Showerthought: My whole view on aging beef changed after a side-by-side test last year.

I used to think 28 days was the sweet spot for dry aging, just like my old boss taught me. Then I got a chance to run a test with two identical rib sections from the same animal. One went for 28 days, the other for 45, both in the same cooler. The difference when I broke them down was crazy. The 45-day one had that deep, nutty funk and was so much more tender, but I lost almost 30% more to the crust. The 28-day was still good, but it just tasted... younger, for lack of a better word. It made me realize I was playing it safe for years to save on trim loss, but the flavor payoff is worth it for the right customer. Who else has messed with longer aging times and how do you price it to cover the loss?

3 comments

3 Comments

parkermorgan2mo ago

My old 28-day rule got wrecked after tasting a 45-day side-by-side.

dakota_murphy902mo ago

Read an article a while back about some steakhouses going 60 days or more, calling it "bone-in butter." Makes you wonder where the limit is, right? Like, at what point does it just taste like blue cheese and you're paying for air? That extra trim loss on the 45-day must hurt, but I guess if people keep buying it, the math works out.

cora1772mo ago

Oh man, I feel this so hard. I was the exact same way, totally stuck on that 28 day rule like it was gospel. My own little test ended with me eating my words, and a lot of really good steak. The extra trim loss is a real kick in the wallet though. I just add a flat fee per steak now, and honestly the people who want that funky flavor never seem to mind paying for it.