Argentina Beef Same as Usa Beef?
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—way more than 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 world: 140 pounds a year per person, which is about 50 percent more than the average American eats. When you're devouring all this meat you can't help but start to think about it, and I found myself wondering how Argentinean beef compares to American beef. As far as I can tell, there are three major differences: what the cows eat; how long the meat is aged; and how it is cooked.
Unlike here, Argentina's beef predominantly comes from grass-fed cows (grass-fed beef is available in the U.S., but grain-fed beef is more common). Folks can debate the flavor 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 also gentler on cows (because they are eating their natural diet, grass-fed cows don't typically require supplements, hormones, or antibiotics) and the environment (because growing grass usually requires less energy and pesticides than growing grain).
As I mentioned, when it 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 point to its increased beefiness. Grain-fed beef tends to have a more consistent taste, whereas the flavor profile of grass-fed varies based on the land where the cattle graze, their breed, and the time of year.
In the U.S., aged beef is the gold standard. In fact, it's not uncommon for restaurant menus to specify just how long different steaks have been dry-aged (beef can also be wet-aged, but dry-aging is preferable). According to Richard J. Epley of the University of Minnesota Extension, most retail beef is aged five to seven days, while most 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 can make for a chewier, tougher steak, but Argentineans make up for this by slowly and thoroughly cooking their meat. This leads me to the third major difference between American and Argentinean beef: how it 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 deliver something more akin to medium rare. I'm not sure why Argentineans favor such thoroughly cooked meat. Some folks attribute it to the fact that the beef isn't aged, which sounds like a reasonable explanation, but I imagine it's also just a personal preference based on experience.
When it comes to my own meat preferences, I'm torn. I'm always in favor of grass-fed beef, but even though I like the taste, my choice is due more to the health, safety, and environmental benefits than the actual flavor. And even though I've spent my life eating aged, medium-rare steak, I enjoyed several nonaged, medium steaks in Argentina. In general, I think it all really just depends on what you'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 see this..." Hmmm that was a bit... vitriolic. I guess I don't know about common sense, but perhaps it's 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 similar molecularly - just image google each one and this is actually obvious just from a cursory look. The microorganisms of the cattle's rumen are adaptable enough to be able to handle the difference (since they are molecularly similar, 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 lead to increase in illness (by moderate, I'm talking way under the +50% total feed amount that, if one searches, one will readily find can lead to problems). I was especially curious on that point as it contradicts my personal experience - albeit that only amounts to about 25 years...
I'm also still left wondering why, if it's so bad for them, they seem to enjoy it so much...
rainhana
05:40:21 PM on
07/26/08
The no-grain-for-cows argument 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'm not entirely sure 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, as long as the cows get to range freely in open 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 too much grain feed leads to unhealthy cattle.
Also, 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. Also, a cow fed corn would eat only the grain--that is, the kernel--of the corn, whereas a cow feeding on pasture grass would ingest the entire plant--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 anything not grass fed. I guess maybe it stems from the fact that grain-fed does usually translate to "feed-lot" - but this isn't always the case... My dad's cattle run around on 200 acres of forested hills, but he feeds them some grain everyday to keep them happy and healthy. I can't remember the last time a vet was on the farm - they never get sick. And it's not like he's forcing the stuff down them - believe me they are waiting every morning for their breakfast (not patiently either - they get quite loud if their breakfast is late :) And no, it's not because that's all they have - they will be standing outside the feed area in knee-deep grass, completely ignoring it - they're interested in something better (I would get bored eating one thing and one thing only as well).
Incidentally, corn is related to grass... again I'm left puzzled as to why people get so passionate about it. Being against feed-lots - that I understand 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 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 also no hay). Cows fed this way grow more slowly, so the beef tends to be a little more expensive. To me it's worth it, as the cows are living the way cows should live.
Medium rare, dry-aged, grassfed only is my preference.
LaurenSalkeld
12:07:31 PM on
07/25/08
You're right, James--this is a complicated issue. And, you're also correct 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, we did see it, but not as much as I expected. Also, Argentinean chimichurri isn't nearly as spicy as the ones I've had here. (Since I got back, I've been experimenting with making my own, but I prefer a spicier version.) From what I understand, Argentineans don't care for spicy food. They're also not big fans of pepper--most restaurant tables had salt, but not pepper.
jamescury
11:50:16 AM on
07/25/08
Char is the other issue. I love it. Some people don't. You need special equipment to get a good char. Very high heat.
jamescury
11:49:05 AM on
07/25/08
Well done. The post, that is. It's a very complicated issue. As 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 eat corn up until a point, so it's not like they only consume grass all their life. Did steaks routinely come with chimichurri? Sauces make a difference too.
esung1
10:53:13 AM on
07/25/08
I can't expound on grass-fed vs. grain-fed, aged or non- but I think a big reason why I never liked steak growing up was that it was always cooked well done.
The few times I've had meat now, I realize I prefer it to be on the rare side. I think it has something to do with the texture and chewiness. I think that's why poultry is still something I cannot yet eat, even a little bit - you can't prepare it "medium rare."
Source: https://www.epicurious.com/archive/blogs/editor/2008/07/argentine-beef.html