On Jul 6, 4:50*am, sf > wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 18:24:25 -0700 (PDT), Bryan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 7:57*pm, sf > wrote:
> > > On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 12:13:57 -0700 (PDT), Bryan
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > They were $3.99/#, had no marbling whatsoever, and were a deep red,
> > > > with no tail. *There was very little fat anywhere on them. *I grilled
> > > > one over pure cherry wood, well seared but rare inside. *It tasted
> > > > grass fed, not even corn finished. *The strip side was fairly tender,
> > > > but the filet was melt-in-you-mouth tender. *I liked it better than
> > > > the USDA Choice ones I usually buy.
>
> > >http://www.cattlenetwork.com/cattle-...ing-more-beef-....
>
> > It looks like from that article that cattle are mostly grain FINISHED,
> > but grass fed until later in life. *The corn feeding thing in the USA
> > is far worse. *They have to give the cattle antibiotics because they
> > get sick from eating starch instead of cellulose. *It's called,
> > "subacute acidosis," and it's caused by feeding cattle corn instead of
> > grass/hay/forage. *After I post this, I'm going to email SAVE-A-LOT,
> > and compliment their Mexican beef. *I prefer leaner over more tender,
> > and I prefer the better fatty acid content of beef that has been
> > merely corn *finished*, rather than corn fed for extended periods.
>
> The article clearly said that the beef you *think* was grass fed
> probably isn't.
>
But a quorum of characteristics suggest that it was, at least mostly.
Roy called Mexican steaks, "No taste, no fat, no flavor." That's the
exact criticism of grass fed beef. Americans generally prefer corn
fed.

--Bryan