Cops have time to bust in and stick a freakin Glock in my face for playing 30/60 holdem at the Greek American Club in Falls Church, but they don't do anything about THIS?!

Sounds like a Sandra Lee recipe.

It's missing the alcohol component for that to be the case

Your pic is obviously lacking any sort of crust, you're insulting Ducasse by saying you used his method. You have temp too low.

tx,

Thanks. I will try it one more time w/ a little higher temp / shorter time. Then I think I'll just go back to my normal high heat short time method where I actually know how to get steaks the way I like them every time.

just quoting this because it is the absolute best advice you can ever give in regards to steak imo

imo, if you have never tried kobe beef before, sure it could be worth it.

Personally, I would much rather cook fine meat myself, because it is so much more cost effective, and I know it will come out the way I like it.

if you have a chance, ask if they can let you see the raw kobe.

it should look very marbled with lots of fine lines of fat like this

Looking forward to this!

Is it wrong that that is sexier to me than any woman could ever be? (No, I do not have the ghey).

Question.

What is the fat to meat ratio?

By my calculations the fat to meat ration is roughly

350

im sorry, but my plan here never came to fruition. they were both eaten long before a camera was ever near them. i can, however, post a mini report.

overall they were both very good and i didnt notice too too much different. i thought the grass fed steak tasted just slightly steakier. if i had to give it a rating the grass fed was like a 10/10 on steak flavor and the grain fed was like 9/10. i over salted and peppered a bit so that may have played a part. also they were overdone (still really tasty, but they ended up being medium well instead of medium rare like i like) possibly a role player.

they were both bone-out ribeyes and i thought the grass fed steak was slightly more tender too, again like one of those 10/10, 9/10 kinda things. both were approximately 2/3lb, grass fed cost 13$ and grain fed was 8$, so i guess the verdict is that for an extra 5$ the added quality seemed so minimal that it wasnt really worth it.

With the possible exception being that with the grass-fed, you are infinitely less-likely to be consuming anything that was fed its own brother's brain or entrails, or even a genetically-engineered soybean.

I know, i know. Believe me, I hate this sort of talk, too, but if you can afford the organic grass-fed, I say it's good for everyone.

Hell, just do it because you're more likely to be keeping a farming family in business, maybe.

I don't know. All I know is that I can afford it, so I do it. If I could not, I would likely opt for the factory stuff as opposed to cutting down intake, because I am a selfish American bastard.

i know its better for you, and i would like to buy from a local farm. too expensive though

also, does anyone else have a hard time finding grass fed beef? i went to 3 places and two said they only get it rarely.

if you live in any major city specialty butchers should have. look for the top rated organic butchers via google.

as per supporting local farming, i dont get this with products that are not necessary to be super fresh. and meat, in fact, as we know, betters itself with proper aging. there are many reasons related to absolute and comparitive advantage that make trading outside of local areas more desirable than supporting some baseless, self-motivated ideology of indiscriminately buying local.

It is not a question of indiscriminately buying local.

I am not anything close to an environmentalist, but it should be obvious that shipping across country isn't great on that front.

Meanwhile, the real distinction is local vs. factory, not local vs. not-local. I was watching a Wendy's commercial last night and busted out laughing at the gall these people have, putting these clowns on a tractor in the middle of a field of vegetables and pulling us in with the tag line "You know when it's real."

If nothing else, I like to try to cut down on the amount of time I spend in a day slobbering up lies, much less growth hormones, pesticides, and marketing fees.

but if the cost and quality were better even after shipping than resources were used more efficiently. the problem is as a result of the burned fuel we need to figure out the cost of potentially harming specific people's future use of the environment and factor this into the overall costs. don't know how this will be done so hard to really ever estimate this side of it.

Personally, i find some local meat products to be so inferior, yet so much more expensive that it slap faces the whole concept of buying local. lamb for me, often falls into this category.

this is somewhat unfair. i mean you're right, we should not let down guard and be aware of the potential harmful practices in food production, but the idea that they're almost out to get us is a bit much. Farmers, including industrial level, that are non-organic still dont like to use pesticides and seldom use them and do so as infrequently as possible. They understand that pesticides are harmful to their land over time, the environment evolves around them and the more they are used the more ineffective they become, and after discounting the future income effects of this, they realize their present value declines if they engage in this practice. hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, animal life quality and feed are very important factors for consumers to monitor. for the most part though, a lot of them are naturally enforced as they cannot but abused by their users with out self-defeating effects.

I have been all around this topic for years and years, but what you were saying about "unfair" immediately made me think of the opening sequence of Food, Inc.:

Food, Inc.

This is definitively deceptive practice, even moreso than standard advertising.

this promo proved nothing of this. it was just a bunch of demagoguery. i've seen this entire film too btw.

this video ignores exactly my point about the benefits of trade. I dont know if you have been to farm country but there are real farms in north america, and they are everywhere. They really have barns, and they really produce things. They look just like they do in the grocery store pictures. Also what is wrong with having varying foods always in season, enabled by the greatness of trade and efficiency of production? What is wrong with food being pre-deboned? How is this deceptive? If it still had bones then that would be deceptive . what is wrong with using organic compounds like ethylene to hasten ripening if so desired? is it wrong for me to put my unripe avocados in a bag with bananas? There are real concerns though and then there is quack non-sense yelling about corporations, anti-capitalism, etc.

Demagoguery rules the day in certain other arenas, but I don't think that's the case here.

I agree with your general point, but not at all with the particulars.

For instance, I agree that not all "non-traditional" methods are somehow bad, and have gotten swept up in the move to eliminate the ones that are "somehow bad."

It is definitively disingenuous for companies that use almost exclusively factory farming to peddle to those who enjoy fancying themselves wholesome or "traditional."

But worse, I think, are the tactics of Monsanto, which are pretty much indisputably grotesque. If nothing else, I would simply prefer not to participate in any system of any sort that feeds (so to speak) into such ugliness and corruption.

I mean, between the food industry and the pharmaceutical industry, the wolves are assuredly in the hen house, whether the hen house has windows or not.

Wouldn't you agree?

yes. whole-heartedly.

I know someone who swears by the Manager Special steaks that are old and usually more than half off. They say that the aged meat is more tender and flavorful. I personally think that they are full of s**t and don't have the stomach to find out for myself.

Just wanted to say thanks. This thread has made me 350% more of a man.