A interesting study r/t tenderness
- Thread starter S.R.R.
- Start date
It will be a hard sell MikeC until a large amount of money is put into promotion. But.... I agree with you. Just look at what is happening in europe were people are a bit more health minded. The B Blue cattle are the fastest growing breed there.
S.R.R.":2pijnk3p said:
Part of the deal in Europe is the lack of grain producing abilitys that are available in North America. There are aslso the eating preferences in the two areas. We've become, on the most part, accustomed to marbled meat they are accustomed to leaner meat. Although the Brits that my wife works with far prefer our steaks to those in their homeland. But they've been here for a cnumber of years and have maybe just changed their preferences.
dun
![Pampers Sensitive Baby Wipes, Clinically Proven, Fragrance Free, Unscented, Water Based, Hypoallergenic, Multi-Use, Hand Wipes 336 Wipes Total (6X Flip-Top Packs) [Packaging May Vary]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41KLBHu9CAL._SL500_.jpg)
Susie David
Well-known member
Another good article...Susie still hasn't made up my mind about the direction of our beef...but keeping an open mind. The next season is planned to be angus/lim/hereford, have some marketing options in the works so things could become interesting...and I was so looking forward to retirement....DMc
paul swisher
Well-known member
Piedmontese are interesting but....
The Auburn report is 6 years old. What happened to Leachman's piedmontese crossbreeding program? Down the tubes. Piedmontese say "only 50% first cross will have the unique heritable traits" to me this inferrs 50% won't be double muscled. They futher say "a terminal sire breed" to me that means you have to buy all replacements. Average BW 84.9 lb, although not excessive is something that must be considered. I agree the future is in some cross but I don't see it in double muscle breeds. I also believe Tenderness will play a much more important part in the beef industry. We sold some Pinzgauers Bull/cows to a Texas organic beef company that guarentees Tender beef. They shear test every carcass ,get top dollar, and can't keep it in stock. We are trying a couple of different crosses. My initial thoughts are pinzgauer/charolais
but only time will tell.
The Auburn report is 6 years old. What happened to Leachman's piedmontese crossbreeding program? Down the tubes. Piedmontese say "only 50% first cross will have the unique heritable traits" to me this inferrs 50% won't be double muscled. They futher say "a terminal sire breed" to me that means you have to buy all replacements. Average BW 84.9 lb, although not excessive is something that must be considered. I agree the future is in some cross but I don't see it in double muscle breeds. I also believe Tenderness will play a much more important part in the beef industry. We sold some Pinzgauers Bull/cows to a Texas organic beef company that guarentees Tender beef. They shear test every carcass ,get top dollar, and can't keep it in stock. We are trying a couple of different crosses. My initial thoughts are pinzgauer/charolais
but only time will tell.
Paul, I have a neighbor who has been in the Pinz business for a few years. He bought a Romagnola bull to breed his Reg. Pinzgauer to. The calves are good and meaty but they are gonna be huge.
I don't think it was a cognizant effort to do what is being discussed here, but think that he just wants something "different".
Who knows? He may have fallen into a "gold mine" without realizing it.
I had been trying to get him to let me loan him a Char bull to breed those cows to but he wouldn't allow it. They weren't "different" enough. :?:
I don't think it was a cognizant effort to do what is being discussed here, but think that he just wants something "different".
Who knows? He may have fallen into a "gold mine" without realizing it.
I had been trying to get him to let me loan him a Char bull to breed those cows to but he wouldn't allow it. They weren't "different" enough. :?:
Doubling and tripling the muscle? Is this were we will get back into trimming cuts to fit the boxed beef tray. And I am not trying to reduce any muscling in the Angus cattle I have. Please justify why you said that and were you get your info. Look back at Bull like Sits Traveler 8180 and his lines. Or BCC Bushwacker. 2 of the many that are adding mucle. I realize we sale beef by the pound basis, but if it is not tasty we will not sell as much.
Scotty
Scotty
I gotta agree with Scotty. If it aint tasty we won't sell near as much The hog boys can tell you about that. They got them ternder and lean and the sales are going down, to the point that now they want to get them fatter and some marbling in them to add some flavor.Scotty":29phqd6e said:
la4angus":g5esh8ym said:
You got that right. I bought a family pack of price reduced Tyson pork chops Wednesday from Wal-Mart. No bone, no fat, and NO FLAVOR!!! I used to love pork chops and now we rarely eat them. Nobody here thought those tasted good grilled. We need to finish them off tonight and tomorrow and all I can think of is dumping them in milk, rolling them in bread crumbs, and frying them in a skillet with Habaniero peppers so that they will have some taste.
Annual USDA data points to declining muscularity as well. Yield grades of carcasses inspected by USDA graders have gotten worse, going from 57.5% YG 1-2 in 2000 to 52.7% last year. Since the last NBQA was performed, annual percentage of discount-heavy YG 4 carcasses increased from 2.0% to 5.1% last year. Keep in mind, most YG 4 carcasses go unreported because packers often choose not to yield grade them.
This reality speaks to a growing paradox. Growth potential is correlated to increased cutability because fat is deposited later in cattle with more growth. Thus, you have the rule of thumb that later maturing Continental breeds have more muscle than their earlier maturing English breed counterparts. With the improved genetics for pre-weaning and yearling growth seen in the most heavily used English breeds over the past decade, you would think that industry cutability should be increasing, but it's not.
“It's not that English breeds have more genetics for fat,” Wulf explains, “It's that they have fewer genetics for muscle.” He reckons the increased growth potential in these breeds is being expressed in increased frame size rather than increased muscle mass.
http://beef-mag.com/mag/beef_gone_flabby/
This reality speaks to a growing paradox. Growth potential is correlated to increased cutability because fat is deposited later in cattle with more growth. Thus, you have the rule of thumb that later maturing Continental breeds have more muscle than their earlier maturing English breed counterparts. With the improved genetics for pre-weaning and yearling growth seen in the most heavily used English breeds over the past decade, you would think that industry cutability should be increasing, but it's not.
“It's not that English breeds have more genetics for fat,” Wulf explains, “It's that they have fewer genetics for muscle.” He reckons the increased growth potential in these breeds is being expressed in increased frame size rather than increased muscle mass.
http://beef-mag.com/mag/beef_gone_flabby/
Well according to the real data in that article....
"Table 3. Economic effect of ribeye size Ribeye (+/- from USDA typical, sq. in.) Ribeye area (sq. in.) Cattle* Yield Grade 4 Choice Grade Standard Grade Grid value ($/cwt.)
+3 16.5 5% 0% 25% 15% $126
+2 15.0 9% 2% 34% 9% $126
+1 13.9 20% 4% 45% 6% $127
0-USDA-Typical 13.1 26% 7% 52% 5% $126
-1 12.4 25% 17% 56% 5% $125
-2 11.8 11% 32% 61% 3% $122
-3 11.2 3% 54% 62% 4% $118
*Percentage of 8,749 cattle in 2000 National Beef Quality Audit
Analysis Source: Duane Wulf, South Dakota State University "
There was NO economic reason to increase muscling in avg. cattle; because as REA went up quality grade plummeted . Avg carcasses with a 13.1 eye avged $126 a cwt just like the avg. 16.5 REA cattle. Part of this is because the carcasses grading choice dropped from 52% to a pathetic 25% and the carcasses grading standard tripled going from 5% to 15% as muscle increased. I do agree that we need to focus more on muscle; but there are severe quality defects which will increase if you single trait select for just REA. Beef is the premium eating experience of any of the muscle foods and while we should be figuring out how we can increase yield; we should not sacrifice the quality of our finished product in the process.
"Table 3. Economic effect of ribeye size Ribeye (+/- from USDA typical, sq. in.) Ribeye area (sq. in.) Cattle* Yield Grade 4 Choice Grade Standard Grade Grid value ($/cwt.)
+3 16.5 5% 0% 25% 15% $126
+2 15.0 9% 2% 34% 9% $126
+1 13.9 20% 4% 45% 6% $127
0-USDA-Typical 13.1 26% 7% 52% 5% $126
-1 12.4 25% 17% 56% 5% $125
-2 11.8 11% 32% 61% 3% $122
-3 11.2 3% 54% 62% 4% $118
*Percentage of 8,749 cattle in 2000 National Beef Quality Audit
Analysis Source: Duane Wulf, South Dakota State University "
There was NO economic reason to increase muscling in avg. cattle; because as REA went up quality grade plummeted . Avg carcasses with a 13.1 eye avged $126 a cwt just like the avg. 16.5 REA cattle. Part of this is because the carcasses grading choice dropped from 52% to a pathetic 25% and the carcasses grading standard tripled going from 5% to 15% as muscle increased. I do agree that we need to focus more on muscle; but there are severe quality defects which will increase if you single trait select for just REA. Beef is the premium eating experience of any of the muscle foods and while we should be figuring out how we can increase yield; we should not sacrifice the quality of our finished product in the process.
Even in this quality-driven market, with a small premium for YG 1s and 2s, cutability has a huge impact on carcass value. If the value of cutability increases in the future as many expect, muscle will become even more important, especially if the industry continues to lose muscle,” Wulf explains.
Indeed, using USDA-reported average grid prices for the end of November with the 2000 NBQA data, Wulf found carcasses with above-average cutability had more value on average than even the highest marbling ones.
At the time, with a Choice-Select spread of $6/cwt., carcasses with a larger ribeye than what is considered typical for the weight in the USDA YG equation returned $126-$127/cwt. carcass value, compared to $118-$125/cwt. for carcasses with smaller than typical ribeye size.
Indeed, using USDA-reported average grid prices for the end of November with the 2000 NBQA data, Wulf found carcasses with above-average cutability had more value on average than even the highest marbling ones.
At the time, with a Choice-Select spread of $6/cwt., carcasses with a larger ribeye than what is considered typical for the weight in the USDA YG equation returned $126-$127/cwt. carcass value, compared to $118-$125/cwt. for carcasses with smaller than typical ribeye size.
Read the numbers again...
16.5 eys averaged $126
15.0 eyes averaged $126
13.9 eyes averaged $127
USDA-Typical 13.1 averaged $126
12.4 eyes averaged $125
ONLY extremely lite muscled cattle saw a significant price difference
11.8 eyes avged $122
and 11.2 eyes avged $118
and one wonders how many of those real light muscled 11.2 inch eye cattle were dairy influenced which will always be with us.
Based on those figures it is hard to see how extremely heavy muscled cattle like double muscled cattle are going to pay. Sure Wulf predicts that SOMEDAY those cattle will be worth more (even though they do not grade Choice); but people were predicting all that 5, 10, even 15 years ago and we are still being paid premiums to produce Choice carcasses. I am not ready to recommend major changes in genetics based on someone's predictions.
16.5 eys averaged $126
15.0 eyes averaged $126
13.9 eyes averaged $127
USDA-Typical 13.1 averaged $126
12.4 eyes averaged $125
ONLY extremely lite muscled cattle saw a significant price difference
11.8 eyes avged $122
and 11.2 eyes avged $118
and one wonders how many of those real light muscled 11.2 inch eye cattle were dairy influenced which will always be with us.
Based on those figures it is hard to see how extremely heavy muscled cattle like double muscled cattle are going to pay. Sure Wulf predicts that SOMEDAY those cattle will be worth more (even though they do not grade Choice); but people were predicting all that 5, 10, even 15 years ago and we are still being paid premiums to produce Choice carcasses. I am not ready to recommend major changes in genetics based on someone's predictions.
Ya well USDA is also the one telling us lots of crap that isn't true. COOL and NAIS is going to be cheap and so on and it will work and not going to be a problem and so on. Beleive what you want. Stats. are just that, stats. Were they get there data is questionable at best.
Scotty
Scotty
