Bone-in Steaks

[NewFoodie]

I keep reading that steaks taste better when not deboned before cooking.  Some say this has something to do with the marrow in the bones, but I don't see how that could be, because I'm pretty sure that bone is impermeable, so the flavor of the marrow couldn't "bleed through" the bones into the meat.

 

So, what do you think?  Do steaks taste better when cooked bone-in?  And if so, why?  And is there a preferred to cook bone-in steaks (e.g., broiling, etc.)

[NewFoodie]

Oops, I meant to say "is there a preferred WAY to cook bone-in steaks?"

[Shalmanese]

Serious Eats debunks that the bone flavors the meat. Instead, the reason why bone in cuts are better is because the meat close to the bone is delicious, with all sorts of fat and connective tissue and other yummy bits. While I like cooking a roast bone-in, I find for steaks, it tends to be a pain in the ass since the steak shrinks when cooked but the bone stays the same height, making it difficult to get even browning. Also, the area closest to the bone on a T-bone or a pork chop cooks slower and ends up still raw. What I tend to do is to take the bone off and cook it separately, usually roasted in the oven.

[rotuts]

BTW  not all bones have marrow.

[paulraphael]

Bone-in cuts are also beneficial to braises, because they render marrow. But Serious Eats is right; bones don't magically leach flavor into the attached meat, because bones have no flavor.

[Toliver]

...I'm pretty sure that bone is impermeable, so the flavor of the marrow couldn't "bleed through" the bones into the meat.

This is incorrect. Bones are fibrous and porous. Most people think bones act as a heat sink when the opposite is true. Bones dissipate the heat. This is one reason why you shouldn't put a meat thermometer near a bone as it will likely give an incorrect reading. 

[takadi]

A test I have done about using bones to make wonderful stock.

 

I used a lot of bones I had collected. I scraped off as much meat, fat and tendon from the bones as possible and pressure cooked them.

 

A couple of hours later, taste tested the stock. It was just a little more flavorful than plain water.

 

dcarch

 

 

Were these raw bones or cooked bones? 

[dcarch]

Were these raw bones or cooked bones? 

 

100% raw.

 

dcarch

[ahpadt]

This is something I've always been curious about, as chefs bang the drum about it so often. I guess a reason for doing it could be that the bone holds onto heat quite well for resting and when being plated?

[pbear]

My theory long has been that the main reason so many folks find bone-in tastier is that bones slow them down, so they pay more attention to what they're eating.  Can't think of a reasonably valid way to test the theory, though.  Conversely, there are ways to focus on one's food besides cutting around bones.

[MSRadell]

Another possibility is that since the meat closer to the bone doesn't cook as fast and ends up being rarer than the rest of the meat. Thus people who normally have their meat cooked medium well or well get to enjoy meat cooked how it should be instead of shoe leather!

 

I do know you prefer meat cooked bone in, it may be just psychological but no matter why I certainly prefer it.

Edited September 3, 2014 by MSRadell (log)

[takadi]

100% raw.

 

dcarch

 

I always knew 100 percent bone stock resulted in a light tasting broth but it is disappointing to learn from your tests that bones are almost worthless flavor-wise, especially considering that I've hoarded quite a bit of grass-fed beef bones. 

[paulraphael]

This is incorrect. Bones are fibrous and porous. 

 

They are somewhat porous, although not enough that flavor from the marrow is going to bleed through the wall of bone and season the meat. 

 

Even if the meat were directly exposed to marrow while cooking, it won't absorb it. We know this from experiments in confit; meat cooked in flavorful fat doesn't get seasoned beyond the surface.

[rlibkind]

I love to suck on a rib steak bone when the steak has been nicely charred on the grill and finished with lots of garlic. I don't care what cooking science says!

Edited September 4, 2014 by rlibkind (log)

[huiray]

I always knew 100 percent bone stock resulted in a light tasting broth but it is disappointing to learn from your tests that bones are almost worthless flavor-wise, especially considering that I've hoarded quite a bit of grass-fed beef bones. 

 

Make seolleongtang.  Add some beef meat when you do plus cartilage.

http://forums.egullet.org/topic/147367-if-you-skim-fat-off-soup-is-there-any-fat-left-over-from-emulsion-eg-ramen/#entry1957928

Edited September 4, 2014 by huiray (log)

[paulraphael]

I love to suck on a rib steak bone when the steak has been nicely charred on the grill and finished with lots of garlic. I don't care what cooking science says!

 

Your bone's been flavored by the meat, not vice-versa! 

 

The science doesn't come from abstract theory; it comes from blind taste tests of meat cooked on the bone and off.

[mgaretz]

I've always found it slightly disturbing that restaurants will charge more for the bone-in cut, ostensibly because it weighs more. Like an 10 oz boneless ribeye for $18 and a 14 oz bone-in ribeye for $22. Most of the added weight is in the bone you don't eat. Of course they sell it by saying it's more flavorful!