And, yous're also correct in saying that many grass-fed cows are finished on grain. You tin can get completely grass-fed beef, merely information technology'south not very common. As for chimichurri, we did see it, but non as much every bit I expected. Likewise, Argentinean chimichurri isn't nearly as spicy equally the ones I've had here. (Since I got back, I've been experimenting with making my own, but I adopt a spicier version.) From what I empathize, Argentineans don't intendance for spicy food. They're also not big fans of pepper--nigh restaurant tables had salt, just not pepper.

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

Char is the other issue. I dear it. Some people don't. You lot need special equipment to get a good char. Very high rut.

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

Well done. The mail service, that is. It's a very complicated consequence. Equally I empathise information technology, Americans tend to consume steers at a much younger age than we used to (14 months versus 5 years old). They are reared to abound bigger faster. Even our grass-fed steers consume corn up until a signal, so it's not similar they merely swallow grass all their life. Did steaks routinely come up with chimichurri? Sauces make a departure too.

esung1
10:53:13 AM on
07/25/08

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

The few times I've had meat now, I realize I prefer information technology to be on the rare side. I think information technology has something to practise with the texture and chewiness. I retrieve that'due south why poultry is still something I cannot withal eat, even a niggling chip - you can't prepare information technology "medium rare."

montaguethabigge.blogspot.com

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

Share this post