Re: dry aged/wet aged meat

[Guest guest]

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of downwardog7

>

>

>Hi all,

>I'm not sure if this has been covered before, but I was talking to Ken

>Lindner yesterday (of the Bison Lindners) and I told him that ever

>since eating bison--their bison in particular--I'd developed something

>of an aversion to beef--it just tastes kinda...skanky...to me anymore.

>

>He said it may be because of the aging. He says most beef is " wet

>aged " , meaning, wrapped in plastic for the duration somehow, so that

>no weight is lost, and it *may* result in that yicky taste sensation,

>whereas the Lindners dry age and lose weight on the meat.

,

Do the Lindners sell online? If so, could you please post the URL.

TIA.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

> ,

>

> Do the Lindners sell online? If so, could you please post the URL.

Suze,

Here ya go:

http://lindnerbison.com/

LINDNER BISON™

27060 , Valencia, CA 91355

661-254-0200, Toll Free: 1-866-BISURKEY (866-247-8753),

fax: 661-254-0224

klindner@...

You'll have to phone them, however, as --or someone--mentioned,

the website doesn't have an ordering page--maybe you can hip them to

it and gain a client?

B.

[Guest guest]

Suze,

<You'll have to phone them, however, as --or someone--mentioned,

the website doesn't have an ordering page--maybe you can hip them to

it and gain a client?

B.>

When I first called Kathy, I did let her know that I had been researching

possible bison farms and had discounted hers (until I saw a recommendation

on this list) because of the look/inadequacies of her website. She said I

wasn't the first person to tell her all that, but at the present time, they

couldn't afford to upgrade the site or to have a situation where it cost

them every time they needed to cupdate the site (this with regard to

prices). So maybe, if you want to order bison for yourself, you could work

out a barter deal.

Re: a supplier of lamb, I love what I've been getting from

www.foxfirefarm.com

http://www.taichi4seniors.com

[Guest guest]

-

>He said it may be because of the aging. He says most beef is " wet

>aged " , meaning, wrapped in plastic for the duration somehow, so that

>no weight is lost, and it *may* result in that yicky taste sensation,

>whereas the Lindners dry age and lose weight on the meat.

>Learning something new everyday...

Wow. Is their stuff really expensive? I thought virtually everyone except

super-premium super-expensive suppliers had given up on dry aging because

of the loss.

-

[Guest guest]

> Wow. Is their stuff really expensive? I thought virtually everyone

except

> super-premium super-expensive suppliers had given up on dry aging

because

> of the loss.

,

What I pay (in cash @ the farmer's market) is the same or cheaper than

the prices listed on Northstar's website. Maybe Lindner doesn't list

prices on their site because they're gouging the out-of-state folks?

Try their meat, man; they can use the business.

B.

[Guest guest]

-

>Try their meat, man; they can use the business.

What happened to supporting local farms? <g> I'll at least give their

organs a shot, since liver and glands are the main meats I mail-order. And

who knows, I could wind up moving to LA.

-

[Guest guest]

,

> What happened to supporting local farms?

Find some meat in NY, then.

I'll at least give their

> organs a shot, since liver and glands are the main meats I mail-order.

The thing is, I haven't much used the organs, cuz I like to buy them

unfrozen at the co-op, but I'm sure they're tasty.

And

> who knows, I could wind up moving to LA.

<swoons>

B.

[Guest guest]

On 8/7/05, downwardog7 <illneverbecool@...> wrote:

> Hi all,

> I'm not sure if this has been covered before, but I was talking to Ken

> Lindner yesterday (of the Bison Lindners) and I told him that ever

> since eating bison--their bison in particular--I'd developed something

> of an aversion to beef--it just tastes kinda...skanky...to me anymore.

>

> He said it may be because of the aging. He says most beef is " wet

> aged " , meaning, wrapped in plastic for the duration somehow, so that

> no weight is lost, and it *may* result in that yicky taste sensation,

> whereas the Lindners dry age and lose weight on the meat.

> Learning something new everyday...

> B.

Nothing compares to dry aging, the wet aging process, IMO, is a

misnomer, a farce.

You can generally get dry aged meats in the more upscale grocers. In

Seattle that would be Larry's, QFC, Whole Foods, Metropolitan Market,

etc. Whole Foods even dry ages their meat right on the premises like

the old time butchers. Also all the good steakhouses make it a point

to advertise and serve dry aged beef, which certainly accounts for

some of the expense.

On the other hand I have never quite tasted beef that was as good out

of the chute as the bison I have had (Northstar), or the outrageously

expensive *genuine* kobe beef I have had, and don't forget Longhorn.

Given that Longhorn do well *only* on grass, when available it is

probably the best of the bunch. All, at their best, cut like butter

even when raw.

I have also been told that some parts of the world think that our beef

tastes funny (like Argentina), that it has an " old " taste to it. So I

would like to one day try the Argentinian Steak House in my area to

compare, because dry aged in this part of the woods certainly beats

everything else (with the notable exceptions I mentioned above).

[Guest guest]

:

>Given that Longhorn do well *only* on grass, when available it is

>probably the best of the bunch. All, at their best, cut like butter

>even when raw.

Wow, you are the first person I've met who has actually tasted

all three! We've been addicted to Longhorn for the past few

years ... I have to drive across the state to get it but it's worth it.

I haven't tasted really good buffalo though.

The butcher I originally got Longhorn from said that the

farmers can't make as much money off them because their

growth patterns are odd. The bones even feel different. The meat

doesn't " marble " like Angus does, so they rarely get a " prime " rating,

so the farmers don't get top dollar. Plus they really start tasting

good as they get older, like 3 years old and up, which makes them

not great commercially.

It IS very tender though. One of our steer was 7 years old,

and the butcher was saying it would be really really tough

and should be made into hamburger. Of course we didn't ... and

we gave some of the steaks to our neighbor for his sick wife.

He told us later: " She hasn't eaten steak for years because

she can't chew that good, but she sure could eat that! "

>I have also been told that some parts of the world think that our beef

>tastes funny (like Argentina), that it has an " old " taste to it. So I

>would like to one day try the Argentinian Steak House in my area to

>compare, because dry aged in this part of the woods certainly beats

>everything else (with the notable exceptions I mentioned above).

I've had a number of people that are used to storebought beef

say our Longhorn tastes odd too ... there is decidedly a different

taste to it. To me the commercial beef now DOES taste " old " , and

the Longhorn tastes sharper and cleaner. The one buffalo steak

I tried was similar. Moose and elk that I've had was ok, but the

person who cooked them cooked them REALLY well done so

it was hard to tell.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

On 8/8/05, Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

>

> :

>

> >Given that Longhorn do well *only* on grass, when available it is

> >probably the best of the bunch. All, at their best, cut like butter

> >even when raw.

>

> Wow, you are the first person I've met who has actually tasted

> all three! We've been addicted to Longhorn for the past few

> years ... I have to drive across the state to get it but it's worth it.

> I haven't tasted really good buffalo though.

Northstar Bison is excellent, although and seemed to be

having some issues with them as of late.

I have an online longhorn link but I haven't tried them. Kobe beef for

all intents and purposes is really no longer available in America, at

least the really good stuff, but these things have a way of changing

all the time.

You can buy Kobe that has actually been raised in Japan but that is so

expensive it is not even funny. There is top of the line Kobe beef

raised in America but...they sell it back to Japan. So the stuff that

is available is like a third tier kobe style beef. I have had it. Its

good but it certainly isn't anything to rave about.

All three are served in restaurants in the area (or were -

availability is variable). Unfortunately most chefs do not know how to

cook buffalo. It has to be slow and low. If you cook it like a steak

it will not taste good. Same thing goes for kobe. If it is cooked

beyond rare it is a *colossal* waste of money. Anytime I go into a

steakhouse and watch people order expensive cuts of meat and then

order it medium to well done I just grimace. At that point the taste

is really not much different than a steak bought from the local

grocery store.

It is like watching someone put ice cubes into a glass of very nice

red wine. Now I subscribe to the philosophy of " whatever makes you

happy " but if I am buying you are putting ice in a glass of the house

stuff, not the nice stuff, LOL!

> The butcher I originally got Longhorn from said that the

> farmers can't make as much money off them because their

> growth patterns are odd. The bones even feel different. The meat

> doesn't " marble " like Angus does, so they rarely get a " prime " rating,

> so the farmers don't get top dollar. Plus they really start tasting

> good as they get older, like 3 years old and up, which makes them

> not great commercially.

I seem to recall that the key to really good tasting grass finished

beef is to let the animals get older but most won't do this because it

is not as commercially viable.. Done right the meat doesn't get

tougher but actually more flavorful and tender. And that is what is

nice about longhorn, the rancher has no other choice.

[Guest guest]

,

<Northstar Bison is excellent, although and seemed to be

having some issues with them as of late.>

Just for the record, my own problems were only with the fulfillment of

orders. Even when they sent the kidney fat, that wasn't bad, just not

something I could use. Before I discovered lamb, I was pretty much living

on Northstar bison (heart and liver) exclusively for close to nine months,

so I don't want to bad-mouth them on that score. I think their meat is, as

you say, excellent. (Though had problems recently with their liver.)

I was very interested in your " older is better " with respect to beef. Only

beef? And is " better " a reference only to taste? I'm curious because I'm

been wondering if the young lamb organs I've been getting -- which taste

stronger and richer than the bison -- are so different because it's another

species, or because of age. Would the difference in age have anything to do

with the presence of nutrients, more nutrients, that is. In the wild, do

older animals become prey just because they are easier to catch or also

because they taste better? Or are young ones, maybe even easier to catch,

more prized? And again, would that be for taste or nutrients? Or aren't

the predators saying? <g>

Hm. Musing on this some, and thinking in terms of my cat's behavior, I

guess in the wild the best taste to the predator is likely the same as the

most nourishing.

Finally, , I said in a previouis post that I wasn't interested in new

ways of fermenting meat -- and that's still true in terms of my having any

desire to ferment meat. But if it isn't overtaxing you to indicate a little

of another technique, I find I am very curious, just in terms of " making

connections " in this area.

http://www.taichi4seniors.com

[Guest guest]

>I seem to recall that the key to really good tasting grass finished

>beef is to let the animals get older but most won't do this because it

>is not as commercially viable.. Done right the meat doesn't get

>tougher but actually more flavorful and tender. And that is what is

>nice about longhorn, the rancher has no other choice.

>

>

Actually a lot of longhorn are raised for show or breeding, and

they get good money for the " trophy heads " (those big ol' horns).

So you can get the meat of older ones pretty easily. They are

pretty intimidating, with those big horns, and can't be crammed into

feedlots either, which is another reason many farmers won't raise

them except " for fun " . As people find out how good they are though,

more might start raising them. There is a rancher on the East side who

is, I heard, going to start a herd in the badlands ... a dry, desolate area

that looks a lot like Texas, herding them with horses but letting them

graze at will mostly.

I'd like to try the " slow and low " cooking, kind of like prime rib is

done, I presume? I figure I can get the ribsteaks cut into prime rib

and do it on the smoker, which should be sublime. I'm not sure

how prime rib is done though: it LOOKS rare but obviously isn't. Yet

my " slow cooker " never leaves meat red like that.

What do you think of the method in:

http://members.tripod.com/~BayGourmet/primerib.html

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>I'm curious because I'm

>been wondering if the young lamb organs I've been getting -- which taste

>stronger and richer than the bison -- are so different because it's another

>species, or because of age. Would the difference in age have anything to do

>with the presence of nutrients, more nutrients, that is. In the wild, do

>older animals become prey just because they are easier to catch or also

>because they taste better? Or are young ones, maybe even easier to catch,

>more prized? And again, would that be for taste or nutrients? Or aren't

>the predators saying? <g>

I can't say about " in the wild " , but in civilization, in the past, it seems,

people

ate " mutton " (older sheep) only when forced to. Older sheep have

a very distinctive taste that, it seems, few people enjoy. That is not true

for cattle. " more taste " MAY mean more nutrients, or not, but with mutton

there is the issue of scrapie so maybe people's unconscious brains are

telling them something? Or maybe it's cultural and we don't prepare

it right.

Anyway, my Mom, who happily dines on rooster heads and feet

and brains and kidneys and head cheese and sweetbreads,

still will not eat mutton and regards it as " what you eat when you

work for a convent and the nuns don't want to spend any money

feeding you " (which is what happend to her, in the '40s).

Older Longhorn, OTOH, are just better tasting. So probably it depends

on the species? It also depends on the method of cooking. " Coq au Vin " ,

according to the good chefs, requires an old rooster. Old roosters are not

something most people regard as terribly edible, because they are

REALLY tough, but if you cook them a long time they can be wonderful.

The same is true of " cheek meat " on cows: it's super, super tough but

becomes wonderful when slowcooked and all that collagen breaks down.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>I can't say about " in the wild " , but in civilization, in the past, it

>seems, people

>ate " mutton " (older sheep) only when forced to.

Are you sure about that? Isn't mutton just another one of those

traditional foods that people avoid nowadays? I know there are plenty of

traditional ish uses for mutton, for example.

> Older sheep have

>a very distinctive taste that, it seems, few people enjoy. That is not true

>for cattle. " more taste " MAY mean more nutrients, or not,

Inasmuch as it takes a long time for nutrient levels to really concentrate

in meat, I think it's safe to say that, all else being equal, mutton is

more nutritious than lamb by a good margin.

>The same is true of " cheek meat " on cows: it's super, super tough but

>becomes wonderful when slowcooked and all that collagen breaks down.

If only I could find some...

-

[Guest guest]

:

>Are you sure about that? Isn't mutton just another one of those

>traditional foods that people avoid nowadays? I know there are plenty of

>traditional ish uses for mutton, for example.

Well, it's a point that a lot of things people don't *like* are good

for them. Gruel, for example. EVERYONE ate gruel in the old

days, " porridge " was a staple, and so was mutton. But people

ditched porridge as soon as they could afford to, and talked

about it demeaningly even then (Pease porridge hot ... ),

though I'd have to say from a WAPF standpoint it

was probably better for them than what replaced it. A similar

situation seems to be the case with mutton ... it was served a

LOT but not much respected, at least not in what I've read. Probably

there are a lot of folks who love it too. But " lamb " was considered

more desirable (and still is). My comments were mostly from

a culinary perspective ... how that relates to a healthiness

perspective is always kind of iffy ... sometimes people crave

what is good for them, sometimes they crave what is

bad for them!

>

>Inasmuch as it takes a long time for nutrient levels to really concentrate

>in meat, I think it's safe to say that, all else being equal, mutton is

>more nutritious than lamb by a good margin.

Could well be: that seems to be a general rule. It could also be

that it just tastes strong for that reason so some folks

don't like it. Or that the sheep were running with the rams ...

when female goats are with the billies, their milk tastes off.

>>The same is true of " cheek meat " on cows: it's super, super tough but

>>becomes wonderful when slowcooked and all that collagen breaks down.

>

>If only I could find some...

The farmer told me they usually throw it out but suggested I try

it. I'm glad I did. I DO believe there are farmers in New York, if not

there than in some of the accompanying states. Rent a car for

a day or bribe a friend and go on a " cow hunt " ! Cow hunts

are more likely to bag some meat than deer hunts, and don't

require learning to shoot a gun or buying a license.

>

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

On 8/8/05, West <clairewest@...> wrote:

> I was very interested in your " older is better " with respect to beef. Only

> beef? And is " better " a reference only to taste?

The problem, at least for me, is that most grass fed beef is way to

lean *and* most grass fed farmers have bought into the low fat dogma

(or at least low saturated fat) to some degree. In order to have grass

fed animals which are fatty, you have to keep them at pasture mich

longer than conventional beef, which most producers aren't willing to

do.

The result however is a more nutrient dense, fattier and tastier piece of meat.

There was a reason Price's primitives wanted/hunted the older animals,

because of the prized fat content. In times of plenty they even threw

the lean cuts away.

> I'm curious because I'm

> been wondering if the young lamb organs I've been getting -- which taste

> stronger and richer than the bison -- are so different because it's another

> species, or because of age. Would the difference in age have anything to do

> with the presence of nutrients, more nutrients, that is. In the wild, do

> older animals become prey just because they are easier to catch or also

> because they taste better? Or are young ones, maybe even easier to catch,

> more prized? And again, would that be for taste or nutrients? Or aren't

> the predators saying? <g>

LOL! I for one much prefer young lamb, no mutton here. Lamb however is

much more fattier than beef by default and therefore much richer. Ever

notice a fat content lable on lamb? No way. If they did in out modrn

fat phobic society no one would buy it.

Nutrient density definitely increases as an animal ages.

> Hm. Musing on this some, and thinking in terms of my cat's behavior, I

> guess in the wild the best taste to the predator is likely the same as the

> most nourishing.

>

> Finally, , I said in a previouis post that I wasn't interested in new

> ways of fermenting meat -- and that's still true in terms of my having any

> desire to ferment meat. But if it isn't overtaxing you to indicate a little

> of another technique, I find I am very curious, just in terms of " making

> connections " in this area.

Well when I wrote that I was probably thinking of raw dried cured

sausage off of the top of my head. I was also thinking of the book

Mike P. posted awhile back covering fermented foods of the Sudan (?)

which included meats. So I didn't have any particular recipe in mind

(although I know several) just the general concept that sticking meat

in a jar in the refrigerator isn't the only way to get high meat.

[Guest guest]

On 8/8/05, Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

> Anyway, my Mom, who happily dines on rooster heads and feet

> and brains and kidneys and head cheese and sweetbreads,

> still will not eat mutton and regards it as " what you eat when you

> work for a convent and the nuns don't want to spend any money

> feeding you " (which is what happend to her, in the '40s).

So with all this good generational nutrition, what happened with you?

[Guest guest]

On 8/8/05, Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

>

> I'd like to try the " slow and low " cooking, kind of like prime rib is

> done, I presume? I figure I can get the ribsteaks cut into prime rib

> and do it on the smoker, which should be sublime. I'm not sure

> how prime rib is done though: it LOOKS rare but obviously isn't. Yet

> my " slow cooker " never leaves meat red like that.

>

> What do you think of the method in:

>

> http://members.tripod.com/~BayGourmet/primerib.html

Excellent! I have sent that link to others. Also I saw some kobe beef

ads at the top of the page which I went to and apparently it is very

available here in the states for absolutely outrageous prices.

When I said slow and low, while it refers to all cuts of the buffalo,

I was particularly referring to buffalo steaks. Most chefs want to

cook them like beef steaks and that just won't work.

[Guest guest]

,

<Nutrient density definitely increases as an animal ages.>

Thanks so much for all the info, esp. the above.

http://www.taichi4seniors.com

[Guest guest]

>So with all this good generational nutrition, what happened with you?

>

>

Oh, well, at the risk of being flamed, I'd think my personal

beliefs on THAT are obvious! Mom fed me lots of good food,

but she also served *bread*.

Actually the fact she served meat/vegie based meals, and only served

a little bread/pasta on the side, and not the carb (pasta/sandwich) based

meals is probably what saved me: I didn't get really sick

til I left home and had to live on a budget, or when we went travelling

and had all the nice European bread.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>Well, it's a point that a lot of things people don't *like* are good

>for them. Gruel, for example. EVERYONE ate gruel in the old

>days, " porridge " was a staple, and so was mutton. But people

>ditched porridge as soon as they could afford to, and talked

>about it demeaningly even then (Pease porridge hot ... ),

>though I'd have to say from a WAPF standpoint it

>was probably better for them than what replaced it. A similar

>situation seems to be the case with mutton ... it was served a

>LOT but not much respected, at least not in what I've read.

Well, the replacement of porridge with yet-worse foods was part and parcel

of the overall movement away from nutrition in all forms. Aristocrats

switched to muscle meats and organs became the province of the lower

classes, etc. etc. etc. AFAIK mutton was often prized in sheep-raising

communities if you look far enough back into the past.

>But " lamb " was considered

>more desirable (and still is).

Yes, but I think that happened at the same time that muscle meat became

more desirable than organs as a status symbol and for other related reasons.

-