Double Muscling and Tenderness

Help Support CattleToday:

MikeC

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
7,636
Reaction score
3
Location
Alabama
Can You Have Your Beef and Eat It Too?


More than a century ago, European ranchers produced beefy, well-muscled cattle through selective breeding—without understanding how or why their genetic tinkering worked. In the 1990s, several Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists, after years of searching for the reason, helped pinpoint a major gene in cattle responsible for boosting muscle size and leanness.

Since then, ARS researchers have added to their understanding of this gene, which codes for the protein myostatin, with the ultimate goal of providing consumers with cuts of beef that are not only lean, but also tender. They work to provide ranchers with information and technology needed to produce such beef profitably and sustainably.

Myostatin limits muscle growth in cattle—and in humans. If the gene responsible for producing myostatin is altered so that it makes an inactive form of the protein, or the gene is intentionally suppressed, the result is more muscle and less fat. ARS researchers are working to find optimal ways to use this gene—alongside others—to make beef more healthful, without sacrificing taste and tenderness

Love Meat Tender

A benefit of inactivated myostatin—and one likely to be popular with consumers—is beef that's more tender. "Previous researchers tested just the rib eye cut. But we found that with the altered myostatin gene, all cuts of beef have improved tenderness," says Tommy L. Wheeler, a food technologist at ARS's Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center (MARC) in Clay Center, Nebraska. Now low-quality cuts of beef, which are usually tough, can be palatable and tender.

And it's not just consumers who benefit. "Even if their cattle have just one copy of the modified gene, ranchers can experience a 7-percent yield increase in salable carcass," says Wheeler.

Production of leaner beef is also more energetically efficient. "But most cattle produced in the United States still contain nearly twice the amount of carcass fat considered optimal," says Michael D. MacNeil, an animal geneticist at ARS's Fort Keogh Livestock and Range Research Laboratory in Miles City, Montana. This is because the current grading system pays top dollar for beef that contains more marbling—and might be more tender—despite consumer preference for lean beef. Thus, production of lean and tender beef could be a big advantage for ranchers.

Handle With Care


ARS research hopes to continue to shed light on the gene, particularly in the context of beef production. "We probably know the major effects of myostatin, but some of its minor ones are still unknown," says MacNeil. One desirable approach is to cross bulls having genes that make only inactive myostatin with cows having genes that make only the active form.

The gene that codes for the inactive form of myostatin is found more often in breeds like Piedmontese and Belgian Blue. Researchers can cross these lean, well-muscled breeds with ones traditionally used for beef production, such as Angus and Hereford. The resulting animal yields beef cuts lower in saturated fat, satisfying many health-conscious consumers. These crossbred cattle also grow faster than animals that are 100 percent Piedmontese or Belgian Blue, assuring breeders and ranchers maximum returns.
 
why would people want all their cattle to be as muscular as Belgian Blues?...sounds to me like if you make a hereford or charolais calf as muscular as a Belgian Blue...then there wouldn't be any natural births anymore...people better be willing to do C-sections on all of their cattle if they want to make them that muscular...just my thoughts

Have a good day
 
Heritage_Farmboy":33y374gk said:
why would people want all their cattle to be as muscular as Belgian Blues?...sounds to me like if you make a hereford or charolais calf as muscular as a Belgian Blue...then there wouldn't be any natural births anymore...people better be willing to do C-sections on all of their cattle if they want to make them that muscular...just my thoughts

Have a good day

If we keep breeding to these low BW bulls we will be in the same predicament with less lbs. to sell.

There is a Belgian Blue breeder near me who has bred them for several years and has never had a c-section done. He breeds his heifers to herefords, then to BB's and pulls very few.

I have eaten the beef and it is dang good.
 
We use to breed some of our Holsteins that we never wanted for replacements to Belgian Blue for freezer beef, everybody loved it. Good tender stuff!
 
MikeC":di4d9shd said:
Heritage_Farmboy":di4d9shd said:
why would people want all their cattle to be as muscular as Belgian Blues?...sounds to me like if you make a hereford or charolais calf as muscular as a Belgian Blue...then there wouldn't be any natural births anymore...people better be willing to do C-sections on all of their cattle if they want to make them that muscular...just my thoughts

Have a good day

If we keep breeding to these low BW bulls we will be in the same predicament with less lbs. to sell.

There is a Belgian Blue breeder near me who has bred them for several years and has never had a c-section done. He breeds his heifers to herefords, then to BB's and pulls very few.

I have eaten the beef and it is dang good.
Why aren't you breeding them?
 
I have heard that a purebred BB bred to a Limousin. makes some good cattle...not sure though...I dont much like BB's
 
Jeanne - Simme Valley":3l2kat20 said:
Just remember - double muscled cattle will NOT grade - they are a "no roll".

How do you figure that?
 
The Piedmontese have naturally occurring double copy myostatin gene but it does not maifest in the calf until it is about 6 weeks old, thus easy calving. My brother has been breeding these cattle for 7 years and has never had to do a C section. Nor have the 3 other breeders near us. These cattle work well with crossing, we have used simmis and herefords and angus crosses and the beef is wonderful. Once people have tried it they want more of it. I prefer the fullblood beef but you do need to be careful cooking it because if overcooked you will ruin it. Lean, tender, juicy, and flavorful.
 
MikeC":3kpkydw7 said:
Jeanne - Simme Valley":3kpkydw7 said:
Just remember - double muscled cattle will NOT grade - they are a "no roll".

How do you figure that?

Double muscleing is a quality grade disqualification. If you're selling beef dirct it wouldn;t have any bearing. Marketing through a feedlot/slaughterhouse if you retain ownership you'll take a hit.

dun
 
6. THE INFLUENCE OF DOUBLE MUSCLING ON DEGREE OF MARBLING.

Some cattle breeds are prone to double muscling, the result of a natural mutation of the myostatin gene. Normally this gene stops muscle development, but in some cattle the mutiation allows muscle development to continue, resulting in double muscled cattle.

One of the attractions of double-muscled cattle is carcass leanness. Backfat is generally found to be less in double-muscled cattle, but whether this affects the amount of marbling is open to dispute. Some studies have found reduced marbling in double- muscled cattle, while others have found no effect.

A study was conducted to determine growth performance and carcass characteristics of cattle with varying degrees of marbling genetics. Backfat depths and marbling of double-muscled and non double-muscled steers were compared. Another objective was to determine if double-muscled steers have altered plasma hormone profiles that might explain how the gene for extra muscle growth is being expressed.

Data from 10 Piedmontese and 8 Parthenais double-muscled steers were compared with data from 38 non double-muscled (control) steers. The control group had 19 Angus, 10 Hereford, 3 Holstein, 3 Hereford x Charolais and 3 Hereford x Simmental calves.

Calves began the trial at weaning. During the first two weeks, calves received a roughage diet, which was gradually replaced with a diet of 80% barley, 15% barley silage and 5% pelleted supplement, which they received until slaughter.

Calves were weighed at weaning and every 28 days until slaughter. Backfat depth was measured ultrasonically. The control group was assigned for slaughter when depths approached 0.30 in. The double-muscled steers were assigned for slaughter at 1100 lb. liveweight since they were slow to deposit backfat. Calves were slaughtered at the Lacombe Research Centre, where blue tag data was collected by certified AAFC beef graders.

Average live weight at slaughter was slightly higher in double-muscled steers, compared to control steers (1116 vs. 1076 lb). As expected, double-muscled steers had much less backfat than control steers (0.13 vs. 0.31 in.) at slaughter.

Despite this, carcass marbling was similar for both the double-muscled and control steers, supporting the view that while double muscling results in less external carcass fat, it does not adversely affect marbling. This is important since marbling is believed to have a role in determining the palatability of beef.

The study indicates that Piedmontese and Parthenais steers put on much less backfat without reducing the amount of muscle marbling. These breeds have adrenal and thyroid hormone concentrations that are different from those of normally muscled cattle, an indication that the mutated myostatin gene may be expressing itself through these hormonal systems to alter muscular development and fat deposition in these cattle.

http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/beef/bcc/bcc0903.html
 
dun":2s7vekbn said:
MikeC":2s7vekbn said:
Jeanne - Simme Valley":2s7vekbn said:
Just remember - double muscled cattle will NOT grade - they are a "no roll".

How do you figure that?

Double muscleing is a quality grade disqualification. If you're selling beef dirct it wouldn;t have any bearing. Marketing through a feedlot/slaughterhouse if you retain ownership you'll take a hit.

dun

Double muscling is not to my knowledge a disqualification on the kill floor by graders. If it cannot grade choice or select, it will be graded standard.

They are however sometimes called inferior in the feeder classes of cattle because some won't grade choice.
 
MikeC":1zkcdy19 said:
dun":1zkcdy19 said:
MikeC":1zkcdy19 said:
Jeanne - Simme Valley":1zkcdy19 said:
Just remember - double muscled cattle will NOT grade - they are a "no roll".

How do you figure that?

Double muscleing is a quality grade disqualification. If you're selling beef dirct it wouldn;t have any bearing. Marketing through a feedlot/slaughterhouse if you retain ownership you'll take a hit.

dun

Double muscling is not to my knowledge a disqualification on the kill floor by graders. If it cannot grade choice or select, it will be graded standard.

They are however sometimes called inferior in the feeder classes of cattle because some won't grade choice.

The only reason I can think of is because of the lack of marbeling which generally goes with double muscle. Disqualification may be poor choice of words. It
s not like a dark cutter that (in theory) is a disqulaification.

dun
 
Jeanne - Simme Valley":2dkdmjyg said:
Just remember - double muscled cattle will NOT grade - they are a "no roll".

Grading of beef in the US is voluntary. All cattle that are not graded (for many different reasons) are called "No rolls" because they are not graded with the "Rolling" stamp of the USDA.

A packer could sell "Prime" and it be a "No Roll". Just not, "USDA Prime".
 
Current Select to Choice discount - $18
Current Standard to Choice discount - $23

http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/lm_ct155.txt


Marbling makes the difference in quality grades.

Here's more information from Mike's article with a link. Marbling was the same with both groups, terrible.

Carcass marbling was scored on an inverse 10-point scale where a score of '1' is maximum marbling and a score of '10' is zero marbling. Average live weight at slaughter was slightly higher in double-muscled steers compared to control steers (506 vs. 488 kg). As we expected, double-muscled steers had much less backfat than control steers (5.1 vs. 12.1 mm) at slaughter.

Despite this, carcass marbling was similar for both the double-muscled and control steers (8.6 vs. 8.6 marbling score), supporting the view that while double muscling results in less external carcass fat, it does not adversely affect marbling. This is important since marbling is believed to have a role in determining the palatability of beef.

http://www.beefnews.com/displayarticle/?sel_record=1180
 
Frankie":130zuri9 said:
Current Select to Choice discount - $18
Current Standard to Choice discount - $23

http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/lm_ct155.txt


Marbling makes the difference in quality grades.

Here's more information from Mike's article with a link. Marbling was the same with both groups, terrible.

Carcass marbling was scored on an inverse 10-point scale where a score of '1' is maximum marbling and a score of '10' is zero marbling. Average live weight at slaughter was slightly higher in double-muscled steers compared to control steers (506 vs. 488 kg). As we expected, double-muscled steers had much less backfat than control steers (5.1 vs. 12.1 mm) at slaughter.

Despite this, carcass marbling was similar for both the double-muscled and control steers (8.6 vs. 8.6 marbling score), supporting the view that while double muscling results in less external carcass fat, it does not adversely affect marbling. This is important since marbling is believed to have a role in determining the palatability of beef.

http://www.beefnews.com/displayarticle/?sel_record=1180

The control group had 19 Angus, 10 Hereford, 3 Holstein, 3 Hereford x Charolais and 3 Hereford x Simmental calves in it.

If the marbling was terrible.....................
Don't speak very well for these breeds then does it?

Point is. Double muscled cattle have more lean beef per carcass and less waste fat, with the same amount of tenderness, or more.

"Marbling" does not necessarily equate to "Quality". There is only a 10% correlation according to MARC studies.

Our grading system needs to be revamped totally instead of changing a few words around like last time.
 
MikeC":xaa1zzka said:
Our grading system needs to be revamped totally instead of changing a few words around like last time.

This has been the bone of contention between the quality grade folks and the yeild grade folks. In the long run, if the yeild grade carcass hangs all that much heivier then a qulaity carcass the dollars are probably a wash. But why not hit both grids and get the maximum from your labor and costs?

dun
 
MikeC":2gei8w84 said:
The control group had 19 Angus, 10 Hereford, 3 Holstein, 3 Hereford x Charolais and 3 Hereford x Simmental calves in it.

If the marbling was terrible.....................
Don't speak very well for these breeds then does it?

Not the breed, these particular animals. If you're looking for Angus that won't marble, look at IMF EPDs. Thy're out there. You can probably do the same with Charolais. That's why more people are giving a second look at the benefits/problems with crossbreeding.

Point is. Double muscled cattle have more lean beef per carcass and less waste fat, with the same amount of tenderness, or more.

Yes, they give you more lean, tender beef per carcass. But you only want to highlight the benefits, mainly for the packers. There are also downsides for cattlemen like calving difficulty and fertility.

"Marbling" does not necessarily equate to "Quality". There is only a 10% correlation according to MARC studies.

Marbling equates to Quality GRADE. I posted the $$ difference between Choice, Select, Standard quality grades. I didn't even get to the no rolls. Some packers don't even bother to run the double muscled breeds down the line, they automatically no roll them.

Our grading system needs to be revamped totally instead of changing a few words around like last time.

I think that will only happen when the packers think they can make more money with a different grading system. That's why it happened last time they changed it. And beef consumption started dropping. Perhaps the two things are related?
 
Yes, they give you more lean, tender beef per carcass. But you only want to highlight the benefits, mainly for the packers.

Your first sentence speaks volumes. If it is true, and I do, we should be employing these practices not for the packers but for the consumers.

Chicken is killing us.(beef)
 
MikeC":16zda0an said:
Yes, they give you more lean, tender beef per carcass. But you only want to highlight the benefits, mainly for the packers.

Your first sentence speaks volumes. If it is true, and I do, we should be employing these practices not for the packers but for the consumers.

The packers are our customers. We should produce animals that fit their criteria. But a sensible rancher isn't going to use animals that can't have their own calf. We've had a Belgium Blue breeder on these boards who had learned to do C-Sections because almost every calf born on his place required a C-Section. I think he was in Belgium. Some of the double muscled breeds are so muscle bound, there's no way the bulls could work on the range. Most of us retain heifers and fertility is an issue with double muscling. Those are practical problems with the double muscled breeds. If you can overcome them, Laura's Lean Beef likes them and Montana Range uses them in their product. It's not like there's not a demand for the beef. They just don't fit into most of the commercial, everyday, producer's progam.

Chicken is killing us.(beef)

I think our industry, using checkoff dollars, has done a good job promoting the health benefits of beef versus chicken. But chicken is cheaper and that's a big issue with consumers. Our strongest point is that beef tastes better than chicken. And the taste is carried in the fat, the marbling.
 
Top