Why Is Fattier Grassfed Meat Best?

[Islander]

Feb. 8, 2011
By Stanley A. Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat

Our culture has a phobia about animal fat. The horrid nutritional guidelines just issued by the U.S. government tell us to eat meat only occasionally, and eat only lean meat. This is truly a shame, because animal fat from pastured animals contains many vital nutrients that are easily absorbed and hard to get elsewhere. Animal fat from grassfed animals also gives great taste, tenderness, and satisfaction (unlike the lumpy, greasy fat so prevalent in factory meat).

All grassfed meat is leaner than factory meat. Many producers advertise how lean their grassfed meat is. Some grassfed meat is much leaner, and some contains more fat. So which is better? For our ancestors, the choice was simple. Fat meat was desirable and cherished—lean meat was eaten to avoid starvation or thrown to the dogs.

For me, the answer is also simple. Most of the nutrients in grassfed beef are in the fat. Fattier cuts of grassfed meat have more flavor and come out more tender. The fattier the better, when it comes to grassfed meat.

Grassfed Fat vs. Factory Fat
There is a great difference in the content and composition of the fat of grassfed animals and the fat of factory animals finished in the feedlot.

The fat of grassfed animals has a much higher ratio of omega-3 fatty acids to omega-6 fatty acids, has much more CLA, and is much richer in other nutrients. The fat of feedlot-finished factory animals has a much higher omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acid ratio, much less CLA, and contains substances from the feed that get stored in the fat.

The fat in grassfed meat appears both as a covering over the cut of meat, and in small white flecks that can be seen in the meat itself. These small flecks are called marbling. The fat of feedlot-finished factory meat also appears as a covering, but it can often be seen in the meat itself as thick, blocky veins of fat, or lumps of fat. No grass finished meat has this appearance.

I personally find the fat in grassfed meat to be delicious and satisfying. It smells so good when the meat cooks that it makes me very hungry. I find the fat in feedlot-finished factory meat to be greasy, unpleasant, and downright disgusting. Factory meat does not satisfy me, and leaves me hungry and bloated. Grassfed meat always leaves me feeling satisfied and good—which is one of the main reasons why I only eat grassfed and grass finished meat.

What about the Studies?
The media often publicizes studies that claim that eating meat, especially fat meat, is unhealthy.

While I never blindly believe any study, knowing how flawed and biased they can be (though some are completely valid, you just have to study the details), I have noticed two important points that make them inapplicable to grassfed meat and fat:

All of these studies include the eating of highly processed factory meat, meat that is full of preservatives and chemicals, such as luncheon meat. It is impossible to know if the negative results claimed by the studies come from the meat or the chemicals.
None of these studies are limited to the eating of pastured meat processed without the use of chemicals, but are based almost totally on feedlot-finished factory meat that has been raised with artificial hormones, chemicals, antibiotics, species-inappropriate feed, and other factors that were never used by our ancestors. It is impossible to know if the negative results claimed by the studies come from the meat or the hormones, chemicals, antibiotics, species-inappropriate feed, or other factors, or any combination of them.
The main studies we have on the nutritional effects of traditional meats, fats, and diets are the customs of our ancestors, and the vital research of Dr. Weston A. Price. These traditions and the research of Dr. Price support the health benefits of eating traditional unprocessed animal fats.

Why Fattier Grassfed Meat Is Better than Leaner Grassfed Meat
Once again, the traditions of our ancestors are the key to understanding. Every traditional meat eating culture preferred fat meat to lean meat. Traditional recipes for meat always make sure that it is cooked and eaten with plenty of fat, with roasts being inevitably covered by a glorious crown of their own magnificent fat. The most prized, luxurious cuts of meat were always the fattest.

Traditional Inuit were known to reserve the organ meats, fatty meats, and fat for themselves, while throwing the really lean meat to their dogs.

The most valued traditional foods included the fats of pastured animals, with lard, beef tallow, goose fat, duck fat, and chicken fat being heavily used for cooking in traditional Europe. The Native Americans used bear fat, bison fat, and the fat from other game. Lamb fat was prized in the Middle East, where breeds of lamb were raised that had huge tails composed almost completely of fat, which was used in all kinds of cooking. Lard was the most important fat in China, used for cooking almost everything.

I am convinced that cooking traditions reflect the collective experience of the people who have them, representing thousands of years of trial and error, passed down from parent to child, from teacher to student. The wisdom of these traditions was proved by Dr. Weston A. Price, who discovered that traditional peoples eating their traditional diets were completely free of the chronic diseases that afflicted modern peoples, remaining healthy and vigorous into extreme old age. Every one of the peoples studied by Dr. Price only ate meat with plenty of fat.

An example of this wisdom is pemmican, a staple preserved food of the Native Americans who lived on the Great Plains of the United States. Pemmican consisted of dried bison meat, dried cherries, and a great deal of bison fat. The Native Americans knew that the fat was absolutely necessary for the pemmican to sustain life.

Most of the nutrients in grassfed meat are in the fat, not the meat itself. Very lean grassfed beef, that has no visible marbling, will have fewer nutrients than grassfed meat that is nicely marbled. A roast that has all the fat cover trimmed off will have fewer nutrients than a roast cooked with a cover of its own natural fat.

I have found that the fattier the grassfed meat, the more tender and tasty and satisfying it is. You can make lean grassfed meat tender and delicious, with the proper technique and marinades. But the grassfed meat that has the little flecks of fat in the meat will be more tender, and more tasty, and more satisfying. The grassfed roast cooked with a cap of its own magnificent fat will always come out much better that the totally trimmed roast. Our ancestors knew this, and it is a delicious and healthy tradition to follow!

http://tinyurl.com/5sdyobm

[Stoneharbor]

I know I like the taste of fat. I've never sat down and been able to sample grass-fed next to feed-lot. Maybe one fat tastes better than the other. I wouldn't be surprised.

Its interesting that the article mentions that "traditional favorites were pastured animals", as opposed to game. From my other readings, I've learned that all animals have an omega-6mega-3 ratio that is somewhat determined by at least two variables: 1) the more grain they eat, the lower the concentration of omega-3 (raising the n-6:n-3 ratio); 2) the more physically active or athletic they are, within a species, the lower the concentration of omega-6 (lowering the n-6:n-3 ratio). All animals will have more omega-6 than omega-3. Humans average about 6.5:1 for muscle tissue. Elk are at 2.1:1 and bison at over 3:1. However, very athletic humans can approach the ratio of these wild animals. It has been determined that its due to the added efficiency at providing oxygen at the cellular level that athletes have. Omega-6 needs to be in the cell walls to pull the oxygen in from the blood, as one of its many cellular functions.

What I take from all this is, that if you are sedentary, you might be able to use all the omega-6 you get from hearty portions of grain finished animals, because you need more, but you also might need some omega-3 supplements! And conversely, whether you are sedentary or very active, you may be just fine eating grass-feed pastured animals that tend to have the same omega-6 content as grain-fed, but definitely have more omega-3 content. Wow, this is already so complicated I can't logically approach it.

My fallback plan is always to just claim that if you eat a balanced diet of only healthy foods, you don't need to worry one whit about omega-6 or omega-3. Our ancestors never did. Just don't eat processed foods that contain already oxidized vegetable oils! Even though some people count these as "omega-6" oils because that is how they started, their adulterated form by the time they get to you is so dangerous that they are really poisons. If you run from "rancid", then run from "processed". Neither can function in the human body except to a negative end.

I'm coming up short trying to find my reference for the point that athletes have less omega-6 content in their cells. I'll post it when I find it. Its interesting.

[mellowsong]

I've been eating 99% grass fed meat for over 3 years now. Rarely I have to buy something to supplement what I get from my local farmer. It amazes me to see the difference especially in chickens. The free range chickens leave very little fat in the pan when roasted and very little liquid. The weight is meat, not fat and water. The meat is firm. When they run low on chicken, I buy organic chickens. The difference is amazing. There is so much fat and liquid in the pan. Even more than that though is the difference in the meat itself. The meat from free range chickens is firm. The meat from even organic but grain raised chickens is mushy and crumbles. The taste is different too.

[Islander]

One thing that persists in bothering me about this issue is the absence of fat on pastured animals. It's absolutely true that fat is what gives meat its flavor, and prime (vs. choice) cuts of beef are those that are well-marbled. When I worked in the Chicago office, my boss gave me a box of Omaha steaks every Christmas and they were to die for: an inch thick, tender and well marbled. But when I got back East, and we began raising our own meat, I got an education. I found that wild meat, particularly deer, is very lean, and so are exclusively pastured beef and lamb. Typically they were "finished" for a month or two on grain (back then it wasn't GM), and when we got out of raising beef, we depended on our next-door neighbor, who finished his on cull potatoes. There is a tipping point, on lamb at least, between enough fat to make the meat tasty and too much fat, which wastes money and would have to be trimmed from the carcass. I learned to live-grade 100-pound lambs prior to being sent to slaughter and adjust their feed accordingly.

After 30 years the sheep are gone and I can no longer afford native pastured lamb. I do buy ground beef from a farm that raises pastured beef; the ground beef is 99% fat-free. No waste but not much flavor either. Not that it matters, since I usually prepare it in a sauce of some kind or a glazed meatloaf; just observing that it's really fat-free. So I have to wonder about these folks who talk about the fat cap on a grass-fed roast. (I can't afford a roast anyway, but I wonder whether my local farmer has a coating of fat like that on his roasts).

[mellowsong]

The grass fed beef I get is very lean. In fact, I add coconut oil to the ground beef when browning. I've gotten roasts a time or 2 and those have a very thin layer of fat on part of the roast and it's actually more of a membrane with a little fat on the membrane...not much. You do have to cook grass fed meat a little differently. Cooking on lower temps definitely results in more tender meat With beef, best to cook no more than medium. Turkey should be done at very low heat (200F) for 24 hours or so depending on size. For ground beef, adding sauteed onions or some veggies like carrots will keep it moister. Anyway, my thoughts are that this person may be talking about grain finished meat and not 100% grass fed. I don't know this for sure, but based on research and what I see from the local farmer, I just don't think this article is referring to 100% grass fed.

[Islander]

The picture that came with the article (click on the source) shows a big fat cap. I've never seen anything like that on pastured beef. And cookbooks will advise barding wild game to supply the missing fat. I've read (in history books, not health books) that prospectors died from living on rabbit and hare, which have too little fat to sustain human life indefinitely. We need animal fat!

[Maurya]

That's why they called it "rabbit starvation"; and low fat meat definitely was not considered a desirable form of subsistence.

[Stoneharbor]

When they run low on chicken, I buy organic chickens. The difference is amazing. There is so much fat and liquid in the pan. Even more than that though is the difference in the meat itself. The meat from free range chickens is firm. The meat from even organic but grain raised chickens is mushy and crumbles. The taste is different too.

Wow, I've enjoyed all the input. I haven't been around so many people that have such varied experiences with meat, ever! I appreciate hearing about all your experiences. Its gotten me to wondering if there is also a taste difference between animals raised on different diets, that yet have the same level of activity, say all free-range except finished on different grain/feed mixes. The following article is a study of chickens fed different feeds. What I find interesting is that the polyunsaturated component of the total fat, regardless of feed, ranges only from about 25% to as high as 45%. And of that, the omega-6 doesn't change much in absolute amounts, however, depending on the feed used, the omega-3 can be anywhere from only 2% of total fat to over 26% of total fat, and the n-6:n-3 ratio as a result goes from 7:1 to, amazingly, 1:1.65. I'm thinking, certainly the percent of different types of fats must also effect the taste? Organic or not, free range or not?

http://ps.fass.org/cgi/reprint/83/7/1155.pdf

Anyway, the last thing I want to do is morph this discussion into one about polyunsaturated fats, but I would like to see it continue along the lines of what is the taste difference, or texture difference, that results from different life styles as well as foods that the animals have. All I really want to say here is, that regardless of what I said in my first post that seemed to be only interested in omega 6:3 ratio, the heaviest component of chicken fat is actually mono-unsaturated, followed by saturated fat.

Anyone have any idea which of these fats tastes better? I've always assumed that its the fat in meat that gives it the taste. The article does say that there is about a 6% loss of all types of fats due to cooking. It does say that, even though polyunsaturated fats tend to oxidize the fastest, that there is little damage to them with normal cooking methods (don't worry about high-heat/low-heat, just don't burn them to a crisp on the barbie). However, the poor scientists stopped right there and either never tasted, or didn't say what the meats resulting from this highly varied mixes of nutrients tasted like. Drats.

So I'm asking you that know how to use appropriate technology, do you have any experience with what feeds produce the best taste?

[Islander]

Stone, the first thing I did was to look at your link, but I didn't pursue it. The study is predicated on the old assumption that saturated fat contributes to heart disease, and IMO that invalidated the entire study.

About beef, I don't think I can be much help. As a young woman I used to love the taste of beef fat (this was long before GM, when cattle were finished on field corn) but eschewed it because everybody knew that eating fat made you fat. When I started farming on a large scale I just honestly don't remember the taste of the meat and fat, whether finished on corn or potatoes. Apart from ground beef, I stopped eating beef over 10 years ago and as I said earlier, the grass-fed ground beef I get is so low in fat as to have almost no flavor.

There is certainly a difference in taste and texture of commercial vs. my free-range chickens and there's no question that the fat tastes better, though what is meant by "better" is hard to define. I always make broth from the carcass of a bird; I strain it, reduce it, chill it and freeze it in pint containers, saving every molecule of fat I can. Commercial turkey broth is a disappointment compared to my own chicken broth. Friends rave about my chicken soup; the fat content is better than any MSG. Other friends make broth from store-bought chicken, chill it and then remove the fat before proceeding. They may be wise, because that fat probably contains all the toxins the bird was ever exposed to. Remember, not being allowed lard or bacon fat, Jewish women have been cooking with chicken fat (schmaltz) for thousands of years.

I'm sorry, I haven't been much help in answering your question. I've only confirmed the assumption that home-grown is best.

I will add that deer meat, lean as it is, tastes better, richer, than any beef. Same with moose. In both cases, the liver is food for the gods.

[Stoneharbor]

Islander, you've been more helpful than you postulated! I'll explain.

Stone, the first thing I did was to look at your link, but I didn't pursue it. The study is predicated on the old assumption that saturated fat contributes to heart disease, and IMO that invalidated the entire study.

Islander, you might want to look at the study. The object of the study not withstanding, the statistics are an eye opener. I never even noticed what they were trying to prove. All I saw was that they used different feeds and got amazingly different percentages of fat. That, together with the other things I've read but am still looking for again, tells me in hard numbers that chicken, for example, can range all over the place in its fat content regarding weighting between saturated and omega 9,6,3. Omega 6 and 3 are usually the minor players in this drama. For example, if you want to emphasize saturated fats in your meat, it tells you want to do. I can't imagine how it could be misleading for these purposes. Please explain, if you read the article and see how they've distorted the stats.

... Jewish women have been cooking with chicken fat (schmaltz) for thousands of years.

I'm sorry, I haven't been much help in answering your question. I've only confirmed the assumption that home-grown is best.

I will add that deer meat, lean as it is, tastes better, richer, than any beef. Same with moose. In both cases, the liver is food for the gods.

The best cabbage soup I have had in my life was a Jewish recipe -- chicken stock. I happened to be on a commercial organic carrot farm pulling carrots and sharing potluck when I tasted it, so I'm sure it had grand vegetable ingredients as well.

Here's how you've helped me. From what I contributed before, and from what you've said, I looked at what I had said about omega mixes, and I think that one comes up with an overall slightly lower omega-6 but a way higher omega-3 content in wild animals' muscle than in any range-fed or lot-fed animals. Grain (and also mature grasses containing seeds) are higher in omega-6, and therefore lower in omega-3 than, say, leaves, which deer and elk browse on. So my hypothesis is that the muscle tastes better (whether you see fat in it or it is just part of the lean-meat cell structure) if it is from wild meat and its because of the higher omega-3. Just a hypothesis. I might mention though that adipose tissue has a way higher omega-6/omega-3 ratio: 22:1 in humans. Probably similar in other species. So what we are probably tasting there when we eat the visible fat of animals, is the taste of omega-6. Well, unless omega-6 is tasteless and then it is saturated fat. Back to the investigation....

Anyway, thanks!

[Reesacat]

Deer meat is very lean-it makes it a challenge to cook and have it tender and moist.
My friends who hunt share deer meat with me-I usually throw it in crock pot with a couple of cups of a good red organic wine, 6-8 cloves garlic, Worcestershire sauce (3-4 tablespoons) and cover the top with sliced onions. That gives it enough moisture to braise on low for 12 hours or so. If I do use ground deer meat it is in chili or meatloaf and I add either bacon fat or olive oil because it is so lean. I really enjoy it-I am like Islander I prefer it to beef.

[mellowsong]

Deer meat is very lean-it makes it a challenge to cook and have it tender and moist.
My friends who hunt share deer meat with me-I usually throw it in crock pot with a couple of cups of a good red organic wine, 6-8 cloves garlic, Worcestershire sauce (3-4 tablespoons) and cover the top with sliced onions. That gives it enough moisture to braise on low for 12 hours or so. If I do use ground deer meat it is in chili or meatloaf and I add either bacon fat or olive oil because it is so lean. I really enjoy it-I am like Islander I prefer it to beef.

My one experience with deer was 50 years ago. I remember it tasted awful but the biggest thing I remember is asking my dad what it was and he told us we were eating Bambi. I have since found out the awful taste was probably because my mother didn't have a clue how to cook it. I would love to try venison now but have no local source. I've also been told that deer from more northerly areas tastes a whole lot better than southern deer because up north they eat mostly leaves and down south they eat pine. Anyone know if there is truth in that?

[Islander]

Mellow, I know that deer really enjoy my broccoli, swiss chard, carrot tops and onion tops. Wish I could "catch" them at it. Deer are basically browsers though; they will eat grass but also leaves, tender tips of twigs, apples...and cedar, including my ornamental arborvitae, which is definitely piney!

When wild meat tastes bad it is usually because it was not properly bled. An animal must bleed out while the heart is still pumping; this is why slaughterhouses stun the animal, then cut its throat. Blood will go "off," or spoil, first, and if any is left in the carcass it will taint the meat. That's what people call "gamey," and it shouldn't have to happen.

A saddle of deer meat can be roasted but you must bard it with strips of bacon to supply the fat it needs.

[Islander]

Grain (and also mature grasses containing seeds) are higher in omega-6, and therefore lower in omega-3 than, say, leaves, which deer and elk browse on.

Animals, wild or domesticated, do not want and will not eat "mature grasses containing seeds." What they want is the young nutritious grasses. If you cannot get to your hayfields in time (owing usually to excessive rain and wet ground), and the grass has gone to seed, well you have to mow but the hay will be poor quality. There's little nutrition in the leaves now; it's all gone into the seed, which shatters and drops away. When still standing in the pasture, cattle will avoid it and look for lush young grass or clover. Just FYI.

[mellowsong]

Thanks Islander. If I ever get some venison, I will definitely come to you and Reesacat for good advice