Beef/Steak Review

Help Support CattleToday:

MikeC

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
7,636
Reaction score
3
Location
Alabama
Raising the Steaks
If you feed cows grass, does the beef taste better?
By Mark Schatzker
Posted Wednesday, Nov. 1, 2006, at 2:37 PM ET
Can you tell how good a steak is going to taste by looking at it? The government thinks you can. That's why, when a USDA meat grader assesses the quality of a beef carcass, he or she makes an incision between the 12th and 13th rib, takes a good look at how much marbling there is, and assigns the meat a grade, from the highest, Prime, to Choice and Select and all the way down to Canner. That's why a well-marbled steak, one that is abundantly flecked with little specks and streaks of white fat, costs a lot more than a steak that's all red muscle.

But is marbling all there is to a good steak? Doesn't, say, a cow's diet have something to do with the way a steak tastes? And can someone please explain why that gargantuan USDA Prime strip loin I ate in Las Vegas last year had about as much flavor as a cup of tap water? I decided to find out for myself. My mission: to taste steaks from cattle raised in very different ways and see how they stack up.

To understand good steak, it helps to know a thing or two about how it gets on your plate. These days, most calves are born on ranches, suckled by their mothers, and then sent out to pasture. When they reach 6 months, they're sent to a feedlot where they're "finished" on grain, usually corn. Grain isn't a cow's natural diet, but it's the feed of choice for two reasons: It makes cattle gain weight quickly, and it results in well-marbled beef.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But according to the ranchers and food scientists I spoke to, there's a lot more to a good rib-eye than intramuscular fat. A few other factors to consider:

Breed. Angus is currently the most popular among North American ranchers. This is partly due to economics—Angus cattle mature quickly and put on weight well—but also because Angus beef is reliably marbled and tender. Not all well-marbled steaks come from Angus cows, however. Grain-feeding techniques have become so effective that even dairy cattle (such as Holsteins) can achieve a grade of Prime. (According to Cattle-Fax, a cattle-marketing information service, 17 percent of American beef comes from dairy cattle.) Does a Prime steak from a dairy cow taste as good as a Prime steak from an Angus cow? Every rancher, meat packer, and butcher I spoke to told me an Angus steak would taste better. But good luck telling the two apart at the supermarket.

Feed. Just as soil affects the quality of wine, a cow's diet can change the quality of its flesh. Some North American cattle are finished on wheat or barley rather than corn. Is there a difference? One rancher told me that barley makes for flavorful beef and warned that wheat can make beef tough. Another rancher said, "Corn is the worst. It results in the greatest lack of flavor in beef." And what about grass-fed beef? Raising a cow on grass alone is ecologically friendly. But does it taste any good?

Hormones. Almost all feedlot cows are injected with growth hormones to help them gain muscle mass; critics charge that doing so merely causes cows to retain water and produces bland meat.

Aging. Steak from a freshly slaughtered cow is stringy and tough. For this reason, beef is aged, a process that tenderizes it and enriches the flavor. Traditionally, beef was hung in a cold room, where natural enzymes would break down the muscle fibers. Dry aging, as it's known, isn't cheap. The beef loses weight to evaporation, and the moldy crust that develops on the exterior has to be lopped off, which makes the remaining beef more expensive. In the 1970s, industrial meat processors opted for wet aging—sealing entire cuts of beef in cellophane—because it's cheaper. But most beef connoisseurs agree that dry-aged beef tastes better.

Before you walk into your neighborhood butcher and say, "Three rib-eye Angus steaks, please, pastured in the Rocky Mountain foothills, finished on barley, but with a hint of oats, and dry-aged for 28—no, make that 29—days," keep in mind that as a consumer, such choice does not exist. That said, if you scour specialty butcher shops or Google "steak," you'll discover other options, including naturally raised, grain-fed, and grass-fed beef. Which leaves carnivores with the question: Which steak tastes the best?

Methodology:
We sampled rib-eye steaks from the best suppliers I could find. The meat was judged on flavor, juiciness, and tenderness and then assigned an overall preference. The tasting was blind, except for me. (Someone had to keep track of things.) Cooking method: Each steak was sprinkled with kosher salt, then sent to a very hot gas-fired grill, flipped once, and, when just verging on medium-rare, was removed and rested under foil for five minutes.

The Results:
From worst (which, in all fairness, was still a decent steak) to first:

USDA Prime Beef, Wet Aged
Price: $32.50 per pound
Aging: Wet
Purveyor: Allen Brothers (http://www.allenbrothers.com)
What it is: The best beef the industrial system has to offer. Only 2 percent of steak receives the lofty grade of Prime.
The knock against it: Feedlots are often nasty places, infamous for their cramped conditions, unnatural diets, contaminated groundwater, and clouds of fecal dust. These steaks may have come from one of the more humane operations. Unfortunately, it's simply not possible to know.
Breed: Impossible to say, though Allen Brothers' suppliers guarantee that their steaks are from high-quality beef breeds, the majority of which are Angus.
Hormones? Likely.
Raw impressions: Of all the competitors, these USDA Prime steaks looked the best raw. They had a pleasing shape, no unappetizing thick veins of fat, and abundant marbling. One taster's note: "Now those look like the kind of steaks I'd spend money on."
Tasting notes: This steak was juicy and so tender you could have practically cut it with a Q-tip. The only problem? Flavor—there wasn't much. Comment: "Not something that would have impressed me had I bought it at the supermarket."

USDA Prime Beef, Dry Aged
Price: $35 per pound
Aging: Dry
Purveyor: Allen Brothers (http://www.allenbrothers.com)
Raw impressions: Visually, it was impossible to distinguish the dry-aged from the wet-aged rib-eyes.
Tasting notes: This steak had more flavor than its wet-aged sibling. Tasters described it as "woody" and "smoky," although the texture reminded one taster of liver. Despite all the time it spent hanging in a cold room losing moisture, it seemed juicier than the wet-aged steak.

Wagyu Beef
Price: $40 per pound
Aging: Dry
Purveyor: Strube Ranch Gourmet Meats (Wagyu beef from a different supplier can be purchased online here: http://www.morganranchinc.com/store/index.shtml)
What it is: The Japanese have a thing for incredibly marbled beef, which is known as Kobe beef. According to legend, they feed cows a secret ancient recipe that includes beer and keep their muscles tender by massaging them with sake. This beef was raised on American soil, so it can't technically be called Kobe. But the breed—called Wagyu—is the one that the Japanese use, and the method of raising them is comparably particular. At about 9 months of age, Wagyu cattle are sent to a small, Kobe-style feedlot, where they spend more than a year eating a diet that includes some corn, but a lot of roughage as well. After that, they're sent to a finishing lot where they eat an all-natural but top-secret diet.
The knock against it: The price. Also, there are Wagyu-beef enthusiasts who say cooking it like a regular steak will lead to disappointment and an acute sense of having been ripped off. As the "foie gras" of beef, they maintain, it's better suited to searing or being served raw in, say, a miso-ginger-sesame-sake dressing.
Hormones? None.
Raw impressions: On looks alone, this steak faired the worst. The fat appeared pallid, and the meat possessed a gamey smell that had some tasters wondering if it had gone off.
Tasting notes: When cooked, though, what started out as a peculiar aroma mellowed into a distinctive taste that everyone enjoyed, although to varying degrees. (One person said: "I like it in the same way I like blue cheese.") The consensus: "Gamey, strong flavor. I like it."

Naturally Raised Grain-Fed Beef
Price: $26.70 per pound
Aging: Dry
Purveyor: Niman Ranch (http://www.nimanranch.com)
What it is: As with industrial beef, these cattle are finished on grain at a feedlot, which makes for well-marbled steak that is consistently tender. But Niman Ranch claims to raise cattle "with dignity." Feed is sourced locally. The feedlot is less crowded and features shaded areas and sprinklers where cattle can cool off. Niman Ranch cattle are finished on a blend of grain—including barley, corn, soy beans, and distiller's dry grain—along with plenty of roughage, which makes the grain easier on bovine stomachs. Also, Niman Ranch waits an extra year before sending cattle to the feedlot on the theory that steaks from an older cow, though slightly less tender, will taste better.
The knock against it: It's pricey.
Breeds: Angus, Hereford, and Short Horn
Hormones? None
Raw impressions: Niman Ranch doesn't sell its beef based on a USDA grade because Bill Niman doesn't believe in the direct correlation between marbling and eating quality. That said, these steaks were the most marbled of the bunch.
Tasting notes: Gustatory joy. Everyone loved this steak, declaring it juicy, tender, and, most importantly, bursting with flavor. Comments were roundly flattering, proclaiming it to be "full bodied" with "a good steaky taste," "mouth-filling and rich—holy cow!"

And the winner is…

Grass-Fed Beef
Price: $21.50 per pound
Aging: Dry
Purveyor: Alderspring Ranch (http://www.alderspring.com)
What it is: Beef from cows that have never ingested anything other than mother's milk and pasture, which is just as Mother Nature intended. Like great wine and cheese, grass-fed beef possesses different qualities depending on where it's grown and what time of year it's harvested. The grass-fed steaks for this experiment came from a ranch in Idaho where cattle graze on orchard grass, alfalfa, clover, and smooth brome (a type of grass) in the summer and chopped hay in the winter. Also: Some studies have shown that grass-fed beef is lower in saturated fat and higher in omega-3 fatty acids, making it healthier than regular beef.
The knock against it: Consistency, or lack thereof. One grass-fed rancher I spoke to refused to send me any steak for this article because, he said, it sometimes tastes like salmon. Restaurants and supermarkets don't like grass-fed beef because like all slow food, grass-fed beef producers can't guarantee consistency—it won't look and taste exactly the same every time you buy it. Grass-fed beef also has a reputation for being tough.
Hormones? None
Breeds: Alderspring cattle are 90 percent Black and Red Angus, with some Hereford and Short Horn, Salers, and Simmental bred in. ("Red Angus cattle finish particularly well on grass," according to Glenn Elzinga, who runs Alderspring Ranch.)
Raw impressions: Not good. It had the least marbling, and what little fat it had possessed a yellowy tinge.
Tasting notes: Never have I witnessed a piece of meat so move grown men (and women). Every taster but one instantly proclaimed the grass-fed steak the winner, commending it for its "beautiful," "fabu," and "extra juicy" flavor that "bursts out on every bite." The lone holdout, who preferred the Niman Ranch steak, agreed that this steak tasted the best, but found it a tad chewy. That said, another taster wrote, "I'm willing to give up some tenderness for this kind of flavor."

The Verdict:
Marbling, schmarbling. The steak with the least intramuscular fat tasted the best—and was also the cheapest. That said, the steak with the most marbling came in a not–too-distant second. Do the two share anything in common? Interestingly, neither was finished on straight corn or treated with hormones. Both steaks also hail from ranches that pride themselves on their humane treatment of bovines. That made for an unexpected warm and fuzzy feeling as we loosened our belts, sat back, and embarked on several hours of wine-aided digestion.
 
The lady of the Alderspring ranch has an incredibly well
put-together web site. It includes a terrific list of
resources for people interested in getting started in
producing grass finished beef....(they need to add some
Murray Grey genetics to their herd base--and obviously
do a great job at finishing their beef). :D
 
MikeC- VERY interesting and thought-provoking article. Thanks for posting it.

The "interesting" part is self evident. The "thought-provoking" phrase perhaps requires some edification, or analysis. I was impressed by the reaction of the "jury" when injesting the corn-fed beef, but very surprised by the same jury's reaction to the grass-fed steaks! Even though we all are well-acquainted with steak and the various cuts thereof, I would venture to say that none of us or the public really knows how, why, or what a really good steak should taste or look like, and certainly not what kind of soil it has spent its live life treading!

Inasmuch as the grass-fed beef was the least expensive to buy (and by the same token more profitable to market), it seems to me that a breed or composite animal, or strain of species, which can produce a highly desirable product for the least financial and labor-invested outlay would certainly be top on the list of selection criteria for a producer or 'finisher' of marketable beef!

Considering that the $Profit margin per head raised (or finished) affects the producers livelyhood and bank account balance at the end of the year, perhaps the many various "traits and characteristics" which, supposedly, are imperative for the production of a marketable product are not as necessary for the "BREEDING HERD" as has been propounded by some aspects of the Beef Cattle Busniess. I have heard it said that some people consider that many of the characteristics and traits being encompassed by EPD's are excessive and unnecessary, and that it is getting out of hand! What do you all think about that concept? Are we getting EPD's that are not necessary for the ultimate purpose for which they are being proposed?

Any breeder who is concerned with the sometimes wide disparity between the IMF and RE figures knows that they are antagonistic traits, and much time and effort and thought is given in attempting to make the figures "look" balanced and desirable. Is that a waste of time? Should we be so concerned with a low IMF EPD that it automatically eliminates that animal from our consideration? Do we need to re-adjust our criteria in Seedstock selection? Change our templates? Consider a different pattern with our Herd Bulls?

Are we riding a runaway train in Breed selection protocols? Are we functioning in our BU$INE$$ out of habit? Because it is easier than really thinking about a NEW idea? Given the relatively new concept of using corn and other grain in the production of Ethenol, what is going to happen to the VALUE of grain, and consequently the price of corn on the retail market? Can the Beef producer continue to accept the "Corn-Fed" protocol of marketing his product in the face of higher and higher production costs when grass-fed beef is tastier and more economical to produce than corn-fed? Will the everyday general public continue to buy expensive cuts of meat at the Super Market that don't taste any better than when it was less expensive? Will THAT lower the consumption of BEEF? Will that hurt YOUR income?

Can you think of a way of cutting overhead costs and producing the Beef product with less labor than the conventional way that has been in vogue for years and years?

Concerned reader's want to know!

Let's hear some ideas.

DOC HARRIS
 
"These days, most calves are born on ranches, suckled by their mothers, and then sent out to pasture. When they reach 6 months, they're sent to a feedlot."

Is this really how everyone does it?
When's the last time you sent a 6 month old calf to a feedlot?
B.
 
Good post Doc---heavy thinking to be done in this area by
anyone looking to change.

In 1995 when we saw that the price of our animals at the
sale barn had no relationship to the price of beef in the
store, we decided to finish out our animals and sell beef
direct....it was a decision with significant management
differences.

It takes more land to raise from birth to butcher; and
especially if you are raising your own replacements also.
Bull pasture, cow/calf, replacement heifers, replacement
bulls, steers......then add in rotational grazing and you can
keep your trailer hitched to the truck(unless you are so lucky
as to have all your land together).

I suppose a more simple system would be to just focus
on producing 800-900 lb animals that you would sell to
a "finishing" company like Tallgrass. But to do that and
get their premiums, you have to have the right genetics....
they ultrasound before buying the animals.

I really do recommend Caryl's website listing of "producer
resources":
http://www.alderspring.com/producer%20r ... npage.html
 
"One rancher told me that barley makes for flavorful beef and warned that wheat can make beef tough.

One??

Another rancher said....

Really....another one?

"Grain-feeding techniques have become so effective that even dairy cattle (such as Holsteins) can achieve a grade of Prime. (According to Cattle-Fax, a cattle-marketing information service, 17 percent of American beef comes from dairy cattle.)"

really???...and how much of this holstein beef was prime?

All smoke and mirrors.

Another piece of journalistic shite

Well researched.....not.
Got the info off the internet....most likely.

As a Brahman feedlotter, I really haven't got a dog in this fight, but as a credible journalistic piece, it stinks.
B.
All IMHO of course.
 
brianna":uswc532y said:
"One rancher told me that barley makes for flavorful beef and warned that wheat can make beef tough.

One??

Another rancher said....

Really....another one?

"Grain-feeding techniques have become so effective that even dairy cattle (such as Holsteins) can achieve a grade of Prime. (According to Cattle-Fax, a cattle-marketing information service, 17 percent of American beef comes from dairy cattle.)"

really???...and how much of this holstein beef was prime?

All smoke and mirrors.

Another piece of journalistic shite

Well researched.....not.
Got the info off the internet....most likely.

As a Brahman feedlotter, I really haven't got a dog in this fight, but as a credible journalistic piece, it stinks.
B.
All IMHO of course.

Turning Holsteins Into Humdingers

By Clint Peck Senior Editor

May 1, 2005 12:00 PM

That sea of Holstein calves in California's Imperial Valley is destined to be what's for dinner. With nearly a half-million head of Holsteins on feed at any one time, the region (including Arizona's Salt River Valley) has become an intriguing and integral sector of the nation's beef supply system.

"Please, don't make the mistake of calling them dairy calves," warns Patrick Hutchinson, a Brawley, CA, cattle production consultant. "The cattle that come out of these feedlots produce some of the best table beef you'll find anywhere in the world."

Within a short hop of Hutchinson's backyard lie seven cooperatively connected feeding operations that produce the lion's share of the region's fed calves. And, it's a bit ironic that a region that claims to be the 1940s birthplace of large-scale commercial cattle feeding has fine-tuned the science of feeding, processing and merchandising of Holstein beef.

Hutchinson says the advantages of raising beef in the Imperial Valley are the same as in the 1940s — a mild climate with an adequate supply of land and water, and proximity to a large, growing consumer base.

And, with California being the nation's largest dairy state, there's a consistent supply of baby steer calves. California alone places 600,000 Holstein steers in feedlots annually. There are about 4 million Holstein steers born in the U.S. each year.
Misunderstood and maligned

Despite accounting for 10% of the nation's calf crop, Holsteins as beef cattle have been largely misunderstood, underrated and often maligned. The breed suffered an especially bad rap after BSE was discovered in a Holstein cow on a Washington state dairy farm in December 2003. That image is perpetuated by the infamous video showing a Holstein cow stumbling around an auction ring in England — a video that's widely used by television media to depict an animal with "mad cow disease."

But beyond BSE, Holsteins have long suffered from perceptions of producing poor-quality beef, says Kenneth Burdine, Extension associate, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky. He's recently completed a detailed study looking at the economics of converting Holsteins to table beef.

The Holstein beef market is seen by many industry insiders and outsiders primarily as a ground-beef market similar to that of cull cows, Burdine says. This perception may stem from the fact many plants slaughtering Holstein steers also slaughter cull cows.

"However, in those cases, the meat is separated and sold in different market channels," Burdine explains.

Also, he says processors have relied a great deal on Holstein trimmings to upgrade trimmings from cull cows — a practice occurring less frequently as value is added to cuts that previously were destined for trimmings.

Adding to the bias is that Holstein steers traditionally were backgrounded to weights of 800-1,000 lbs. before going on full feed. The result was extremely heavy carcasses and cuts that didn't fit industry standards.

"Cuts of meat from these carcasses were simply too large for many retail and foodservice markets," Burdine says.

For example, in order to keep portion size at industry-standard levels, steaks had to be sliced extremely thin, which created preparation and presentation difficulties.
On an energy accelerator

Innovations in feeding management are changing the quality perceptions associated with beef from Holstein steers. What's evolved is what Burdine calls the West Coast "calf-fed model."

At Meloland Cattle Co., located just south of El Centro, CA, Bill Brandenberg — like other Imperial Valley feeders — seems to have the calf-fed model down to a science. The focus is to eliminate the backgrounding stage completely.

When Brandenberg receives 275-lb. Holstein steer calves into his feedyard, the objective for the next 330 days is gain, not growth.

"The last thing we want them to do is frame-up," Brandenberg says. "We want them to be on a high-energy finishing ration throughout the feeding period."

Using this concept, Brandenberg manages his calves to yield a 740-lb. carcass — with up to 70% of them grading Choice.

"Actually, we can feed for more Choice than that, if we want," he says. "But, realistically, from both management and marketing standpoints, 55% to 70% Choice is adequate."

He grants that, in general, Holstein carcasses are less muscular with a lower muscle-to-bone ratio with smaller ribeye areas. They also tend to have slightly different muscle shapes. Long-term USDA data though, show Holstein carcasses yield only 4.6% less boneless sub-primal meat compared with their "native" counterparts.
The beauty in Holsteins

The beauty in feeding Holsteins is the breed's tight genetic pool, which leads to better consistency in feedlot performance and end-product characteristics, says Paul Cameron, Mesquite Cattle Co, Brawley, CA.

Like Brandenberg, from the time he receives his calves from the region's "calf raisers," Cameron is able to manage his calves for a relatively predictable outcome — more so, he says, than with native or crossbred calves.

"But while Holsteins may be predictable to a point, it all begins with a healthy, day-old calf; a top-notch calf-raiser and sound feeding practices," he says. "Genetically flawed calves or a marginal animal from a calf-raiser can be a recipe for disaster."

Feeding regimes vary somewhat among the Imperial Valley cattlemen, but most utilize an implant program. A common ingredient in gain management is the use of Encore® (estradiaol) "controlled release" growth implants. This product provides a dose of estradiol for up to 400 days.

The Imperial Valley feeders routinely supplement with vitamin E to help enhance retail product shelf life. They also feed Optaflexx® (ractopamine chloride) — an increasingly important part of increasing red meat yields.

Both Cameron and Brandenberg say they get about a double-their-money payback by using Optaflexx.

The biggest variable in feeding Holsteins is economics, they say, particularly the price of corn.

"We're very dependent on Midwest corn," Brandenberg says. "Because we have to own these cattle so far out in time, we get nervous whenever it looks like the price of corn might increase." Like what's happening with today's increased fuel and transportation costs.

Burdine agrees the Holstein calf-fed model is very sensitive to traditional market factors like corn prices.

"The nature of the business is that calf-feds are on feed for a longer period of time and more corn is needed to finish them," he says, "This tends to amplify the effects of changes in the markets."

Brawley-area beef producers have all the ingredients to be long-run and significant players in the nation's beef business, Hutchinson concludes.

"Other cattlemen from around the country, along with a whole lot of industry observers, are starting to take these guys and what they're doing very seriously," Burdine says. "Holsteins, like it or not, are only going to become more integral to high-quality beef production in this country."

_
 
Another rancher said, "Corn is the worst. It results in the greatest lack of flavor in beef."

"We're very dependent on Midwest corn,"

[/b]

So which report are you going with Mike?
My problem was with the writer of the first report you posted.
Maybe they should all be required to report their allegencies first.
Declare who pays their wages?
B.
 
So which report are you going with Mike?

I don't have to go with, or agree with either.

The first article was put up here to show how the general public, or a journalist, perceives beef and the eating qualities of.

The second article was just to show you that holsteins can and do make quality beef.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Just provoking some thought here.

Take it for what it's worth, or not worth.

I'm still reading your post Doc, and giving it serious thought.
 
Point taken Mike. The first report shouldn't have to grace anyone's dinner table.
The second report made interesting reading. 70%, made choice....could be more? Astonishing.
B.
Haha sorry....misread the second report.
 
I've never heard that Holsteins didn't grade. I just read that they aren't efficient feeders. It takes longer get a Choice steak out of them. They will spend more time on feed and cost more than beef breeds. But if the feeder pays less for them at the beginning, it may all come out equal.
 
brianna":1kv2q7ti said:
"One rancher told me that barley makes for flavorful beef and warned that wheat can make beef tough.

One??

Another rancher said....

Really....another one?

"Grain-feeding techniques have become so effective that even dairy cattle (such as Holsteins) can achieve a grade of Prime. (According to Cattle-Fax, a cattle-marketing information service, 17 percent of American beef comes from dairy cattle.)"

really???...and how much of this holstein beef was prime?





















All smoke and mirrors.

Another piece of journalistic shite

Well researched.....not.
Got the info off the internet....most likely.

As a Brahman feedlotter, I really haven't got a dog in this fight, but as a credible journalistic piece, it stinks.
B.
All IMHO of course.


Holsteins are well known for marbling easily as do most dairy breeds.
 
Thank You all for a very interesting post.When in dairy we finished Holstien and Jersey and anything we could pick up cheap. Minerals, corn silage and hay. Most took 24 to 28 months to finish. A few Choice,but most finished select.

That was then, Now we are all natural grass finished. Then, I needed a full line of expensive farm equiptment. Now we have only equiptment to handle round bales. I cut and rake and hire the baling done as it is cheaper than owning the equiptment.
We use all high tensile fence and rotational graze. Yes, it does take more land ,but owning the land is more profitable then owning equiptment. The equiptment only depreciates and currently land is appreciating at 12 to 15 percent a year. That is better than the bank pays and above market average.

Besides that I am retired :D
 
Shorthornguy":ls07tmi0 said:
Thank You all for a very interesting post.When in dairy we finished Holstien and Jersey and anything we could pick up cheap. Minerals, corn silage and hay. Most took 24 to 28 months to finish. A few Choice,but most finished select.

That was then, Now we are all natural grass finished. Then, I needed a full line of expensive farm equiptment. Now we have only equiptment to handle round bales. I cut and rake and hire the baling done as it is cheaper than owning the equiptment.
We use all high tensile fence and rotational graze. Yes, it does take more land ,but owning the land is more profitable then owning equiptment. The equiptment only depreciates and currently land is appreciating at 12 to 15 percent a year. That is better than the bank pays and above market average.

Besides that I am retired :D

Here is an example of a producer who is REALLY using his head for his benefit, as well as that of others. With a profit margin as narrow as it is in ALL types of businesses, Agriculture is the bottom rung on the ladder to whom the 'buck' can be passed.

Shorthornguy - as you said, it would be nice to have a Machine Shed full of brand new equipment, but most of us could not afford the depreciation! Besides that - it is easier to keep track of the dates for harvesting than maintenance on equipment! Easier labor, too!

I understand the "Retirement" aspect, also. There are days when I look around, take a deep breath and say, "Gee, I can hardly believe this!" Might be because I have been a good boy ALL of my life! :roll: :lol2: :lol2: :???:

DOC HARRIS
 
OK Jeanne":2yea5twi said:
Good post Doc---heavy thinking to be done in this area by
anyone looking to change.

In 1995 when we saw that the price of our animals at the
sale barn had no relationship to the price of beef in the
store, we decided to finish out our animals and sell beef
direct....it was a decision with significant management
differences.

It takes more land to raise from birth to butcher; and
especially if you are raising your own replacements also.
Bull pasture, cow/calf, replacement heifers, replacement
bulls, steers......then add in rotational grazing and you can
keep your trailer hitched to the truck(unless you are so lucky
as to have all your land together).

I suppose a more simple system would be to just focus
on producing 800-900 lb animals that you would sell to
a "finishing" company like Tallgrass. But to do that and
get their premiums, you have to have the right genetics....
they ultrasound before buying the animals.

I really do recommend Caryl's website listing of "producer
resources":
http://www.alderspring.com/producer%20r ... npage.html

Does anyone network so that the producer is guarenteed the number and quality of F1 replacement heifers for their operation, and by matching the damline females to an appropriate terminal sire, can produce the end product without a complicated on farm crossbreeding program?
 
Thanks Doc, reminds me of a sign I saw many years ago "If
Your'e so damn smart, how come your'e not rich". Asked myself that one a few times. I no longer work 39 hours a day. I cut back to 6 to 8 hours and my best piece of equiptment is a 21'Pontoon Boat. :lol:
 
andybob":1ar0venq said:
Does anyone network so that the producer is guarenteed the number and quality of F1 replacement heifers for their operation, and by matching the damline females to an appropriate terminal sire, can produce the end product without a complicated on farm crossbreeding program?

Heartland Cattle in Nebraska has programs to help a producer get the genetics they want.

http://heartlandcattle.com/
 
brianna":3gdl8zss said:
"These days, most calves are born on ranches, suckled by their mothers, and then sent out to pasture. When they reach 6 months, they're sent to a feedlot."

Is this really how everyone does it?
When's the last time you sent a 6 month old calf to a feedlot?
B.

one industry leader in feeding out calves told me this is more often the smart way to do it if land or resources are an issue; that the feeders will more than likely be able to feed your calves cheaper than you can on your farm unless you have plenty of pasture.

he is not a feedlot owner, he is a seedstock and commercial producer who owns part of a huge packing company and knows the business inside and out.
 

Latest posts

Top