the beginning, lower as the aging progressed) I found that the more protection you have, the better your final yield Why does exterior protection matter when aging meat? Because when you dry-age meat for any length of time that’s enough to make a difference, the exterior layers get completely desiccated and so must be trimmed away The less protected the “good” meat, the more of it you’ll have to throw in the trash Provided you start with a 109A or another cut with the fat cap intact, your yield will amount to basically the equivalent of a regular roast If you imagine your prime rib as a long cylinder, the only meat you’ll end up losing is at either end The fat cap and bones will completely protect the sides What Causes Flavor Changes During Dry-Aging? Q: So aged meat doesn’t really lose much moisture But wait a minute, haven’t I read that aged steaks can lose up to 30 percent of their weight in water? Isn’t that one of the reasons why aged steak is so expensive? Don’t believe everything you read That 30 percent figure is deceptive at best and an outright lie at worst Yes, it’s true that if you dry-age an untrimmed, bone-on, fat-cap-intact prime rib, you’ll end up losing about 30 percent of its total weight over the course of 21 to 30 days or so What “they” don’t tell you is that the weight is almost exclusively lost from the outer layers—that is, the portion of the meat that would be trimmed off anyway, regardless of whether it is aged or not Has it never struck you as just a little bit odd that the aged rib-eye steaks in the butcher’s display case aren’t 30 percent smaller than the fresh rib-eyes on the display? Or that aged bone-in steaks are not stretching and pulling away from their bones? (I mean, surely the bones aren’t shrinking as well, are they?) The fact is, with the exception of the cut faces that will need to be trimmed off, the edible portion of an aged prime rib is pretty much identical to that of a fresh prime rib Q: OK, let’s say I’m now convinced about that Does that mean that the whole idea that “the meat flavor is concentrated” in an aged steak because of dehydration is also false? I’m afraid so It’s a great idea in theory, but the facts don’t support it First, there’s simple visual inspection: a trimmed steak cut from an aged piece of beef is pretty much the same size as a trimmed steak cut from a fresh piece of beef Next, I measured the density of beef aged to various degrees against completely fresh meat To do this, I cut out chunks of meat of identical weights from the centers of rib eyes aged to various degrees, making sure to avoid any large swaths of fat I then submerged each chunk of meat in water and measured its displacement What I found was that meat aged for 21 days displaced about 4 percent less liquid than completely fresh meat—a slight increase, but not much Meat aged all the way up to 60 days displaced a total of percent less—showing that the vast majority of moisture loss occurs in the first three weeks What’s more, once the meat was cooked, these differences in density completely disappeared That is, the ...smaller than the fresh rib-eyes on the display? Or that aged bone-in steaks are not stretching and pulling away from their bones? (I mean, surely the bones aren’t shrinking as well, are they?) The fact... mean that the whole idea that ? ?the meat flavor is concentrated” in an aged steak because of dehydration is also false? I’m afraid so It’s a great idea in theory, but the facts don’t support it First, there’s simple visual inspection: a trimmed steak cut... aged all the way up to 60 days displaced a total of percent less—showing that the vast majority of moisture loss occurs in the first three weeks What’s more, once the meat was cooked, these differences