Dry age then wet age update

Thanks RP!

B.I.N.G.O!!!Winner,winner! Makes a LOTTA sense.

You could very well be right, Darian, but I'm just the suspicious type I guess as I still can't buy into what dry aging for 28 and then wet aging really does benefit wise. Guess I'll stay confused while I enjoy my 45 day aged steaks in my ignorant bliss! :laugh:

BTW have fun in Plano this weekend!

That might actually be questioned by the health department. Dry aging is allowed because it lowers the moisture level to the point where bacteria will not grow, it does not die but becomes inactive. By introducing water back into the meat it will reactivate the bacteria.

The question is whether the liquid is not water and will alter the PH enough to still prevent bacterial growth.

I had a conversation with a gentleman last night at my ACF meeting about this very restaurant and it is on the Health Department's radar. It will be Interesting to see if the restaurant will give up their recipe to prove the PH change and prove the practice is safe.

if temps are ok, the bacteria won't grow anyway.

there's no reason to worry about repacking the dry aged, as long as the temps are ok.

according to the logic of the moisture reactivating the bacteria (implying that the bacteria then can multiply), wet aging in orginal cryo would still allow bacteria to 'grow' or multiply too, and would be dangerous. but it isn't. because the temps are low enough to keep them at bay.

there are anaerobic bacteria that can exist in cryo, and cryo is wet. the bacteria are being dealt with another way.... by the low temperature.

the idea is as hostile an environment as possible. attack on all fronts.

i thought maybe michelle had a point that their logic for sealing the dry aged meat was to allow the moiture remiaing in the meat to equalize and moisturize the exterior a bit more than it would be if it remained in open air. but apparently they cut the rind off.

to me, cutting the rind off dry aged meat is idiocy, because underneath that rind is nothing more than wet aged beef. it's a little denser, but frankly i think it is a display of ignorance. it's someone saying they 'want' something, but not understanding what they want or why it is good.

my old analogy is the person who buys a rare antique and then polishes it to high heaven. they are informed only enough to convince themselves they can appreciate it, and have the wherewithal to buy it, but they display their ignorance by totally undoing the very thing that makes it valuable.

to each his own.

but i find it more a way to sell people something that sounds rare and fantastic and expensive (ooooh "dry aged beef!") when they really don't want that. most people want bright red beef, but will gladly feel important when they pay high prices for it.

you can make decent money upselling stuff to people with no sense whatsoever.

(stepping off soap box now)

dry or wet, the enzymes don't really care. the beef will decompose (that's what we're doing here, folks) whether dry or wet.

what does that do? it breaks down the muscle proteins, making it more tender, and the process creates other flavors as well as a by product.

what DRY aging additionally does is condense the meat. this is INDEPENDENT of the aging. wet aging, the meat stays the same weight. dry aging, you lose water (which is flavorless) and therefore weight. therefore, a pound of dry aged has more beef in it (less water) than a pound of wet aged. but the flavors are the same. the dry aged, has more flavor per pound though.

their is some oxidation to the surface, too, which turns it brown.

you wouldn't need to add any water in their process, to soften the "rind". the rind IS drier than the interior. water is moving from the interior to the exterior where it evaporates. the exterior is drier because of the constant exposure to air.

but if you were to immediately seal it, the water in the interior would equalize, the dry exterior might soften a bit as water moves from the higher concentration in the middle to the low-moisture exterior.

but that's not their rationale. this is what Little Chef was maybe saying, perhaps they are rehydrating the exterior. but these clowns are trimming it all off anyway.

sounds like "we're doing this because it sounds cool to the customer, who nevertheless only really wants a pretty red steak "

all i'm saying is that if someone cuts off the rind, to the point they are left with meat which was never exposed to the air, they have nothing on the plate but wet aged beef anyway.

THERE IS NO MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MIDDLE OF WET AGED BEEF AND THE MIDDLE OF DRY AGED BEEF.

-repeat-

THERE IS NO MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MIDDLE OF WET AGED BEEF AND THE MIDDLE OF DRY AGED BEEF.

-repeat-

THERE IS NO MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MIDDLE OF WET AGED BEEF AND THE MIDDLE OF DRY AGED BEEF.

the dry aged may have lost a LITTLE more water from the interior, but the bulk of the condensed (dry-aged) beef is located in the exterior.

i have seen pics here where someone aged beef for weeks, and then threw every bit of the dry aged stuff into the trash, leaving red glistening wet beef on the plate. that isn't personal preference. it's ignorance (meaning 'not aware", as opposed to the pejorative 'stupid'). because they didn't need to dry age it to achieve that. leave it in the package, and at the end of 45 days, you will have the same thing, and more of it.

i have no problem with someone not liking the outer drier portion of dry aged beef. i just think they don't understand that that means they don't like dry aged beef, they like wet-aged beef. once they trim it to death, they no longer have dry aged beef anway. hahaha

anyone who doesn't like the denser air-dried browner exterior is ok with me. no problem. i just think if they understood what was going on, they'd simply wet age their beef, and they'd have a far greater yield (they wouldn't be throwing anything away)

not trying to be an ass. i just get the feeling that the logic behind what dry and wet aged actually MEANS is not getting thru.

there is no reason to dry age if you are going to trim off the dry aged portion. just wet age it. otherwise you are wasting money and effort. with zero gain.

absolutely.

even though that's not what i was saying, and isn't hwat i do for a living.

but if you can do it, do it.

all value is perceived value.

no. just being very clear. i'm nothing if not clear.

we're not talking about the same thing.

i understand your point, and agree.

but if you trimmed that front steak before cooking, to the point where it lost a half inch all the way around, leaving a pristine piece in the middle, the only difference between that and wet aged would be that is was a little firmer. i said that, that the only difference is the slightly firmer texture due to water loss. but the lost weight of a dry aged steak is not uniform. the middle of a dry aged chunk of beef is closer to wet aged than the exterior is, because most of the drying is the first three quarters of an inch.

kinda getting tired of talking about dry aged beef, frankly. it's the same conversation overnover. plenty of people doing it now here. i say, time for me to shut up about it.

bacteria grows at a very slow rate at 34-36... when it's on a dry surface, it is in a more hostile environment.

my point was, because i am in agreement re: temps (just saying the lower the better), that is wet aging for 6 to 8 weeks is acceptable, why would dry aging followed by wet aging by unacceptable?

rehydrating bacteria (which is what you said would happen if dry-aged were re-wrapped) would mean that bacteria still wouldn't be as plentiful as that held right next to it in cryovac which had been hydrated all along.

there are bacteria which don't need air, and they would not have been slowed by the dry environment. and yet the beef is still safe.

alton brown, who trips over himself to explain the legal ramifications of merely mentioning food safety, acknowledges he goes 6 to 8 eeks sometimes in cryo.

temps are by far the principal concern. everything else helps control bacteria a bit more. but if you want to slow them, get them well under 40