Cattle Are Losing Muscle!!!

[MikeC]

According to research by Dr. Duane Wulf (SDSU) slaughter calves are getting worse, not better in the past few years. He goes on to explain that we are losing muscle in beef cattle at an alarming rate.

He says Yield grade 1's & 2's have gone from 57.5% in 2000 to 52.7% last year. Waste fat and less muscle is the culprit.

Sires that qualify (by each breed EPD) for increased muscling due to Ribeye Area:

Hereford-less than 1%
Angus-3%
Simmental-9%
Gelbvieh-2%
Charolais-28%
Limousin-38%

We're not getting better folks, we're going backwards.

Ribeye Area needs to utilized in bull selection! You cannot do this by visual appraisal. Tell your bull supplier that you want a yearling Ribeye Area or you will go elsewhere.

http://beef-mag.com/mag/beef_gone_flabby/

 

[farmer rich]

Sires that qualify (by each breed EPD) for increased muscling due to Ribeye Area:

Hereford-less than 1%
Angus-3%
Simmental-9%
Gelbvieh-2%
Charolais-28%
Limousin-38%

Does this mean the number of bulls which would increase REA over the breed average or carcase national average?

 

[MikeC]

Sires that qualify (by each breed EPD) for increased muscling due to Ribeye Area:

Hereford-less than 1%
Angus-3%
Simmental-9%
Gelbvieh-2%
Charolais-28%
Limousin-38%

Does this mean the number of bulls which would increase REA over the breed average or carcase national average?

% of Bulls that would increase ribeye areas above the "national average" typical of (13.1) sq. in., according to USDA figures

 

[farmer rich]

Sorry Mike I was being lazy and have now read the link.

The table of data you were refering to appears to show the EPD
value required by each named breed to produce a REA of 15.3 square inches and the % of animals in each breed capable of doing so.
It is not surprising therefore that angus and hereford score so low as there breed average REA's are significantly lower than most continental breeds.
Breed average in Angus and Hereford is only 12.3 so it is a bit unfair to present the findings without further explaination.

If identical data had been collected say 5 or 10 years ago a trend could probably be established.

It is interesting to see in the second table how increased carcase yeild offsets the lower % of carcases grading choice when it comes to sale value.

 

[Brandonm2]

The late Jay Nixon pointed this out in one of of his C.T. columns. Sire breeds come to America full of muscle and then we made them into heifer breeds. Most breeding programs (at all levels) of this business are focused on producing heifers which will become an easy keeping cow that breeds back every year OR in the case of some purebreeders a showy feminine heifer who will win heifer contests. We cull most intensively on fertility, then weaning wt, then birth weight. By taking the Charolais, Simmental, Limousin, Gelbvieh and turning them from meat wagons into mama breeds we lost the chance to produce really high yielding carcasses. IN theory, the ideal commercial beef farm goes to a seedstock supplier and buys bred feminine moderate framed British females then goes to another seedstock supplier and buys the thickest, heaviest muscled, largest framed bull he thinks he can breed those 2 YO cows back to and he sells ALL of the calves. But few people (including me) do that. They/we want to keep back their/our own heifers so they want to buy a bull who will sire feminine, efficient, moderate framed daughers and which they can use on 24 month old heifers. Those of us who can remember the early 1980s can remember Red Limousin and Red Gelbvieh and Charolais cattle that were red meat wagons. Go compare a big red old style Fleckvieh Simmental bull to the black Angus clone cattle they are selling as Simmentals today. Of course we can also remember calling those bulls (rightfully so) "cowkillers". We lost a lot of muscle chasing the big frame racehorse look of the 80s, lost more muscle in the drive for "moderate, efficient, easy keeping" cows in the 90s, lost more muscle trying to improve calving ease, and now we are chasing a Choice quality grade at all costs. I also think there is less crossbreeding today and straight Angus is coming more and more en vogue. As long as everybody is keeping back heifers and heifers that will make cows on grass, I expect REAs to continue to be more or less ignored.

 

[farmer rich]

I guess the answer Brandonm2 is to import fresh blood.
Whynot come over here to the UK. The stockyard of the world?
:)
We can supply what you want.

Meat.[/img]

 

[MikeC]

Brandon I agree with you on how we got here but we can get ourselves past this by using REA in a buying decision.

It was interesting reading the Appeals court decision in Pickett vs. Tyson Foods. Tyson's attorney elaborated that high yielding cattle is what they are looking for in cattle. NOT PARTICULARLY QUALITY!

I firmly agree that low maintenance mama cows have played a big part in the yield demise of U. S. cattle. But with the price of land skyrocketing we can almost drylot cattle as cheap as we can pasture them.

Again, the whole problem has to be fixed by the seedstock producers. Demand RIBEYE AREA data.

 

[MikeC]

If identical data had been collected say 5 or 10 years ago a trend could probably be established.

Identical data was/is collected on a periodic basis. The trend is established. We have a Beef Quality Audit performed every 5 years.

 

[ollie]

According to research by Dr. Duane Wulf (SDSU) slaughter calves are getting worse, not better in the past few years.

Are you sure Mike? Even with epd's???Go figure. (sarcasm)

 

[Jake]

there also is the fact that steers are being butchered earlier in life with less finish and feed because of the high market prices and the high demand.

 

[MikeC]

there also is the fact that steers are being butchered earlier in life with less finish and feed because of the high market prices and the high demand.

I agree Jake. The fact that picking them a little "green" might add to the fact that ribeyes are smaller. But it also looks like those younger calves would have less fat, making them yield higher. :?:

 

[Jake]

there also is the fact that steers are being butchered earlier in life with less finish and feed because of the high market prices and the high demand.

I agree Jake. The fact that picking them a little "green" might add to the fact that ribeyes are smaller. But it also looks like those younger calves would have less fat, making them yield higher. :?:

not necessarily. With the trying to push them they are getting the desired finish on them with the switches in feed in recent years. So less muscle and a higher ratio of fat to muscle. Leading to the higher quality grades and lower yield grades.

 

[J. T.]

A little off topic I guess, but Jay Nixon was eat up with plain common sense. You may not have liked everything he wrote, but he was sensible. I wonder if Cattle Today has an archive of his articles?

 

[dun]

Even though people squack about the smaller ribeye on some breeds, they still have to "fit the box". I don;t recall the exact figures but it's something like a T-bone of 1 lb and 1 inch thick is the optimum for retail markets.

dun

 

[MikeC]

Even though people squack about the smaller ribeye on some breeds, they still have to "fit the box". I don;t recall the exact figures but it's something like a T-bone of 1 lb and 1 inch thick is the optimum for retail markets.

dun

dun, I don't know how to gently say this...................
but here goes...................The "fit the box" argument is nothing but a load of crap. The discounts in beef only come when the carcass gets over 950 lbs. That's a huge carcass!Packers want high yielding cattle. Especially Tyson and Excel.

A 15 to 16 sq.in. ribeye is optimum.

I apologize up front for the frankness, but it's true.

 

[dun]

Even though people squack about the smaller ribeye on some breeds, they still have to "fit the box". I don;t recall the exact figures but it's something like a T-bone of 1 lb and 1 inch thick is the optimum for retail markets.

dun

dun, I don't know how to gently say this...................
but here goes...................The "fit the box" argument is nothing but a load of crap. The discounts in beef only come when the carcass gets over 950 lbs. That's a huge carcass!Packers want high yielding cattle. Especially Tyson and Excel.

A 15 to 16 sq.in. ribeye is optimum.

I apologize up front for the frankness, but it's true.

That's one opinion, but the packer isn;t the one we have to satisfy, it's the consumer that is eating our product.

dun

 

[MikeC]

Even though people squack about the smaller ribeye on some breeds, they still have to "fit the box". I don;t recall the exact figures but it's something like a T-bone of 1 lb and 1 inch thick is the optimum for retail markets.

dun

dun, I don't know how to gently say this...................
but here goes...................The "fit the box" argument is nothing but a load of crap. The discounts in beef only come when the carcass gets over 950 lbs. That's a huge carcass!Packers want high yielding cattle. Especially Tyson and Excel.

A 15 to 16 sq.in. ribeye is optimum.

I apologize up front for the frankness, but it's true.

That's one opinion, but the packer isn;t the one we have to satisfy, it's the consumer that is eating our product.
dun

I understand your point to a degree, but the packers are directly paying us for our cattle, not the customer. They are in the beef selling business and should know what it takes to satisfy the customer.

 

[Brandonm2]

I am not losing any sleep over whether Tyson or Excell are happy or not; if they don't like this business they can sell out and be replaced by a competent corp. I rarely get a 15" or 16" REA on a plate. I am a 300++ pound man and an 8 ounce or 11 ounce ribeye (usually 1"-1.5" thick) is what I order at the restaraunt and that probably ain't off a 950 pound carcass). Granted I don't eat many/any $20++ meals. I know the 17" REA loins go somewhere up the ladder to somebody; but if there is a great demand for that kind of product I don't know who is buying it.

 

[MikeC]

Brandon and dun, The whole point in getting a larger ribeye is because ribeye area is equated to a higher-yielding animal with less fat.

Not just because it has a large ribeye or T-Bone to put on the table!

Ribeye area directly correlates to more lean muscle tissue.

That's why we should use ribeye area in our bull selection criteria.

 

[Wewild]

I rarely get a 15" or 16" REA on a plate. I am a 300++ pound man and an 8 ounce or 11 ounce ribeye (usually 1"-1.5" thick) is what I order at the restaraunt and that probably ain't off a 950 pound carcass). Granted I don't eat many/any $20++ meals. I know the 17" REA loins go somewhere up the ladder to somebody; but if there is a great demand for that kind of product I don't know who is buying it.

I buy them about that size (15" or 16" REA) 1 inch thick and they weigh about a pound. Wife and I share one.

I don't buy steaks out.