Double Muscling and Tenderness
- Thread starter MikeC
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
Susie David
Well-known member
Seems like a trade off...more yield, less quality.
I'll stay with the baldies...
I'll stay with the baldies...
When I was at Auburn we obtained a Charolais double muscled heifer from a feedlot (that was before John Morrell shut down). She looked like a linebacker on steroids. Presumably she was homozygous for the Double muscled gene. The faculty wanted to breed her; but on palpation her reproductive tract was shown to be completely infantile (though she was ~2 years old) so we butchered her. Excellent carcass. YG 1, .15 Backfat, and low choice (although she had been fed out TWICE). I don't remember the REA but it was WAAAYYYY big).
You may want to check out these sites for further information about DM and the MARC center has done studies as well:
hhttp://www.pauscattle.org
http://www.piedmontese-napa.com/
hhttp://www.pauscattle.org
http://www.piedmontese-napa.com/
MikeC":38u4l9sg said:
Of course it says less quality. Your article says:
"Measures of fatness were significantly lower in the DM carcasses, including external and internal fat depots."
Internal fat includes marbling. More marbling equals higher USDA quality grade. This article seems to stress yield grade, but quality grade is equally as important and it seems to ignore that. Tenderness has very little to do with quality or yield grades. I don't know of any packing grid that rewards tenderness.
MikeC
Well-known member
Frankie":28q7t0ao said:
Yes it says less quality "grade" but NOT less quality. Tenderness is the number one factor in a good beef eating experience. Way more important than marbling. A tender "Standard" steak beats a tough "Prime" one everyday.
I would take these double muscled animals any day for the higher yield grades, equal tenderness, and less waste fat. Grid or no grid.
"Thus, it appears possible to produce acceptably tender beef without excess fat and that these types of cattle may have merit in breeding systems designed to genetically reduce carcass fat."
Mike, we get PAID to produce USDA Choice steaks not necessarily tender steaks. Whether or not a select or utility carcass is tender or not, it is still inferior meat and you are going to typically get paid less for it. I actually think USDA messed up when they expanded the Choice grade to include the Low Choice carcasses.
MikeC":1fkeh0y4 said:
All the studies that I've seen show most consumers prefer marbled beef. Choice beef sells for more money than Select beef. The difference in Choice and Select is marbling. If I remember right, one in four Select steaks is likely to be tough, only one in six Choice steaks will be tough. CAB research shows even fewer tough steaks in the Mid-Choice (CAB) grade. I don't know if anyone ever found a tough Prime steak. I know the research shows only about a 10% correlation between marbling and tenderness, but there is research showing higher quality steaks are less likely to be tough than less marbled beef. I prefer marbled beef and I'll continue to raise bulls that I think will produce those higher quality (marbled) steaks. The Angus Assn and the Limousin Assn both have research that shows there's practically no link between marbling and backfat. We can produce cattle that marble and yield, maybe not the extremes of both, but cattle that will fit both the quality and yield grids.
Jeanne - Simme Valley
Well-known member
PLUS - double muscled cattle are a "no roll" - they are a reject - cannot be graded - LOTS less money value if you sell.
MikeC
Well-known member
Here in the U.S. we have a flawed system of grading beef for the general public. As you can see from this study the tenderness test is 4 to 10 times more apt to provide a better eating experience for consumers. If beef is going to compete with chicken and pork the beef grading system needs to be changed:
The Tenderness Classification System was developed by USDA researchers at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center (MARC) in Clay Center, Nebraska (Shackelford et al., 1997a). The shear force of cooked meat has long been used by researchers in the laboratory to assess meat tenderness. The Tenderness Classification System uses this shear force technology, but in an accelerated manner which therefore makes it adaptable to on-line use in a packing plant. In this system, a one-inch-thick rib steak is removed from each carcass and trimmed of all fat and bone. This steak is then cooked on a belt grill, which cooks both sides simultaneously, for a period of 7 minutes. Following cooking, a 0.4 inch by 2.0 inch slice is removed from the steak and the force required to shear this slice is measured on an electronic testing machine. The entire process, from cutting the steak to shearing the steak can be accomplished in 10 minutes. This system could be utilized at chain speeds of 400 head per hour (Goering, 1999). The Tenderness Classification System has been shown to explain 46 to 56% of the variation in aged beef tenderness (Shackelford et al., 1997b).
The Colorimeter System was first tested at Colorado State University (Wulf et al., 1997) and later at The Ohio State University (Wulf et al., 1998). Research to integrate color measurements to predict tenderness along with cutability prediction in a single VIA instrument is currently ongoing at Colorado State University (Goering, 1999). The Colorimeter System, as defined by the Ohio State research uses three factors to predict eating quality: marbling, hump height, and colorimeter readings. Hump height is a measure of the neck hump on beef carcasses and can be used to sort out those tenderness problems associated with Bos indicus (eared breeds) genetics. If those carcasses with humps of greater than 3.5 inches are excluded, eating quality can be improved. Colorimeter readings are very simple to measure. It requires only 3 seconds to obtain a colorimeter reading on the surface of the rib eye muscle. The one critical factor that must be taken into account is bloom time, because bloom time will dramatically affect muscle color. Carcasses with a darker shade of muscle color (not necessarily dark cutters) have been shown to have less tender beef than carcasses with a brighter muscle color. In the Ohio State research, marbling explained 12% of the variation in eating quality, hump height explained 8% of the variation in eating quality, and colorimeter readings explained 24% of the variation in eating quality. Putting these three factors together in a single grading system explained 39% of the variation in eating quality (Wulf et al., 1998).
Table 4 shows a comparison of systems at predicting eating quality. The Tenderness Classification System is the most accurate system and will probably always be the most accurate system because it is a direct measure of tenderness, whereas the other systems are indirect measures of tenderness and/or eating quality. However, the Tenderness Classification System is an evasive system (it uses one steak from each carcass) and is also quite expensive to operate in its present form. The other two system are not evasive and are both relatively simple to operate. Therefore, one must weigh accuracy versus expense when deciding which system to use.
Table 4. Accuracy of various methods at predicting eating quality within the
young beef (fed steers and heifers) population.
Method for prediction of eating quality:
USDA quality grades .05 to .15
Tenderness Classification (Shackelford et al., 1997b, 1999) .46 to .61
Colorimeter System (Wulf et al, 1998) .36 to .42
As the beef industry moves towards a more consumer-oriented approach to decision making, beef producers must increase product quality and consistency. Currently, however, it is very difficult for beef producers to improve product eating quality because a rapid, accurate method of measuring palatability is not being used. How can we improve quality when we can't measure it? The beef industry cannot hit a target that it can't see. These new systems reviewed here may or may not be implemented into the USDA grading system. However, at a minimum, they hold much potential for a branded beef program to differentiate its products. And if used, these systems would allow a more true value assessment of beef.
The Tenderness Classification System was developed by USDA researchers at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center (MARC) in Clay Center, Nebraska (Shackelford et al., 1997a). The shear force of cooked meat has long been used by researchers in the laboratory to assess meat tenderness. The Tenderness Classification System uses this shear force technology, but in an accelerated manner which therefore makes it adaptable to on-line use in a packing plant. In this system, a one-inch-thick rib steak is removed from each carcass and trimmed of all fat and bone. This steak is then cooked on a belt grill, which cooks both sides simultaneously, for a period of 7 minutes. Following cooking, a 0.4 inch by 2.0 inch slice is removed from the steak and the force required to shear this slice is measured on an electronic testing machine. The entire process, from cutting the steak to shearing the steak can be accomplished in 10 minutes. This system could be utilized at chain speeds of 400 head per hour (Goering, 1999). The Tenderness Classification System has been shown to explain 46 to 56% of the variation in aged beef tenderness (Shackelford et al., 1997b).
The Colorimeter System was first tested at Colorado State University (Wulf et al., 1997) and later at The Ohio State University (Wulf et al., 1998). Research to integrate color measurements to predict tenderness along with cutability prediction in a single VIA instrument is currently ongoing at Colorado State University (Goering, 1999). The Colorimeter System, as defined by the Ohio State research uses three factors to predict eating quality: marbling, hump height, and colorimeter readings. Hump height is a measure of the neck hump on beef carcasses and can be used to sort out those tenderness problems associated with Bos indicus (eared breeds) genetics. If those carcasses with humps of greater than 3.5 inches are excluded, eating quality can be improved. Colorimeter readings are very simple to measure. It requires only 3 seconds to obtain a colorimeter reading on the surface of the rib eye muscle. The one critical factor that must be taken into account is bloom time, because bloom time will dramatically affect muscle color. Carcasses with a darker shade of muscle color (not necessarily dark cutters) have been shown to have less tender beef than carcasses with a brighter muscle color. In the Ohio State research, marbling explained 12% of the variation in eating quality, hump height explained 8% of the variation in eating quality, and colorimeter readings explained 24% of the variation in eating quality. Putting these three factors together in a single grading system explained 39% of the variation in eating quality (Wulf et al., 1998).
Table 4 shows a comparison of systems at predicting eating quality. The Tenderness Classification System is the most accurate system and will probably always be the most accurate system because it is a direct measure of tenderness, whereas the other systems are indirect measures of tenderness and/or eating quality. However, the Tenderness Classification System is an evasive system (it uses one steak from each carcass) and is also quite expensive to operate in its present form. The other two system are not evasive and are both relatively simple to operate. Therefore, one must weigh accuracy versus expense when deciding which system to use.
Table 4. Accuracy of various methods at predicting eating quality within the
young beef (fed steers and heifers) population.
Method for prediction of eating quality:
USDA quality grades .05 to .15
Tenderness Classification (Shackelford et al., 1997b, 1999) .46 to .61
Colorimeter System (Wulf et al, 1998) .36 to .42
As the beef industry moves towards a more consumer-oriented approach to decision making, beef producers must increase product quality and consistency. Currently, however, it is very difficult for beef producers to improve product eating quality because a rapid, accurate method of measuring palatability is not being used. How can we improve quality when we can't measure it? The beef industry cannot hit a target that it can't see. These new systems reviewed here may or may not be implemented into the USDA grading system. However, at a minimum, they hold much potential for a branded beef program to differentiate its products. And if used, these systems would allow a more true value assessment of beef.
Nolan Ryan Branded Beef uses three different methods to guarantee tenderness of their beef. It's expensive and time consuming. I've never eaten it, but a couple of people who have told me the texture of the beef is not good. Then we have Montana Range beef, based on Piedmontese beef that's lean and tender.
There was a big flap when the USDA changed the grading system last time. The Angus Assn was very much against that change which, basically, lowered the marbling requirement in the meat, so they started CAB. That was about the time beef consumption started dropping off. I don't know if the two things are related or not, but I do know that, in general, consumers prefer marbled beef.
The packers were the driving force behind that change in the grading system. With the influx of Continental cattle, they weren't getting enough marbled beef to meet their contracts. The USDA lowered the standards and made the packers happy.
There's no reason an individual or group can't start a branded beef program based on tenderness, but I can't imagine that the packers are going to ask for a change in the current system. They've got too much money tied up in their packing plants and employee training.
Your article ignores the fact that higher quality beef is generally more tender than lower quality beef. By using bulls with adequate marbling, one would expect to produce more tender beef than using bulls without marbling. It's not true we don't have a "target." The target is Choice. Anything better than Choice is paid a premium; anything less gets discounted.
There was a big flap when the USDA changed the grading system last time. The Angus Assn was very much against that change which, basically, lowered the marbling requirement in the meat, so they started CAB. That was about the time beef consumption started dropping off. I don't know if the two things are related or not, but I do know that, in general, consumers prefer marbled beef.
The packers were the driving force behind that change in the grading system. With the influx of Continental cattle, they weren't getting enough marbled beef to meet their contracts. The USDA lowered the standards and made the packers happy.
There's no reason an individual or group can't start a branded beef program based on tenderness, but I can't imagine that the packers are going to ask for a change in the current system. They've got too much money tied up in their packing plants and employee training.
Your article ignores the fact that higher quality beef is generally more tender than lower quality beef. By using bulls with adequate marbling, one would expect to produce more tender beef than using bulls without marbling. It's not true we don't have a "target." The target is Choice. Anything better than Choice is paid a premium; anything less gets discounted.
MikeC
Well-known member
"Moreover, industry observers say beef is a product that demands improvement.
"The consumer wants three things -- quality, consistency and convenience -- and for a long time the beef industry wasn't delivering on any of them," said Wayne Purcell, director of the Research Institute on Livestock Pricing at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Va.
For instance, 1 out of 5 times, Purcell said, the consumer who paid extra for a choice cut got beef too tough to chew. Consumers had no reliable way to distinguish quality beef, and the market had no way to reward ranchers who raised better cattle. Purcell blamed this failure on fragmentation in the beef business.
Cattle raising begins with hundreds of thousands of ranchers, most of whom only own a bull and a couple of dozen cows. The ranchers breed and raise calves that they wean and sell to yearling operators"
"The consumer wants three things -- quality, consistency and convenience -- and for a long time the beef industry wasn't delivering on any of them," said Wayne Purcell, director of the Research Institute on Livestock Pricing at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Va.
For instance, 1 out of 5 times, Purcell said, the consumer who paid extra for a choice cut got beef too tough to chew. Consumers had no reliable way to distinguish quality beef, and the market had no way to reward ranchers who raised better cattle. Purcell blamed this failure on fragmentation in the beef business.
Cattle raising begins with hundreds of thousands of ranchers, most of whom only own a bull and a couple of dozen cows. The ranchers breed and raise calves that they wean and sell to yearling operators"
MikeC
Well-known member
Frankie, As I respect your obviously biased opinion on marbling (your quality standard) being the number one factor in driving the beef sales in the US, it is my opinion that more efforts need to take place to increase consumption.
Tenderness is our only option at this time, in my humble opinion.
The study I cited at the head of this string gives the producers' a way to increase lbs. of beef at a lower cost (as it takes more feed to put on a lb. of fat than it does a lb. of lean)
Given the meat is just as tender as the more fatty animal the public will accept it as a valued product.
Tenderness is our only option at this time, in my humble opinion.
The study I cited at the head of this string gives the producers' a way to increase lbs. of beef at a lower cost (as it takes more feed to put on a lb. of fat than it does a lb. of lean)
Given the meat is just as tender as the more fatty animal the public will accept it as a valued product.
Jeanne - Simme Valley
Well-known member
All well and good, MikeC, but unless or until the USDA changes grading requirements, it is toooo costly to be producing double muscling cattle unless you have a private market for all your cattle. And just because they are double muscled does not mean they are tender. As far as I remember, the double muscled Pieds have other genes contributing to the tenderness fact. So, if you're chasing tenderness and use Pieds, those tenderness genes get diluted in an upgrading program.
Seems to me, recent research claims 1 out 10 choice are tough. And no, I'm not like you, I don't have facts & figures at my fingertips. Just bits & pieces the feeble brain remembers.
But, fact is - double muscle WILL NOT GRADE - they are "no-roll", unless I'm totally unaware of changes.
Frankie, can you comment on this fact?
Seems to me, recent research claims 1 out 10 choice are tough. And no, I'm not like you, I don't have facts & figures at my fingertips. Just bits & pieces the feeble brain remembers.
But, fact is - double muscle WILL NOT GRADE - they are "no-roll", unless I'm totally unaware of changes.
Frankie, can you comment on this fact?
These link don;t address tenderness but do mention double muscling and grading. They explain the grading systems and will hopefully help to explain the difference between yeild and quality grades:
http://meat.tamu.edu/beefgrading.html
http://ianrpubs.unl.edu/beef/rp357.htm
http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/ansci/beef/as1043w.htm
http://ianrpubs.unl.edu/Beef/g590.htm
dun
http://meat.tamu.edu/beefgrading.html
http://ianrpubs.unl.edu/beef/rp357.htm
http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/ansci/beef/as1043w.htm
http://ianrpubs.unl.edu/Beef/g590.htm
dun
I can't find the whole article; but according to the MARC synopsis the use of double muscling sires in crossbreeding results in....
"reduced quality grade, increased birth weight, and increased dystocia." ........in addition to the increased yield. I think we have enough problems without doing anything that results in us pulling and losing more calves and heifers. Now the MARC researchers did go on to say that....
"Use of inactive myostatin was profitable as long as the price for Select was at least 80% of the Choice price and the price for Standard at least 60%."
I also don't think we need to be doing anything that will result in more steers finishing as Selects and Standards.
http://www.asas.org/jas/abs/2001/a0182016.htm
Throwing out the Grading system just so we can use inferior cattle seems like we have our priorities in the wrong place. Now if you want to make changes so that the typical Choice steak is a more consistently enjoyable good experience; then I could agree with that, though the easiest way to do that would be to throw the "Small" marbling cattle back into the Select category and then pay a bigger premium for those true Choice carcasses.
"reduced quality grade, increased birth weight, and increased dystocia." ........in addition to the increased yield. I think we have enough problems without doing anything that results in us pulling and losing more calves and heifers. Now the MARC researchers did go on to say that....
"Use of inactive myostatin was profitable as long as the price for Select was at least 80% of the Choice price and the price for Standard at least 60%."
I also don't think we need to be doing anything that will result in more steers finishing as Selects and Standards.
http://www.asas.org/jas/abs/2001/a0182016.htm
Throwing out the Grading system just so we can use inferior cattle seems like we have our priorities in the wrong place. Now if you want to make changes so that the typical Choice steak is a more consistently enjoyable good experience; then I could agree with that, though the easiest way to do that would be to throw the "Small" marbling cattle back into the Select category and then pay a bigger premium for those true Choice carcasses.
