Originally posted by: *kjm
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: *kjm
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: *kjm
Originally posted by: destrekor
Naturally-grazing grass-fed cows produce the healthiest beef imaginable. Chock full of EFAs (essential fatty acids, aka N-3/Omega 3s). I still have a back-of-the-mind belief that humans began going downhill in health when cattle began to be raised on grains instead of grazing on wild grasses.
Having worked on a farm I can tell you this is not right. Yes beef need roughage but for the marble need corn and silage! That is why free range beef tastes dry and not as moist. Go to Texas and have a local stake and come to Wisconsin and have one and tell me what you think is the best you have ever had
Why not a bit of both?
This farm predominantly grass feeds with a small amount of grain feed for marbeling. The cows roam quite a bit. It is the beef served at L'Etoile.
Right! they have to range feed every day but need grain and silage every day for the best of the best....... that is what I said....... sorry if I was not clear.
You're talking the difference between flavor and nutrition. As always, there tends to be a difference.
Most people are willing to eat less of a better thing than more of a bad tasting thing. The fat content on how Im talking of feeding them is not much higher if you lean them up at the end but you gain so much more flavor in the beef.
No doubt. I'm not disagreeing at all. In fact I completely agree. I'd rather a damn good tasting, well marbled steak over a very and less flavorful steak. In fact, that's the only way I really like my steak - damn good tasting and juicy. I prefer my steak to need nothing added for flavor, save for a little bit of rub (if any) and maybe a little butter. I prefer my steak just cooked great, savoring the natural juices, and as is, none of that steak sauce or shit like that.
That'd be tough to accomplish with a more healthy steak (mind you, steak is going to have fat, well depends on the cattle breed's genetic nature for natural marbling... but healthy in terms of EFAs).
We shouldn't need to take pills with EFAs in them, the human body was conditioned to get them from diet, and since fish haven't always been available but yet the human body NEEDS them (and specifically, humans most likely evolved in regions extremely lacking in fish, IE African heartland or possibly interior Asia), that must mean we lived healthy by eating animals that grazed naturally. The other way was, well we're omnivores, and the naturally growing plants contained high amounts of a specific fatty acid, ALA, which our body can use to convert to the other, much more important fatty acids, DHA and EPA. More efficient to get them in that form though, which are more readily found in meat. See why we are omnivores? We can 'survive' on greens alone, but it is more efficient, and more healthy, to obtain a mixed balance - get DHA and EPA from meats, and then the body will use ALA to make the other, harder to find fatty acids.
Sorry for the little rant there.
My point? I prefer tasty, typically unhealthy food. I'm a food hypocrite though. I hate healthy food but I realize the importance of it, and through genetic engineering in the future (where we'll be better able to find all the bad things that can from the genetic engineering and make just damn good food that's also much more nutritional, and hardier for growing), I hope we'll come to a day where we don't have to always have the trade-offs known in our brain, and just come to expect everything from what we grow.
Because modern society is spoiled. We're not going to revert back to hunters and gatherers, getting all of our food from natural fields and grazing animals.